• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Nelson Mandela: 'doing well' in hospital

vendur said:
Just like various forms of colonialism died every god damn where else in the westernized world in that century. Duh. If anything the ANC merely extended the length of apartheid, as it pushed much of the English speaking camp who generally wanted to end apartheid, into the boer camp of wanting to keep it, as they couldn't imagine a country being run by such sadistic and cruel people. Where is YOUR proof it did anything to further apartheid destruction?
Click to expand...

Sorry, you made the foolish assertion that apartheid was going to end anyway - you still haven't answered that satisfactorily so I ask a fourth time: how else was Apartheid going to end? You don't get to ask because I will simply do as you do and obviate your question.

See how debate works? I'm not impressed with your hostile responses, they just serve to show you have nothing but bluster.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Sorry, you made the foolish assertion that apartheid was going to end anyway - you still haven't answered that satisfactorily so I ask a fourth time: how else was Apartheid going to end? You don't get to ask because I will simply do as you do and obviate your question.

See how debate works? I'm not impressed with your hostile responses, they just serve to show you have nothing but bluster.
Click to expand...

Jesus christ, kid, take a basic logic class. ANC only EXTENDED AND EMPOWERED APARTHEID. And, since apartheid still ended, we can logically deduce it would have ended anyway without the ANC's terrorism.
 
vendur said:
--And, since apartheid still ended, we can logically deduce it would have ended anyway without the ANC's terrorism.
Click to expand...

LOL, Apartheid just up and vanished..

Fifth time of asking - you're now making a claim to knowing the basic logic of this - please show how apartheid would have ended anyway.

Apparently it's "basic logic."
 
gunner said:
How was that so?

Paul
Click to expand...

I already covered that. And unless you and infinitechaos want to start pyaing me to educate the wanton ignorance out of you, you'll have to do your own legwork on it. Teaching pigs to sing isn't my avocation.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
No, you didn't.
Click to expand...


vendur said:
If anything the ANC merely extended the length of apartheid, as it pushed much of the English speaking camp who generally wanted to end apartheid, into the boer camp of wanting to keep it, as they couldn't imagine a country being run by such sadistic and cruel people. Where is YOUR proof it did anything to further apartheid destruction?
Click to expand...


Bolded for the thinking impaired.
 
vendur said:
I already covered that. And unless you and infinitechaos want to start pyaing me to educate the wanton ignorance out of you, you'll have to do your own legwork on it. Teaching pigs to sing isn't my avocation.
Click to expand...

It is you who has been pedantic thus far; and bringing "basic logic" into the equation, so can you please be more specific in your hypothesis? How would apartheid have ended of it's own accord?

Do you really want to go into philosophical equations of logic? (please say yes!) Firstly, familiarize yourself with 'Modus tollens' and 'Modus ponens'

Paul
 
Last edited:
vendur said:
vendur said:
-- If anything the ANC merely extended the length of apartheid, as it pushed much of the English speaking camp who generally wanted to end apartheid, into the boer camp of wanting to keep it, as they couldn't imagine a country being run by such sadistic and cruel people --
Click to expand...

Bolded for the thinking impaired.
Click to expand...

"because I said so" is not a valid form of proof I'm afraid. You have merely backed up one unsubstantiated claim with an even bigger one which doesn't even back up what you initially claimed.

Sixth time of asking - how was apartheid going to end by itself? You've just tried to claim that apartheid was going to end by pushing the "English speaking camp who generally wanted to end apartheid, into the boer camp of wanting to keep it" which is as foolish a statement as I've ever read on these forums.

Care to try anything else?
 
vendur said:
Just like various forms of colonialism died every god damn where else in the westernized world in that century
Click to expand...

Pretty funny definition of colonialism but colonialism ended violently in most places.
 
Red_Dave said:
Pretty funny definition of colonialism but colonialism ended violently in most places.
Click to expand...

Just saying something doesn't make it true. There were well over 100 colonies(or later sovereign countries that were part of a larger colony) in the last 200 year or so, so go ahead and list at least 50 that ended violently. Violence needs to be directed at ending a colonial state, not some sort of bull**** civil war of rival despots. Can you do 25? Can you even do 10?
 
vendur said:
Just saying something doesn't make it true. There were well over 100 colonies(or later sovereign countries that were part of a larger colony) in the last 200 year or so, so go ahead and list at least 50 that ended violently. Violence needs to be directed at ending a colonial state, not some sort of bull**** civil war of rival despots. Can you do 25? Can you even do 10?
Click to expand...

I would be interested to hear where that 100 came from and how many of these are independent today (and not just random islands like South Georgia and the like).
Defining a colony and proving direct casualty is difficult as there are cases like Algeria where the colonial power left with its tail between its legs , cases like Syria or Egypt (or even
n Turkey for a brief time under the Sevres treaty) where the definition of a colony is difficult, cases like Kenya or Malaya where the colonial power left shortly after an insurgency, or cases like the Portuguese Empire where the whole system collapsed due to violence all over its territories. Furthermore you have cases like Iraq and Saudi Arabia where one imperial power was expelled only to be replaced by another.

Also i find it strange that 'bull**** civil wars' don't count given that we are talking about Apartheid when there was no imperial power to direct violence against. Well for starters there's

Ireland
Cyprus
Palestine
Bangladesh
Namibia
Angola
Mozambique
Finland
Kenya
South Sudan
Egypt
Madagascar
Morocco (at least the territory it recovered from Spain, and arguably its loss as a protectorate to France)
Eritrea
Tunisia (withdrawal due to violence in other parts of the French empire)
Vietnam
Indonesia
East Timor
Philippines.
China

but we also have to figure in colonies that where freed by the violent intervention of others (Korea, Somalia, Libya, Cuba etc. I guess an alternative way of looking at things would be to ask how many colonies where abandoned with no violent coercion whatever? But of course thats only if we look at things in terms of colony/empire, which again is a little odd.
 
vendur said:
Just saying something doesn't make it true. There were well over 100 colonies(or later sovereign countries that were part of a larger colony) in the last 200 year or so, so go ahead and list at least 50 that ended violently. Violence needs to be directed at ending a colonial state, not some sort of bull**** civil war of rival despots. Can you do 25? Can you even do 10?
Click to expand...

Too easy!

Kenya
Malaya
Cuba
Mozambique
Vietnam
Morocco
Algeria
Namibia
Egypt

oh, and the USA
 
My god the diseased liberal mind is incomprehensible. USA is a good example of a country whose colonial ties were severed by violent uprising, but that's 250 years ago, when absolute monarchies were common. It needs to be clearly demonstrated that the violent activity was what directly caused the severance, however.

half of these examples weren't even colonies, the half remaining 90% of them don't fall into the qualifications above.

Total failure on all accounts.
 
vendur said:
My god the diseased liberal mind is incomprehensible. USA is a good example of a country whose colonial ties were severed by violent uprising, but that's 250 years ago, when absolute monarchies were common. It needs to be clearly demonstrated that the violent activity was what directly caused the severance, however.

half of these examples weren't even colonies, the half remaining 90% of them don't fall into the qualifications above.

Total failure on all accounts.
Click to expand...

Just saying so doesnt make it true.
 
vendur said:
My god the diseased liberal mind is incomprehensible. USA is a good example of a country whose colonial ties were severed by violent uprising, but that's 250 years ago, when absolute monarchies were common. It needs to be clearly demonstrated that the violent activity was what directly caused the severance, however.

half of these examples weren't even colonies, the half remaining 90% of them don't fall into the qualifications above.

Total failure on all accounts.
Click to expand...

Great Britain was an absolute monarchy at the time of the American Revolution?

I mean, it's okay to not know some of the finer details, but Britain being a constitutionally monarchy (in fact a plutocracy) rather than an absolute monarchy is pretty basic stuff. Everyone should know that.
 
vendur said:
My god the diseased liberal mind is incomprehensible. USA is a good example of a country whose colonial ties were severed by violent uprising, but that's 250 years ago, when absolute monarchies were common. It needs to be clearly demonstrated that the violent activity was what directly caused the severance, however.

half of these examples weren't even colonies, the half remaining 90% of them don't fall into the qualifications above.

Total failure on all accounts.
Click to expand...

Apartheid didnt involve colonialism in the strictest sense either, I assume you object to the inclusion of Mandates as colonies? What makes a Bantustan* any more of a colony then a mandate?

*Which i assume is what you meant when you refer to the Apartheid regime as colonial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom