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

[Mar Vin]

Actually...

If as a human being you will sit around and watch your husband, his brothers, broeder bond or whatever who were disguised as police to commit such acts against another race all because you were all indoctrinated to believe that the said race is inferior to your superior human qualities, treat these men like kings, nurture them, raise a few more who you will allow to do the same and not show the compassion that women are known for because the other persons skin colour differs....

Then yes....You qualify as fair game.

So stop talking about innocent women and children....unfortunately it was part of a means to an end.

What p0es of a wife am I married to if she allows me to bully and keep putting the next man and his family in a corner like an animal?

 

[Mar Vin]

Except that it was never they that actually did anything major to end Apartheid. In the end it was sanctions that killed the regime and the actions of the strugglers actually ended up delaying the handover.

Afrikaaners long believed that they do not need the outside world. Eg Orania....Sanctions was the least of their worries. Anarchy was on top of their fear list.

 

[Stonemason]

Except that it was never they that actually did anything major to end Apartheid. In the end it was sanctions that killed the regime and the actions of the strugglers actually ended up delaying the handover.

Nope, actually the electorate got fed-up with the status quo and after an experiment in the then Natal, called the Kwazulu/Natal indaba, the Broederbond started putting pressure on the NP government to put a new policy to the vote.

This resulted in the referendum in which 62 percent of the White electorate gave orders to the government to start negotiating a new dispensation.

 

[rambo919]

Nope, actually the electorate got fed-up with the status quo and after an experiment in the then Natal, called the Kwazulu/Natal indaba, the Broederbond started putting pressure on the NP government to put a new policy to the vote.

This resulted in the referendum in which 62 percent of the White electorate gave orders to the government to start negotiating a new dispensation.

The initial decicion to start dismantling Apartheid was taken in secret in 1985 because sanctions were starting to destroy the economy, the later referendums were never about ending Apartheid they were about whether to negotiate. Apartheid was ending one way or another because it was not economically feasible anymore, the referendums had nothing directly to do with it.

Afrikaaners long believed that they do not need the outside world. Eg Orania....Sanctions was the least of their worries. Anarchy was on top of their fear list.

Only officially in order to browbeat/bamboozle the public into voting a certain way

 

[rambo919]

Actually...

If as a human being you will sit around and watch your husband, his brothers, broeder bond or whatever who were disguised as police to commit such acts against another race all because you were all indoctrinated to believe that the said race is inferior to your superior human qualities, treat these men like kings, nurture them, raise a few more who you will allow to do the same and not show the compassion that women are known for because the other persons skin colour differs....

Then yes....You qualify as fair game.

So stop talking about innocent women and children....unfortunately it was part of a means to an end.

What p0es of a wife am I married to if she allows me to bully and keep putting the next man and his family in a corner like an animal?

If you are attempting to excuse struggler atrocities, again, they did worse to other blacks than they ever did to whites. Also they did worse to blacks than whites ever did, but of course the beaten wife always comes up for her abusive husband. "he beats me because he loves me"

 

[Stonemason]

the referendums had nothing directly to do with it.

The referenda had everything to do with it. This was helped on by the fall of the Berlin Wall. You are referring to the time just before PW Botha's disastrous Rubicon speech where he was supposed to unban the ANC. He obviously had other plans although he did start the process that F W de Klerk eventually finished.

 

[rambo919]

The referenda had everything to do with it. This was helped on by the fall of the Berlin Wall. You are referring to the time just before PW Botha's disastrous Rubicon speech where he was supposed to unban the ANC. He obviously had other plans although he did start the process that F W de Klerk eventually finished.

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

PW never had any intention of unbanning the ANC at that point because Mandela had (till his death) never disavowed terrorism and the cessation of terrorism was the main requirement for his release as well as unbanning the ANC, the media tried to force him to do the unbanning and that's why we have the current rubicon myth.

FW led a silent coop within the party and started his own process of accelerated disbanding which is where all the lies began.

 

[HunterNW]

What p0es of a wife am I married to if she allows me to bully and keep putting the next man and his family in a corner like an animal?

And now they run wild ......

 

[Stonemason]

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

You believe what you want. I was there and I reported on it. I attended Pik Botha's late afternoon off the record briefings. I spoke to insiders and cabinet ministers at the time. I was also privy to the Broederbond and the Ruiterwag's deliberations and plans.

The 1992 referendum's sole purpose was to get permission from the electorate to negotiate a settlement because at that stage, the Conservative Party appeared to be in a position to derail FW and his cabinet's plans. As luck would have it for the National Party and South Africa as a whole, the CP made the decision that it would no longer take part in formal politics and this gave FW an open goal.

 

[rambo919]

The 1992 referendum's sole purpose was to get permission from the electorate to negotiate a settlement

Nope it was on whether or not to continue then current negotiations, not whether or not to have negotiations at all. Two completely different things, it was misrepresented as being the latter.

There never was an actual direct referendum on whether or not Apartheid should be disbanded, people were just fooled into thinking so.

 

[Mar Vin]

If you are attempting to excuse struggler atrocities, again, they did worse to other blacks than they ever did to whites. Also they did worse to blacks than whites ever did, but of course the beaten wife always comes up for her abusive husband. "he beats me because he loves me"

The discussion here has never been black on black vs white on black....Black on black violence as you should know by now was/is all systematic.

Maaaahn....if you truly believe that what whites did to blacks is nothing or inferior to black on black atrocities then you would have made a good fit back then. Black on black crime cannot be seen as worse than apartheid. You've just made apartheid seem ok bra. K@k sad....

 

[Stonemason]

Nope it was on whether or not to continue then current negotiations, not whether or not to have negotiations at all. Two completely different things, it was misrepresented as being the latter.

Obviously there was the Dakar Summit and other non-officials 'discussions about discussions' as it was called then. But official talks only started after permission was given by the electorate.

But, I think we are high jacking this thread and this is my last word on it.

 

[Cray]

Nope it was on whether or not to continue then current negotiations, not whether or not to have negotiations at all. Two completely different things, it was misrepresented as being the latter.

The question was

“Do you support the continuation of the reform process that the state president started on 2 February 1990 and which is aimed at a new constitution through negotiation?”

How was this misrepresented?

 

[Excalibur]

 

[rambo919]

The question was

“Do you support the continuation of the reform process that the state president started on 2 February 1990 and which is aimed at a new constitution through negotiation?”

How was this misrepresented?

continuation, whether to pause or continue not start. It was lying with the truth.

 

[rambo919]

The discussion here has never been black on black vs white on black....Black on black violence as you should know by now was/is all systematic.

Nonsense, it was not forced on them by outsiders they chose it.

Maaaahn....if you truly believe that what whites did to blacks is nothing or inferior to black on black atrocities then you would have made a good fit back then. Black on black crime cannot be seen as worse than apartheid. You've just made apartheid seem ok bra. K@k sad....

Why not, because it destroys your shakey victim based narrative? You actually think opinions and economic exclusion hurt more than necklaces and rape?

 

[Cray]

continuation, whether to pause or continue not start. It was lying with the truth.

How do you think the referendum question should have been worded?

 

[rambo919]

How do you think the referendum question should have been worded?

More honestly would have been nice, less pretense that it was about any kind of negotiation instead of just the one being derailed. Everyone was dead-set on handing over power to the ANC specifically by any means.

EDIT: It was an utter surrender really even though they lied about power sharing. Most people actually thought they were voting for negotiations with guaranteed power-sharing.

 

[Cray]

More honestly would have been nice, less pretense that it was about any kind of negotiation instead of just the one being derailed. Everyone was dead-set on handing over power to the ANC specifically by any means. It was an utter surrender really even though they lied about power sharing.

Not sure what you were expecting really, surely giving all races the vote means that the most popular party would win the right to control the government? Or were you hoping for cosmetic changes with no real change to who ran the country?

 

[Stonemason]

It was an utter surrender really even though they lied about power sharing. Most people actually thought they were voting for negotiations with guaranteed power-sharing.

It started out honestly enough but FW de Klerk under-estimated the ANC and left everything to Roelf Meyer - a relative light-weight at the time. Ramaphosa ran circles around Meyer and that caused all the checks and balances to disappear.