Originally posted by dragonben
Hi I have a question in "general" so to say.
so here goes.
All those who believe UHURU will/can not happen. Correct me if I'm wrong.
* In the fight for democracy, the ANC military wing were trained at (Communist?) camps in our neighboring countries (Zimbabwe?) - Wonderd why SA did
nothing to stop Mugabe?
* Strikes in SA are highly organised - anyone not participating gets it (Winnie Mandela used the necklace( burning tire around the neck), Security
strikes - those not conforming were pushed under trains, Imperial transport strike - Drivers not laying down tools were shot or beaten to death and
the list goes on) - just read your newspapers.
* with the above mentioned intimidation tacktics, if the organisers were to tell them to murder and plunder (take their country back from the
Europeans) how many will resist - "I kill you or I get killed by my own people"
Looking at these "Questions/statements" I'd say UHURU is not only possible it's all most fact.
"Almost fact"... Is that like "almost not a lie"?
I read, and re-read your questions/statements. I'm sorry I just don't see any relation to Uhuru or a possible genocide.
1. The ANC military wing had to train somewhere. If they "trained" in South Africa they would have been thrown in jail, or worse. The
"(communist?)" tells me that you're not exactly sure about the facts. And then you have to keep in mind that the "ANC military wing training" was
done 15 to 30 years (and more) ago. Even Nelson Mandela got his military in Algeria in 1962. Do you think these guys that received their "training"
all those years ago are still a threat? If you look at the statistics of the current crime problem, the criminals are all young men, (younger than 24
statistically speaking) - 15 % of all crimes are committed by children younger than 18. This means that most of the violent criminals were either
young infants or not even born yet, when the "ANC military wing trained outside South Africa"...
Mbeki's inability to do something about the Zimbabwe situation, is purely very bad political decision making. It has no connection to "communist
2. Strikes anywhere at any time have always been highly organized. That is what can make a strike effective or not. Winnie Mandela's crimes and
murders don’t have anything to do with strikes though. You'll note that the murders that occurred during your said strikes were blacks against
blacks. How does that constitute a possible "Uhuru" (Black against white)?
3. No matter what "intimidation tactics" were used or will be used, there will always be those that don't want to do "the wrong thing", thus the
resulting murders. Just goes to show you that the "wrong doers" are a handful. Not all blacks or whites or "yellows" should be considered the same
threat as a minority. I have personally been threatened by white extremists (The Daughters of Sion) because of my views on Uhuru and the methods used
by whites to "scare" whites into racism. The coin has two sides. There are extremists on both side of the colour scheme.
It's no use quoting all the crimes, because we all know how high the crime rate is. And if you take a careful look at the crime statistics you'll
notice that it's not "black against white" crimes, but lawless criminals against the rest of the country.
Perhaps you should take a look at countries like Brazil, Bosnia, Israel, Iran, etc., etc. and look at what's going on in those countries. Where young
children are armed and sent into war zones and killed by the thousands, and then look back at South Africa and be thankful that you don't have to arm
your children. Yet.
[edit on 14-5-2007 by Gemwolf]