|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 15, 2024 12:06:31 GMT
The video blows a great big hole in you repeatedly insinuated attempts to make the protesters appear as mostly bad people who caused themselves to be shot at by the police. An obvious point of view that you oddly describe as odd. You imagination is running riot as usual and you still running away from clarifying what is ''brave' about watching an 60 year old news report You are obviously too dense to recognise the obvious, even after it has been pointed out to you. |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Jan 15, 2024 15:00:36 GMT
You imagination is running riot as usual and you still running away from clarifying what is ''brave' about watching an 60 year old news report You are obviously too dense to recognise the obvious, even after it has been pointed out to you. I'll add ''brave'' to the ever lengthening list of words used by you that you don't understand |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 15, 2024 16:21:00 GMT
I think in Durban the nine policemen were beaten to death with knobkerries, sticks, stones and feet. I am not finding excuses I am indicating that like all things there are causes and effects and the trail of those is long and arduous. EDIT just a thought if one is fighting injustice and seeking justice why kill those for whom you are seeking that justice. The Church street bomb killed a good dozen black citizens and necklacing was as far as I am aware was on black citizens in total The police started shooting and failed to stop when there was absolutely no, imagined or real, danger to them. Stop looking for excuses. You have no idea what perceived threat was felt by the policemen. If I knew a similar crowd, armed with sticks and stones only, had killed nine of my colleagues a month earlier then self defence requires an itchy trigger finger. It is why the miners at Marikana is also a case in point as the threat to the police were real, or at least perceived to be real to them, and so when the miners rounded a corner at a trot with sticks raised the inevitable happened. What you seem to be saying is that at Sharpeville the police should have just taken their chances. That does not excuse what happened, it explains what happened. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 15, 2024 22:41:00 GMT
The police started shooting and failed to stop when there was absolutely no, imagined or real, danger to them. Stop looking for excuses. You have no idea what perceived threat was felt by the policemen. If I knew a similar crowd, armed with sticks and stones only, had killed nine of my colleagues a month earlier then self defence requires an itchy trigger finger. It is why the miners at Marikana is also a case in point as the threat to the police were real, or at least perceived to be real to them, and so when the miners rounded a corner at a trot with sticks raised the inevitable happened. What you seem to be saying is that at Sharpeville the police should have just taken their chances. That does not excuse what happened, it explains what happened. They didn't stop shooting even after these 'killers' men women and children were running away. Stop using your imagination in order to attempt to defend your bias. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 15, 2024 22:41:48 GMT
You are obviously too dense to recognise the obvious, even after it has been pointed out to you. I'll add ''brave'' to the ever lengthening list of words used by you that you don't understand ha ha ha. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 16, 2024 10:37:02 GMT
You have no idea what perceived threat was felt by the policemen. If I knew a similar crowd, armed with sticks and stones only, had killed nine of my colleagues a month earlier then self defence requires an itchy trigger finger. It is why the miners at Marikana is also a case in point as the threat to the police were real, or at least perceived to be real to them, and so when the miners rounded a corner at a trot with sticks raised the inevitable happened. What you seem to be saying is that at Sharpeville the police should have just taken their chances. That does not excuse what happened, it explains what happened. They didn't stop shooting even after these 'killers' men women and children were running away. Stop using your imagination in order to attempt to defend your bias. Neither did the police stop shooting at Marikana when the perceived threat to themselves was over.. It is not imagination to realise that there is more to a massacre than meets the eye. Vicious dictatorial police bad, calm peaceful protestors good is not always as clear cut as is made out. Anyway does Sharpeville justify Mandela being a terrorist and heading a group indulging in the killing of innocent black people just to ensure the government cannot govern? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jan 16, 2024 12:27:07 GMT
They didn't stop shooting even after these 'killers' men women and children were running away. Stop using your imagination in order to attempt to defend your bias. Neither did the police stop shooting at Marikana when the perceived threat to themselves was over.. It is not imagination to realise that there is more to a massacre than meets the eye. Vicious dictatorial police bad, calm peaceful protestors good is not always as clear cut as is made out. Anyway does Sharpeville justify Mandela being a terrorist and heading a group indulging in the killing of innocent black people just to ensure the government cannot govern? Didn't Mandela condemn terrorism in later life? |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jan 16, 2024 13:21:13 GMT
Neither did the police stop shooting at Marikana when the perceived threat to themselves was over.. It is not imagination to realise that there is more to a massacre than meets the eye. Vicious dictatorial police bad, calm peaceful protestors good is not always as clear cut as is made out. Anyway does Sharpeville justify Mandela being a terrorist and heading a group indulging in the killing of innocent black people just to ensure the government cannot govern? Nope.... |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jan 16, 2024 13:34:51 GMT
Didn't Mandela condemn terrorism in later life? Nope.... Pretty sure I read somewhere he did. Never mind. I don't know much about Nelson Mandela. How were his activities different from, say, the French resistance? |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jan 16, 2024 14:03:46 GMT
Pretty sure I read somewhere he did. Never mind. I don't know much about Nelson Mandela. How were his activities different from, say, the French resistance?There is no camparison. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jan 16, 2024 14:06:29 GMT
Pretty sure I read somewhere he did. Never mind. I don't know much about Nelson Mandela. How were his activities different from, say, the French resistance?There is no camparison. Can you explain that? |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jan 16, 2024 14:10:20 GMT
Look it up yourself....French resostance were fighting the invasion by the nazis but mandella was just fighting for all to have a vote in SA. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jan 16, 2024 14:11:44 GMT
Look it up yourself....French resostance were fighting the invasion by the nazis but mandella was just fighting for all to have a vote in SA. I thought both were fighting race-based regimes. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jan 16, 2024 14:13:25 GMT
Look it up yourself....French resostance were fighting the invasion by the nazis but mandella was just fighting for all to have a vote in SA. I thought both were fighting race-based regimes. Mandella was fighting apartheid. The french were fighting an act of war... |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jan 16, 2024 14:13:57 GMT
I thought both were fighting race-based regimes. Mandella was fighting apartheid. The french were fighting a war... Mandela was fighting a war. Are you saying that the Dutch arrived in South Africa with the permission of the natives? Or that they ruled with the permission of the natives? Did the South Africans have less right than the French to fight off an invader because they were black and the invader was white? |
|
