|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 17, 2024 22:31:55 GMT
The Eastern Cape is a small part of South Africa and the Dutch were in Capetown by the middle 17th century where they encountered the Hottentots the non Bantu peoples, the Xhosa were Bantu speaking. They are not in any way the 'indigenous' people of SA as you implied. Once again France declared war on Germany, Vichy France was a separate political entity. Just as teh US civil war was between two separate political entities. Anyway we are progressing well into history and before WW2 accepted norms of International law were not so clearly defined as they were post WW2. SA were effectively excluded from the International Community due to human rights abuses but the armed struggle of insurgents within a country, no matter the justification of their cause were also subject to the same accusations of abuse of human rights, and there is little doubt that Mandela led a group that were at odds with the International view in terms of what they did no matter how much it was accepted that their cause was justified. The methods in the correct historical context were deprecated. Absurd. There is no difference in principle between what Mandela did and what the French resistance did. If the French resistance were freedom fighters, so was Mandela. It has already been explained to you that xhosa-speaking people are thought to have been in that region since the 7th Century. The Eastern Cape is not South Africa, it may be part of South Africa now explaining that it is possible is not the same as saying it is. The Xhosa immigration continued, just as Dutch and British immigration continued from the 17th century. The 4th Geneva convention is now the benchmark in international law as regards terrorism and that came into force in 1950, well after the end of WW2. "Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that "collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited." Article 4 of Additional Protocol II prohibits "acts of terrorism" against persons not or no longer taking part in hostilities. The main aim of these provisions is to emphasize that neither individuals nor the civilian population may be subjected to collective punishment, which, among other things, obviously terrorizes." www.icrc.org/en/document/what-does-ihl-say-about-terrorism#:~:text=IHL%20does%20not%20provide%20a%20definition%20of%20%27terrorism%27%2C,combatants%20and%20between%20civilian%20objects%20and%20military%20objectives. So Mandela was in conflict with International law by leading a group killing non-combatants and those from his own people with no due process basically indulging in acts of terrorism to achieve his political aims. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jan 17, 2024 22:54:58 GMT
This is thoroughly bizarre. Where has all this nonsense come from? From the claim that only black Africans could be South Africans.. try and keep up ffs.. There's no point. The transgender community is a high risk community. They have a high suicide rate. I'm never going to stop challenging your and everyone else's bigotry. The way things were left, I will be accused of goading someone to commit suicide the next time I make that stand. The mod team made a finding that I had made no such statement. I asked you to clarify that, as your closing comments in a thread you locked did not make clear that there was no culpability. You point blank refused to do that. We are supposed to be respectful of the mods, so I will put this in the politest way possible and say that I don't believe you are a good faith actor. There's no point engaging with someone like you. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 17, 2024 23:10:51 GMT
Er, I didn't lock the thread..
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jan 17, 2024 23:12:18 GMT
Er, I didn't lock the thread.. You point blank refused to clarify. Please demonstrate good faith by taking this opportunity to clarify the mod finding. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 17, 2024 23:22:47 GMT
Er, I didn't lock the thread.. You point blank refused to clarify. Please demonstrate good faith by taking this opportunity to clarify the mod finding. I did clarify - you asked if I could confirm that the mod team made a finding that your post was not an attempt to goad someone into committing suicide, and I said no. Sorry if you didnt understand it. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jan 17, 2024 23:27:59 GMT
You point blank refused to clarify. Please demonstrate good faith by taking this opportunity to clarify the mod finding. I did clarify - you asked if I could confirm that the mod team made a finding that your post was not an attempt to goad someone into committing suicide, and I said no. Sorry if you didnt understand it. Please clarify. Did the mods find that I attempted to goad someone into committing suicide? Yes means the mod team thinks I did try. No means the mod team thinks I didn't. Thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jan 17, 2024 23:57:57 GMT
I did clarify - you asked if I could confirm that the mod team made a finding that your post was not an attempt to goad someone into committing suicide, and I said no. Sorry if you didnt understand it. Please clarify. Did the mod find that I attempted to goad someone into committing suicide? Yes means the mod team thinks I did try. No means the mod team thinks I didn't. Thank you. 2/3rds of the mod team found that you didn't attempt to goad someone into committing suicide and recognised it was a joke. 1/3 considered it an inappropriate thing to joke about. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jan 18, 2024 0:02:09 GMT
Please clarify. Did the mod find that I attempted to goad someone into committing suicide? Yes means the mod team thinks I did try. No means the mod team thinks I didn't. Thank you. 2/3rds of the mod team found that you didn't attempt to goad someone into committing suicide and recognised it was a joke. 1/3 considered it an inappropriate thing to joke about. Even though he thought it an inappropriate thing to joke about, he still found that there was no attempt to goad someone into suicide, right? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jan 18, 2024 0:08:02 GMT
You point blank refused to clarify. Please demonstrate good faith by taking this opportunity to clarify the mod finding. I did clarify - you asked if I could confirm that the mod team made a finding that your post was not an attempt to goad someone into committing suicide, and I said no. Sorry if you didnt understand it. Pacifico, you think it's inappropriate to make jokes about suicide. That's reasonable. Taunts and insults aimed at a vulnerable group of people, a community with a higher than usual suicide rate, are thrown around this forum all the time. Will you please show that your concern is real by supporting a policy that doesn't allow insulting terms like cock in frock to be freely thrown around? |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jan 18, 2024 0:10:17 GMT
2/3rds of the mod team found that you didn't attempt to goad someone into committing suicide and recognised it was a joke. 1/3 considered it an inappropriate thing to joke about. Even though he thought it an inappropriate thing to joke about, he still found that there was no attempt to goad someone into suicide, right? No such conclusion was reached. It is clear that you were suggesting B4 killed his account not himself. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jan 18, 2024 0:14:38 GMT
Even though he thought it an inappropriate thing to joke about, he still found that there was no attempt to goad someone into suicide, right? No such conclusion was reached. It is clear that you were suggesting B4 killed his account not himself. Thanks for the clarification, Monte. Hopefully Pacifico will show that his concerns about suicide are real by supporting a policy that doesn't allow a vulnerable group of people to taunted and insulted, that strikes at one of the reasons these people become suicidal. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jan 18, 2024 0:27:06 GMT
No such conclusion was reached. It is clear that you were suggesting B4 killed his account not himself. Thanks for the clarification, Monte. Hopefully Pacifico will show that his concerns about suicide are real by supporting a policy that doesn't allow a vulnerable group of people to taunted and insulted, that strikes at one of the reasons these people become suicidal. Einy, have you considered that reading your left wing drivel could push people over the edge? You don't care do you, you just don't care... |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jan 18, 2024 0:31:49 GMT
Thanks for the clarification, Monte. Hopefully Pacifico will show that his concerns about suicide are real by supporting a policy that doesn't allow a vulnerable group of people to taunted and insulted, that strikes at one of the reasons these people become suicidal. Einy, have you considered that reading your left wing drivel could push people over the edge? You don't care do you, you just don't care... If Pacifico and others around here who claim to be concerned about suicide rates are genuinely concerned, why do they continue to engage in the sort of taunts and insults that increase suicide numbers? |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jan 18, 2024 0:44:50 GMT
Einy, have you considered that reading your left wing drivel could push people over the edge? You don't care do you, you just don't care... If Pacifico and others around here who claim to be concerned about suicide rates are genuinely concerned, why do they continue to engage in the sort of taunts and insults that increase suicide numbers? Einy if you don't stop it I'm going to jump off my desk, I'm not bluffing... |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jan 18, 2024 0:50:09 GMT
If Pacifico and others around here who claim to be concerned about suicide rates are genuinely concerned, why do they continue to engage in the sort of taunts and insults that increase suicide numbers? Einy if you don't stop it I'm going to jump off my desk, I'm not bluffing... That is funny, Red. But it doesn't look like Pacifico is prepared to put his money where his mouth is. He disapproves of jokes about suicide, but he happily condones, even engages in, the sort of activity that makes a vulnerable group suicidal. |
|
