I cannot apologise for fighting against apartheid': Robert McBride defends Durban bombing

[Jopie Fourie]

Not justifying McBride or the actions of the ANC or MP, but this is unfortunately the nature of war - Hiroshima and Nagasaki anyone? Those responsible have never had to answer for this.

Can the ANC/NP situation be called a war though?

Was just about to say this while reading your first sentence. No, there never was a war in any sense of the word. If this was indeed a war, you would have had military deployment and retaliation, which never happened. This was simply an act of terrorism like we are seeing today with ISIS elsewhere in the world.

 

[Mar Vin]

You are constantly contradicting yourself there, so the NP manipulated the ANC into committing atrocities? What?

The atrocities done by the ANC were not done to the ANC by the ANC. Get it? Not the same thing.

Is it surprising that almost or all countries colonialized have ghettos only or mostly occupied by non whites? Coincidence?

 

[SAguy]

It was a war. A low intensity war but it was definitely a war.

Considering that the ANC at one point literally declared war on Apartheid...... yes. It was war and it's ending negotiations should have been treated as such.

Was just about to say this while reading your first sentence. No, there never was a war in any sense of the word.

Well here is the start of the problem then I would imagine, if it wasn't a war then the killing of innocent people is murder.
If it was war, then the rules of engagement and war conventions should apply surely?

 

[HunterNW]

Did the ANC do SA a favour by being instrumental in overthrowing the apartheid government, yes. Did they commit "war" crimes in doing so, I believe so yes, but who decides what is considered a war crime and what isn't in the SA context?

Did i read that ? WTF ? What fcking favour ?

 

[Jopie Fourie]

Well here is the start of the problem then I would imagine, if it wasn't a war then the killing of innocent people is murder.
If it was war, then the rules of engagement and war conventions should apply surely?

Hence the reason I am saying these acts were never an act of war. They were simply acts of terrorism and some of the ANC's biggest supporters, like the UK, were not happy with these attacks on civilians. So, it was pure terrorism and nothing else. If this was war, the civilian death toll would have been extreme.

 

[Stonemason]

Was just about to say this while reading your first sentence. No, there never was a war in any sense of the word. If this was indeed a war, you would have had military deployment and retaliation, which never happened. This was simply an act of terrorism like we are seeing today with ISIS elsewhere in the world.

There certainly were military deployment and retaliation. What do you call the attacks by the SADF in Lesotho and Botswana and well as the air-raid on Mozambique. The ANC was also responsible for the rocket attack on Voortrekkerhoogte en deployed with Swapo in Angola.

 

[SAguy]

Did i read that ? WTF ? What fcking favour ?

Ok, favour is used too strongly maybe.
Apartheid regime had to end, and the ANC played a key role in making that happen.

 

[Jopie Fourie]

There certainly were military deployment and retaliation. What do you call the attacks by the SADF in Lesotho and Botswana and well as the air-raid on Mozambique. The ANC was also responsible for the rocket attack on Voortrekkerhoogte en deployed with Swapo in Angola.

You are sure these military interventions and retaliations were as a direct result of the Church street, Durban, Roodepoort and Krugersdorp bombings?

 

[HunterNW]

Ok, favour is used too strongly maybe.
Apartheid regime had to end, and the ANC played a key role in making that happen.

Apartheid was finished way before that. ANC just fcked up SA. And it's people.

 

[rambo919]

Well here is the start of the problem then I would imagine, if it wasn't a war then the killing of innocent people is murder.
If it was war, then the rules of engagement and war conventions should apply surely?

That's assuming that all sides follow the same rules of engagement. Currently watching (not right now) the Ken Burns Vietnam documentary series, the North Vietnamese did a lot of terrorism.

 

[rietrot]

No the referendums were misrepresented, they were disingenuous tools meant to accelerate the process of regime change.

How old are you? Because the wording is pretty straightforward.

 

[SAguy]

Apartheid was finished way before that. ANC just fcked up SA. And it's people.

Apartheid only officially ended in the early 90's didn't it?
Could probably also be argued that the sanctions played more of a role in ending apartheid did than the ANC did though.

 

[rambo919]

How old are you? Because the wording is pretty straightforward.

Anecdotal evidence is often insufficient because it does not allow for the complete picture, simply being there at the time means nothing in itself.

The wording seems straightforward yes but it was disingenuous. Some people can more easily lie with the truth than others, at the time both sides did that.

 

[HunterNW]

Apartheid only officially ended in the early 90's didn't it?
Could probably also be argued that the sanctions played more of a role in ending apartheid did than the ANC did though.

I can agree. But it was utterly stupid to let the ANC govern SA. Anyone with half a brain could have foreseen what kak that will cause.

 

[Stonemason]

You are sure these military interventions and retaliations were as a direct result of the Church street, Durban, Roodepoort and Krugersdorp bombings?

Not sure what you are trying to say but retaliation - even for the Church Street bomb - remains retaliation and deployment of conventional forces against South Africa is still an act of war.

 

[rietrot]

Anecdotal evidence is often insufficient because it does not allow for the complete picture, simply being there at the time means nothing in itself.

The wording seems straightforward yes but it was disingenuous. Some people can more easily lie with the truth than others, at the time both sides did that.

Wtf kind of an answer is that?

 

[Mar Vin]

I'm not saying there was no provocation or corruption missions, I'm saying it's ridiculous to blame so many people choosing to be barbarians on other people manipulating them into being so. Were they children or grown ups?

Depending on who you believe the intelligence services were completely morally corrupt and had actually compromised all opposition leaders in some way.

Seems you're the one contradicting lol....

Look brother, not saying anyone has any right to be barbaric today. Fact is the legacy of what happened then has played a direct part in the barbaric behaviour and ridiculous crime rate.

again I say....do you understand why white folk aren't doing all this? Never had any reason to previously. All they've known in life or at least most of it is to live civilized lives...all the rest know is survival. Such things become a culture in many ways.

Imagine back then everyone had it the same way? Opportunities etc....Think the barbarians you speak of would still have been that?

 

[rambo919]

Wtf kind of an answer is that?

Put another way, deception is not limited to outright lying.

Some of the best lies are 90% or more truth.

 

[SAguy]

I can agree. But it was utterly stupid to let the ANC govern SA. Anyone with half a brain could have foreseen what kak that will cause.

Yeah, there's very little evidence of a "revolutionary" organisation like the ANC actually becoming an efficient government.

 

[Stonemason]

Anecdotal evidence is often insufficient because it does not allow for the complete picture, simply being there at the time means nothing in itself.

The wording seems straightforward yes but it was disingenuous. Some people can more easily lie with the truth than others, at the time both sides did that.

Don't worry, all of us who voted in that referendum knew exactly what we voted for and for years afterwards the Yes and No voters kept on insulting each other.