The Lies Told About Apartheid

[Kradmelder]

PW Botha's reply to the Mandela circus witch hunt known as the TRC

PW SAYS HE DOES NOT NEED TO APOLOGISE FOR RIGHTS VIOLATIONS

Former state president PW Botha said on Friday he had not made himself guilty of any serious violations of human rights and was thus not prepared to apologise for or ask for amnesty for any such deed.

Botha questioned the TRC's legitimacy and asked why he had been subpoenaed to appear before it while Inkatha Freedom Party leader Mangosuthu Buthelezi, who had rejected the commission outright, had not.

Botha also posed several questions about seemingly biased treatment of the African National Congress.

"I do not hesitate to accept moral responsibility for all justifiable actions of the security forces," he added.

Botha said he questioned the legitimacy of the body as it was currently composed.

"To the best of my knowledge there is not a single member sitting on the Human Rights Violations Committee who did not, at least passively, give their support to the so-called `struggle' during the conflict."

The only exception might be TRC deputy chairman Dr Alex Boraine, who it was generally accepted had a high political profile and "was my personal political opponent".

Botha said he invited any member of the committee to deny that his statement was true.

Against this background, it followed that the most elementary principle of international law - that no-one should be the judge in his own trial - was being violated.

There could thus be no credibility to the process, or any value attached to "whatever findings you might make".

The ANC had a problem in reconciling its attacks on civilians with its image as a liberal freedom organisation, seemingly not guilty of any human rights abuses.

Deliberate misrepresentations by the ANC, in an attempt to morally justify the use of landmines, placed the organisation's bona fides on the serious violations of human rights under serious doubt.

Botha said the ANC's choice of Wimpy Bars as targets was clearly not made at ground level, but higher up.

This should have been further investigated by the TRC.

"The perception exists that your commission is unwilling to enthusiastically investigate the gross violations of human rights which were seemingly initiated, ordered and condoned by the ANC

So much for Mandela trying to do whitey a favour. Mandela was only trying to exonerate himself and blame whitey for the carnage. Mandela wanted a Nuremberg trial, with whitey humiliated. Even his own hand picked panel could only find that darkie did most of the killing and white troops were only trying to stop the carnage, or shooting back in self defence.

Here are just 2 massacres of black on black. Nothing to do with whitey.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boipatong_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisho_massacre

You will note that for Bisho, the Jew kasrils was repsonsible.

Here you will see Mandela and the Jew Kasrils singing kill whitey

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcOXqFQw2hc

So much for mandela promoting peace. What other president can get away with chanting to kill 10% of his population due to their colour?

Nelson Mandela never publicly renounced violence & he did not condemn this ceremony. Nelson Mandela never publicly condemned killing of white people. Mandela achieved next to nothing in his relatively short political career which saw South Africa rapidly decline to the status of the world's most violent and crime-ridden country, the collapse of the Rand and the economy in decline.

In his public statements and speeches Mandela was always critical of the democratic countries of the west, but has nothing but praise for the remaining communist and Muslim dictatorships of the world. He was no friend of whitey,
He was only a master of spin set up by his jew strategists. When the liberal media was present he would talk peace and reconciliation. After they were gone it was kill and take from whitey again.

[Wolfeye]

I get the sense that it might have been better to be a bit more wholesale about their response (ex: the whites maybe should have made them INTO a minority). See, at that point, people that get all highfalutin about democracy sub-consciously back it (because it's the majority ruling) & they also can't say "Well, because their ancestors did all that, they should self-impose slavery or genocide on themselves." Another thing is that there isn't as much to contend with later. It doesn't work that way with the instigator, especially since other people worry about who they're going to instigate with next, but it should have worked with South Africa (not sure it still would, of course).

I noticed that it was in the Czech Republic that they knew Nelson Mandela wasn't all he was cracked-up to be. Maybe because Slavics aren't so pissy about all things race-related? They're not off to be carpeting for blacks, so I guess they're "racist"? None of them seem to take great issue with the topic of muslims trying to start shit (which DO tend to be black or arabic in Europe), so if you mention it, no one gets all cranked-up as if you hate all races other than your own. There's a long history of fighting off islamic invasions, so I guess that's another factor.

I know it's a bit of a stupid question, but are there a lot of guys like that Leonardo DiCaprio character in Blood Diamond? I thought him a good fighter & if he wasn't too brutal with his training of other people, someone that would make good combative role model. That scene with the tooth was interesting, but it doesn't seem anyone knows what I'm talking about... .

[Adama]

Some people would argue that the ancient German tribes, known as the Goths, who were running from other tribes when they invaded Italy, were the ones who destroyed Rome and the Roman Empire, or at least the ones who finally snuffed it out.

The Greeks and the Romans considered the northern tribes, like the Germans, to be barbarians and unruly people.

How long was it until Germans were elevated in civilization to the level of the Romans and the Italians? It took hundreds if not over one thousand years for the Germans to advance to the level where they were not considered barbarians, even despite extended contact with the civilized Romans.

And the Romans made claims of the Brits that they were sacrificing humans.

Much of this is nothing more than sectarianism, like Shiite vs Shia or German vs Italian, except now the differences are more stark in appearance, at least for the more earthly minded individuals.

[Wolfeye]

Adama: In truth, I don't know that the Germans could really be called "elevated." They keep making the same mistakes over & over, for one thing. Is someone "intelligent" when they do that? As a general thing, no. They constantly think that they're superior, which is almost always a f**k-up. They've basically turned over their country to people that are, according to them, culturally identical to themselves & everyone else- at the same time as making sure that other countries have a dose of the same issue (due to easy travel between borders & the simple possibility that someone will physically go from one place to another that's relatively close by).

The Greeks & Romans weren't too advanced in a lot of ways, either. Fuckin' insanity & a pressing urge to take over whatever's around aren't "advanced" traits, in my opinion. I could nearly guarantee that they would have been seen as a backward, lunatic culture if they had lost. Too much belief that God is the one doing the fighting when there's a conflict.