The Rise and Fall of Thabo Mbeki
ProfQ
Bob Dubery
ProfQ wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7627882.stm
I disagree with the early point about Mbeki's fall being
unprecedented, but other than that it's an interesting article.
From the Gevisser biography it seems that Mbeki was often respected
rather than admired in the ANC. And that he was a very ruthless
political adversary.
Another article I read (The Times? Must see if I can find it again)
contended that in the end it was Mbeki's paranoia an inclination to
play Machivellian games that sowed the seeds of his own demise. The
BBCs article reminds of the "plot" that was allegedly planned against
Mbeki. That effectively saw the end of Ramaphosa's and Sexwale's
ambitions to high office in the ANC, at least in the short term, and
put him into a head-to-head battle with the popular and populist Zuma.
Said article went on to say that Mbeki might have thought he could
beat Zuma in the leadership contest, but in fact he was the one person
who couldn't defeat Zuma, and Zuma was the adversary he had the least
chance against; and that if Sexwale and/or Ramaphosa had thrown their
hats into the ring Mbeki's chances would have improved.
ProfQ
Has the ANC in fact renounced violence? This was one condition FW de
Klerk put to the ANC before he unbanned the organisation. What with that
ANCYL idiot saying they are prepared to die for Zoo-ma, was their
renounciation of violence only a smoke-screen?
What about UHURU? Will there be black on white violence when Madiba dies?
Bob Dubery
> Has the ANC in fact renounced violence?
Where did THAT come from? Or has the use of terms like "ring" and
"adversary" get you thinking of a boxing match.
This was one condition FW de
> Klerk put to the ANC before he unbanned the organisation. What with that
> ANCYL idiot saying they are prepared to die for Zoo-ma, was their
> renounciation of violence only a smoke-screen?
Being prepared to die for something is not the same as preaching
violence. Ghandi said that there were things for which he was prepared
to die but nothing for which he was prepared to kill.
Christ was prepared to die for all of humanity and did. Should he
renounce violence?
> What about UHURU? Will there be black on white violence when Madiba dies?
Only at rugby matches.
Steve Hayes
When did de Klerk put that condition?
>What about UHURU? Will there be black on white violence when Madiba dies?
What about Uhuru?
We got uhuru, vryheid, etc in 1994.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
ProfQ
> On Sep 27, 11:42 pm, ProfQ <pse...@intelligence.info> wrote:
>
>> Has the ANC in fact renounced violence?
> Where did THAT come from? Or has the use of terms like "ring" and
> "adversary" get you thinking of a boxing match.
FW de Klerk. Not my words.
> This was one condition FW de
>> Klerk put to the ANC before he unbanned the organisation. What with that
>> ANCYL idiot saying they are prepared to die for Zoo-ma, was their
>> renounciation of violence only a smoke-screen?
> Being prepared to die for something is not the same as preaching
> violence. Ghandi said that there were things for which he was prepared
> to die but nothing for which he was prepared to kill.
>
> Christ was prepared to die for all of humanity and did. Should he
> renounce violence?
HE DID renounce violence.
>> What about UHURU? Will there be black on white violence when Madiba dies?
> Only at rugby matches.
>
That's reassuring.
ProfQ
Klerk's conditions for the unbanning of the ANC - that they renounced
violence.
Steve Hayes
>Steve Hayes wrote:
>> When did de Klerk put that condition?
>>
>Steve, that is what I understood at the time. It was one of FW de
>Klerk's conditions for the unbanning of the ANC - that they renounced
>violence.
No, it was PW Botha who made that condition, which the ANC would not accept
unless there was a quid pro quo of the Nats renouncing violence, so there was
a stalemate until FW de Klerk came along and unbanned the ANC just like that,
off his own bat.
Bob Dubery
> Bob Dubery wrote:
> > On Sep 27, 11:42 pm, ProfQ <pse...@intelligence.info> wrote:
>
> >> Has the ANC in fact renounced violence?
> > Where did THAT come from? Or has the use of terms like "ring" and
> > "adversary" get you thinking of a boxing match.
>
Really? But in any even those words were posted by you, and had
relevance to anything preceding in this thread.
>
> > This was one condition FW de
> >> Klerk put to the ANC before he unbanned the organisation. What with that
> >> ANCYL idiot saying they are prepared to die for Zoo-ma, was their
> >> renounciation of violence only a smoke-screen?
> > Being prepared to die for something is not the same as preaching
> > violence. Ghandi said that there were things for which he was prepared
> > to die but nothing for which he was prepared to kill.
>
> > Christ was prepared to die for all of humanity and did. Should he
> > renounce violence?
>
> HE DID renounce violence.
turning the other cheek. But he also overthrew the tables at the
temple. So maybe violence is defined as "didn't assault". But did he
explicitly renounce violence?
But the greater point, and it's so gauche of me to rub faces in it, is
that being prepared to die for something is not necessarily a violent
stance. Christ and Ghandi being two obvious examples.
Bob Dubery
I didn't think there were any pre-conditions laid down for any of the
parties he unbanned or people he released from jail.
That was not the most stupid tactic now I think about it. It meant
that he didn't have to consider demands for any reciprocal
concessions, thus could maintain his security forces, seek a mandate
only from the electorate etc etc.
ProfQ
Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 19:08:14 +0200, ProfQ <pse...@intelligence.info> wrote:
>
>> Steve Hayes wrote:
>>> When did de Klerk put that condition?
>>>
>> Steve, that is what I understood at the time. It was one of FW de
>> Klerk's conditions for the unbanning of the ANC - that they renounced
>> violence.
>
> No, it was PW Botha who made that condition, which the ANC would not accept
> unless there was a quid pro quo of the Nats renouncing violence, so there was
> a stalemate until FW de Klerk came along and unbanned the ANC just like that,
> off his own bat.
>
Oh! This is indeed interesting - so do you mean that the ANC NEVER
renounced violence? That they were unbanned by FW de Klerk "just like
that". If the ANC has not renounced violence as a means to get what they
want, then the ANC is still a TERRORIST ORGANISATION; what I have been
saying all along. They were, they are, they always will be ... and
that's what white South Africa has to watch out for. If we have a
Zimbabwe style land grab, you can bet now that the whites will retaliate
to protect their properties. If the ANC wants a war, this is the best
way to go about it. The whites will protect themselves and their
properties, we will certainly not simply move off of our farms just
because some black terrorist tells us to. We would rather bomb-wire our
homes and move peacefully so that when one electrical socket is touched,
the entire house blows sky high, killing everyone inside. They deserved it.
Beware also of this young ANCYL person who is making himself known as an
arrogant little shit. I do not know his name.
Steve Hayes
>
>
>Steve Hayes wrote:
>> On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 19:08:14 +0200, ProfQ <pse...@intelligence.info> wrote:
>>
>>> Steve Hayes wrote:
>>>> When did de Klerk put that condition?
>>>>
>>> Steve, that is what I understood at the time. It was one of FW de
>>> Klerk's conditions for the unbanning of the ANC - that they renounced
>>> violence.
>>
>> No, it was PW Botha who made that condition, which the ANC would not accept
>> unless there was a quid pro quo of the Nats renouncing violence, so there was
>> a stalemate until FW de Klerk came along and unbanned the ANC just like that,
>> off his own bat.
>>
>
>Oh! This is indeed interesting - so do you mean that the ANC NEVER
>renounced violence? That they were unbanned by FW de Klerk "just like
>that". If the ANC has not renounced violence as a means to get what they
>want, then the ANC is still a TERRORIST ORGANISATION; what I have been
>saying all along. They were, they are, they always will be ... and
No, neither did the National Party renounce violence.
Using your premisses, all governments in the world are TERRORIST
ORGANISATIONS.
Bob Dubery
> Steve Hayes wrote:
> > On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 19:08:14 +0200, ProfQ <pse...@intelligence.info> wrote:
>
> >> Steve Hayes wrote:
> >>> When did de Klerk put that condition?
>
> >> Steve, that is what I understood at the time. It was one of FW de
> >> Klerk's conditions for the unbanning of the ANC - that they renounced
> >> violence.
>
> > No, it was PW Botha who made that condition, which the ANC would not accept
> > unless there was a quid pro quo of the Nats renouncing violence, so there was
> > a stalemate until FW de Klerk came along and unbanned the ANC just like that,
> > off his own bat.
>
> Oh! This is indeed interesting - so do you mean that the ANC NEVER
> renounced violence?
And this was not, as stated, a condition required of them.
I can't think of a many governments that have a "no violence"
philsophy. How can they have? How could they defend a country?
What we should be paying attention to is WHEN violence is used. The
current US government has been pretty belligerent. Now for the
purposes of this argument if you think the attacks on Afghanistan and
Iraq are justified, the Republican Party would be in a real pickle if
it had renounced violence wouldn't it?
> That they were unbanned by FW de Klerk "just like
> that". If the ANC has not renounced violence as a means to get what they
> want, then the ANC is still a TERRORIST ORGANISATION; what I have been
> saying all along. They were, they are, they always will be ... and
> that's what white South Africa has to watch out for. If we have a
> Zimbabwe style land grab, you can bet now that the whites will retaliate
> to protect their properties. If the ANC wants a war, this is the best
> way to go about it. The whites will protect themselves and their
> properties, we will certainly not simply move off of our farms just
> because some black terrorist tells us to. We would rather bomb-wire our
> homes and move peacefully so that when one electrical socket is touched,
> the entire house blows sky high, killing everyone inside. They deserved it.
Well that's interesting, because it's clear that you think that
violence can sometimes be justified. We also have an answer to any
questions about wether you have renounced violence or not.
Bob Dubery
> Oh! This is indeed interesting - so do you mean that the ANC NEVER
> renounced violence? That they were unbanned by FW de Klerk "just like
> that".
They did suspend the armed struggle, and it's clear that when given
the chance to negotiate they embraced that as their preferred option.