Torture is recognised as a war crime. See http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

Here are some documented war crimes:

From The Guardian 29 July 2008

"Palestinians detained by Fatah and Hamas, the two main factions in the West Bank and Gaza, face routine abuse and torture, according to two leading human rights organisations in reports published this week."

"Al-Haq blamed Hamas's Executive Force and the group's armed wing, the Izz-al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, for most of the abuses in Gaza. It said the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas's Preventive Security Force and General Intelligence Service were the main culprits in the West Bank."

See:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/29/israelandthepalestinians.humanrights

Bottom line:

Hamas is responsible for war crimes in Gaza.

War crimes are also being committed in the West Bank. Mainly by Fatah.

BRING THE WAR CRIMINALS TO JUSTICE!

The International Criminal Court should issue arrest warrants for Fatah's Abbas and for the Hamas leadership.

Enter the anti-semites in 3.....2.....1...

Agree with Steven,

All war criminals should be brought to justice; the amnesty report condemns many countries:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/25_05_05_amnestyintro.pdf

Amnesty's accusations against the Israeli army include unlawful killings, torture, extensive and wanton destruction of property, obstruction of medical assistance and targeting of medical personnel.
Amnesty also says Israel has continued to use Palestinians as "human shields" during military operations, "forcing them to carry out tasks that endangered their lives", despite an injunction by Israel's high court banning the practice.
The report accuses Israel of offering impunity to soldiers and settlers who commit crimes against Palestinians.

Egypt and Syria are blamed for systematic torture and ill-treatment of political prisoners.

In Saudi Arabia, Amnesty highlights killings by security forces and armed groups, exacerbating the "already dire human rights situation in the country".

Jordan is said to have made scores of political arrests, amid reports of torture and ill-treatment in custody.

In Iraq, the report says US-led forces committed gross human rights violations, including unlawful killings, arbitrary detention and torture. Armed groups in Iraq are similarly blamed for targeting civilians, hostage-taking and killing hostages

I think human rights and war crimes should be considered as serious crimes.

Well F_H for once we're in agreement. The ICC should issue an arrest warrant where:

--There exists a reasonable prima facie case that war crimes have been committed; and

--The suspects' own country is unable or unwilling to try the alleged perpetrators

I look forward to seeing King Adullah of Saudi Arabia in The Hague alongside Omar al-Bashir and Dubya.

Dear Steven,

I was quite surprised when I googled,
"War crimes in Gaza and the West Bank,"
all I got was war crimes committed by Israel.
One website after another.
From the BBC to Amnesty International.

I finally ended up with:

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article 9324.shtml

And I quote:

"The extensive destruction of property not justified
by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly
is a grave breach of the 4th Geneva Convention.

The collective punishment of civilians is also
forbidden under the Geneva Conventions.

Over the years, many Palestinian civilians have tried to
obtain redress, peacefully and lawfully, through the
Israeli courts for incidents of this nature.
Sadly without success. Which in itself is a breach
of Geneva Conventions.

Offering people who suffer wrongs a route to redress without
violence is fundamental to preserving the rule of law.

All nations are required to take effective steps to
prosecute war crimes irrespective of where they occur."

I agree with you Steven, especially when there is
concrete evidence.

Careful what you wish for, Steven...

CJ Morgan,

I am always careful in what I wish for.

But who is going to arrest North Korea's Kim Jong Il let alone China's Hu Jintao?

Where will we find Afghanistan's former Taliban chief, Abdullah Omar?

Will we need to resort to nukes to get Mahmoud "Wipe Israel from the pages of time" Ahmadinejad?

All of these headed or still head regimes guilty of heinous crimes.


Foxy,

Any decent court requires evidence before issuing an arrest warrant

It's like I have always said the law courts are useless if the men with guns (the army or the presiding warlords are not interested in handing any of their leaders or members over to the world courts).

Who is going to be able to bring Mugabee before the world courts while he still controls the army?

Massacres and Ethnic cleansing are always going to happen for this reason. Men with guns have utlimate control in this world not the law courts.

Men like Mugabee and Hitler may eventually end up in front of world law courts, but only after they have served their purpose and the massacres have been carried out. Then some deal may be struck and the people or the army may hand them over.

Dear Steven,

You said ...

"Any decent court requires evidence before issuing
an arrest warrant."

Of course. But some courts in a few
countries, even with evidence,
choose not to do so, for political,
national, or religious reasons.
As we all know.

Take the example given on SBS last night,
Tuesday, July 29th 2008. 8.30pm.
on the "Cutting Edge."
Called "Murder By Numbers in Putinland."

It explored opponents of Russian Prime Minister
Vladimir Putin - who have been systematically
murdered in the years following his rise to
power.

stevenlzionist: << All of these headed or still head regimes guilty of heinous crimes >>

Oh I get it now - you want all the the nasty war criminals brought to justice, except for those who happen to be Israeli. For a moment there I thought you were just having one of your Islamophobic rants.

When talking about war crimes, isn't the nation's leader often held responsible? I feel the only reason George Bush has not been charged with war crimes committed under his leadership, is because he leads the most militarily powerful nation on earth and that affords him all the protection he needs.

ALL war criminals should be brought to justice.

Foxy,

I agree with you. Courts should issue arrest warrants if evidence of a crime is presented.

Furthermore, prosecutors should be assiduous in going after suspects impartially. There should be no selective prosecutions.

Selective prosecutions have been the tool of many tyrants including Mugabe and Hitler. The technique is to prosecute your enemies while ignoring the murder and mayhem of your own side.

In this context Luis Moreno-Ocampo, prosecutor at the ICC, is seeking an arrest warrant for Omar al-Bashir the genocidal president of Sudan. This is the first time an arrest warrant has been sought for a head of government who is in office.

Everything has to start somewhere and this is a good start.

But it is also a dangerous move. If Ocampo is thwarted, if he cannot get an arrest warrant for someone like Omar al-Bashir, then the court is fatally flawed.

I cannot make up my mind whether Ocampo is grandstanding or whether he is sincerely trying to make a case for international justice. Time will tell. For now I shall give him the benefit of the doubt.

CJ Morgan,

In my second post I agreed with F_H who specifically mentioned allegations of crimes by IDF personnel.

I would like to see perpetrators of crimes against humanity brought to justice whether they live in Jerusalem, the White House or Downing Street. But also if they live in Beijing, Tehran, Gaza, Cairo, Pyongyang, Rangoon or Damascus.

What I do not want to see is selective prosecutions.

JW,

Yes all war criminals should be brought to justice. But George Bush is not the only head of government one may reasonably suspect of war crimes or crimes against humanity.

Furthermore JW, most of the post-invasion murder and mayhem in Iraq may be attributed to sectarian violence among Iraqis. Don't the murderous leaders of the various Iraqi factions also merit their day in court?

Yes they do Steven.

ALL war criminals deserve prosecution.

stevenlmeyer, what's with the, 'Enter the anti-semites in 3.....2.....1...'

Don't you know that Palestinians are also Semites, as are Egyptians and many Middle Eastern people.

Also, you should never assume that anyone who dares crticise Israeli foreign policy is an anti-Semite. I was against the invasion of Iraq and made my views known, but I am not anti-American.

And, as Foxy points out, most documented war crimes from that area are Israeli crimes.

Another interesting point is the call for arresting heads of states responsible for war crimes. Can we add Mugabe to that list? Oh, and don't forget Mandela for the murders committed by him and his evil wife via the 'necklace'.

Dear Steven,

I'm not going to hold my breath regarding
President Omar-al-Bashir. I feel that he'll
never be brought to face trial at the ICC.

Still, prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo's
decision to seek a warrant for Bashir's
arrest at least exposes and reverses the world's
weakness in confronting Darfur's genocide.

I'm concerned about further blood-baths ...

Add the USA and Britain to the list. Perhaps even Australia for at the minimum aiding and abetting. Thankyou for your non-bias ;)

JW,

So we agree.

Austin Powerless

(1) It was StG, not me, who made the comment about "enter the antisemites."

(2) Regardless of its etymology the modern meaning of the term "antisemite" is one who hates Jews. However I agree that the term is confusing and I generally use the phrase "Jew hater."

(3) I think you have misinterpreted Foxy's post but I'll let her speak for herself.

(4) Criticism of Israeli actions is not Jew hatred. Total focus on Israel's alleged misdeeds while ignoring the misdeeds of her neighbours and the misdeeds of others may be an indication of Jew hatred.

(5) I'll gladly add Mugabe to the list.

(6) Mandela was in prison at the time of the necklacing. In terms of South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission anyone who confessed in full to his or her misdeeds was granted immunity. I do not know how many of those who perpetrated necklacing took up the offer.

A more serious allegation against Mandela is that he did not address the issue of AIDS while in power. That probably resulted in more deaths than the previous 50 years of Apartheid. I am note sure that could be called a crime against humanity under the ICC mandate.

Steel

I am not biased. I am happy to see serious allegations of crimes against humanity come before the the ICC no matter who the perpetrators.

I am worried that the ICC could be selective in those it chooses to pursue. But it's early days yet.

stevenlzionist: << Total focus on Israel's alleged misdeeds while ignoring the misdeeds of her neighbours and the misdeeds of others may be an indication of Jew hatred. >>

I've just re-read Steven's intitial post, and it seems to me that a reasonable reader could form a conclusion from it that would justify this paraphrase of his later statement:

"Total focus on alleged misdeeds of some Palestinian organisations while ignoring the misdeeds of their occupiers and the misdeeds of others may be an indication of hatred of Palestinians ."

Unless Steven was trying to be provocative by exemplifying exactly that which he purports to oppose, it seems that he is either blind to his own prejudice, or otherwise completely disingenuous with respect to his professed lack of bias in bringing war criminals to account.

<< I am not biased >>

Yeah right. Who else thinks that Steven isn't biased against Palestinians, and indeed against Muslims generally?

Wikipedia:

Kinana ibn al-Rabi' also Kinana bin al-Rabi, Kinana ibn al-Rabi'a, Kinana ibn al-Rabi ibn Abu al-Huqayq)

was a Jewish leader of seventh-century Arabia and an opponent of Muhammad; son of the poet al-Rabi ibn Abu al-Huqayq. Al-Rabi was tortured and killed for allegedly hiding the tribe's treasure which was never found.

After Kinana's death, Muhammad took his wife Safiyyah bint Huyayy, the daughter of Huyayy ibn Akhtab, a chief of the Banu al-Nadir who had was also killed in or following the Battle of Khaybar.[1]

(Additional non wiki note: Saffiya's father was also killed previously by Mohammad)

AUTHENTICITY? (from Wiki)

The story of al-Rabi narrated by Ibn Hisham has been taken from Ibn Ishaq. Ibn Ishaq, however, doesn't specify any source for this story. According to Nomani, tradionists have stated that Ibn Ishaq probably borrowed this story from the contemporary descendents of al-Rabi's tribe.
Nomani also casts doubt on the story on the basis of its inconsistency with Muhammad's other actions. He doubts Muhammad would have tortured al-Rabi, as he forgave the Jewess Rayhana bint Amr ibn Khunafa after the she tried to poison him.[6]

COMMENT: On the last point by Nomani about 'character consistency' it might be argued that it was entirely consistent based on Mohammads mass execution (Srebriniza style) of the Banu Qurayza tribe.

Readers can make up their own minds.... let the evidence speak.

CJ Morgan,

My statement about not being biased was in the context of my hope that the ICC will seek to indict those against whom there is material evidence of crimes against humanity WHOEVER THEY MAY BE. That specifically includes Israelis as my second post makes clear.

Would you wish the ICC system to engage in selective prosecutions CJ Morgan?

I have made no secret of my revulsion at contemporary Islam.

Does that mean I could not deal IMPARTIALLY with Muslims as individuals?

I believe I could. However, as a practical matter, were I a judge, I would recuse myself in any cases involving Muslims. Justice must be SEEN to be done.

I hope that the judges and officials of the ICC have the integrity to recognise when they should recuse themselves from dealing with certain cases.

Note that this is not about my alleged prejudices. It is about the operation of the ICC.

In the end it is not about whether Steven Meyer or CJ Morgan is "biased." It is about whether the ICC as a system will operate with IMPARTIALITY.

Given my revulsion for contemporary Islam and your apparent feelings about Zionism I guess it is a good thing that neither of us are judges or officials at the ICC.

I confess my misgivings about the ICC go all the way back to Nuremberg. The spectacle of Stalin's judges sitting in judgement on Nazi thugs gives new meaning to the old adage about the pot calling the kettle black.

My misgivings have not been assuaged by the antics of the UN Human Rights Council in its various manifestations. The UNHCR somehow found that Israel, and Israel alone, was blameworthy enough to merit being mentioned by name. This august body includes in its current membership those bastions of democracy and judicial probity:

---China

--Cuba

--Pakistan

--Russia

--Saudi Arabia(!)

All this being said I am encouraged by Ocampo's decision to seek an arrest warrant for Sudan's Omar al-Bashir. It's an excellent start.

Sorry, stevenlmeyer, I missed the gap seperating your message from that of StG. So I'll have to aim the same comment to him/her.

As for misinterpreting Foxy's post, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2017#41692,
what did you read from it?

Mandela was still responsible for much of the ANC terrorism while in prison. He still controlled the ANC through his wife and his henchmen.

I still feel that the term 'anti-Semite' is misleading.

Mandela at the time was in battle against a dictatorial, brutal regime who's ethnic cleansing, inhumanity , denial of basic rights, torture and murder was experienced on a daily basis by the non-white majority.

The ill-equipped, ill-manned and ill-prepared blacks were basically at war, with what tiny resources they had. Trying to "pretend" that Mandela was a criminal shows a breathtaking bias and no understanding of the degrading inhumanity forced upon the black majority.

Samsung,

Unlike Austin Powerless I doubt that Mandela or the rest of the ANC leadership exercised any control over the violence that pervaded South Africa's townships in the last decade of Apartheid. Frankly, I doubt they had the CAPACITY to exercise any control. It was a violent situation that spun into anarchy.

Mostly the perpetrators were criminal gangs.

To give you a small flavour of the times, a slogan of that period was "No education before liberation."

Yes, really.

How there can be real liberation without education is another matter.

To give effect to this slogan Black students who wanted to write their "matriculation" exams were often murdered.

Note, these were not "white oppressors" here. These were 18 year old Black kids who wanted to further their education.

This is not something I read in the newspapers Samsung. I write from personal experience. The authorities organised "safe" venues for those wishing to take the matriculation exams. Our own house was used as a "safe house" for Black students during "matric season." Some students stayed there so that they could not be set upon en route to the exam venues.

Those who supported the "no education before liberation" doctrine were often people whose own children attended exclusive – and safe – private schools.

On the whole the "no education before liberation" policy succeeded. The result is that many South Africans today are not merely unemployed, they are unemployable.

Samsung, we would all like our heroes to be "Persil pure" and our villains to be Hitlerian in their evilness. Reality, however, is usually painted in shades of grey. This is something that self-righteous ideologues, like CJ Morgan, are unable to grasp.

samsung, where did you get the 'ethnic cleansing' accusation from?

http://www.jrnyquist.com/may14/out_of_africa.htm would appear to give an opposite view. This, coupled with the people of starving Zimbabwe (the bread-basket of Africa while under White rule) wishing that the Whites would return and bring back the prosperity they used to enjoy. I had an uncle lived for many years in Jo'burg who had Black servants who got on well with him. This was typical of the majority of South Africans.
To 'pretend' that other than a minority of Blacks (under Communist encouragement) were at war is plainly fooling yourself.

stevenlmeyer, while Mandela was in jail and not present for many of the atrocities, he was the catalyst and had a lot of say in how the ANC was run (as long as he toed the line with his Communist masters). What's worse is that he is treated as a virtual saint instead of being strung up.
As you wrote, the victims were mostly innocent young Black men who only wanted to further their education (in the White-provided education system). It takes a 'breathtaking bias' to equate those educational opportunities with a 'dictatorial, brutal regime '.
Also, you forgot to tell me what you read from Foxy's post that I didn't.

Dream on.. "imagine".....

Steven pointed out the fundamental and fatal flaw in his own dream.

How can you bring criminals like Hu Jin Tao to justice? who is going to do it? Well of course..no one.

All "Justice" depends on an enforcement element.. i.e. force.. i.e. a greater force than the force of the criminal.

But China would not recognize any
law which negatively effects it... nor
would the USA or Russia oh wait.. NO country
except the little meaningless ants like
Australia where some mentally challenged
people seem to think that out there somewhere
is some kind of 'magical' force which will
suddenly appear and sort out all these meanies.

Well.. that will surely happen but the kind of
person Steven is seeking would need to be of 'Messianic'
dimensions.. and OH WAIT.. just such an event is promised
...but aaah..that would require some 'faith'....

31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory,
and all the angels with him, he will sit
on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All
the nations will be gathered before him,
and he will separate the people one from
another as a shepherd separates the sheep
from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on
his right and the goats on his left.

Sorry to say it Steven, but apart from this kind of thing
there is no power on earth which will take your dream from the
"Imagine" level to the reality one.

stevenlmeyer

"BRING THE WAR CRIMINALS TO JUSTICE"
You have right BUT WHAT ABOUT THE AMERICAN WAR CRIMINALS?
We can not leave free the big war criminals and bring to justice the little one.

If we want to be credible then we must bring all war criminals to justice. We can not accept immune to American war criminals.

It is unacceptable Bush to press to bring the war criminals to justice, when he does not recognize and respect the International Criminal Court.

If we want to bring the war criminals to justice we must accept, recognize, support and promote the international criminal justice system.
AMERICANS DO NOT RECOGNIZE OR SUPPORT IT! THEY PLAY DIRTY GAMES WITH IT!

Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Whenever the subject of aparthied/South Africa/Mandela comes up on any forum there's always at least one person who writes anti resistance/pro-white rhetoric. So be it. At this late stage in history, with all the facts known, there's still a tiny minority of pro-apartheid people the world over, who believe "white is right" and will demonise the resistance, whilst not criticising the brutal South African regime of the times. Neither side were "angels".......... the same applies to the anti-Nazi fighters in World war 11. "Angels" don't win battles......I'm glad the Americans were not "angels" in the war (they committed many war crimes), but they stopped the Nazis and the Japanese. The debate on apartheid was over a very long time ago. Some people live in denial and still defend the brutal regime, then moralise about Mandela from their white Ivory Towers. So be it.

Philips.. a very well rounded RACIST post there I might say.

So... you are anti 'white' people?

I guess you could have been anti 'any' people who do mean things, but no, you had to add your racist slur there 'white'...as if white people have some kind of mortgage on evil or cruelty ?

I guess when ur a racist though.. you don't see these things.. nope.. you just see skin color and choose the color you most dislike to declare them sub human and elevate yourself or the color you choose to be the 'supermen/master-race'

Sin..and evil..and cruelty and lust for power are not skin color related.

Fortunately for all of us, no matter what our skin color.. there is One who can redeem us from all that..and make us into new people.
His name is Jesus..the Messiah.

Cripes. So now we have a staunch defender of the vile South African apartheid regime (no 'war criminals' there of course - remember Steve Biko?), for whom Boazycrap comes out of self-imposed exile in order to somehow claim that it was the BLACK South Africans and their supporters who were racist, culminating in some classic Boazy godbothering.

At least Steven's silly thread has brought some real racists out from under their rocks, and is useful for that reason.

CJ Morgan,

In case that last rant was directed against me.

You may consider me a "staunch defender of the vile South African apartheid regime." Judging by some of the actions taken against me by that self same regime they seem not to have shared your point of view.

As long as I can remember I have considered Apartheid a crime against humanity. I am interested to know what I have written that leads you to believe otherwise.

The reality on the ground in South Africa was sometimes contradictory.

One reality was the tens of thousands of illegal immigrants who crossed the border into Apartheid South Africa from the rest of Africa every year. Many of them came from neighbouring Zimbabwe but some came from as far afield as Tanzania. Many people considered living in Apartheid South Africa preferable to living in their "free" countries.

Latterly the world has started focusing on some of Africa's really awful leaders such as Sudan's Omar al-Bashir and Zimbabwe's Mugabe.

But Mugabe did not go insane overnight. He was a mad tyrant from the start. Between 1982 and 1985 Mugabe's North Korean trained fifth brigade killed 20,000 civilians in Matabeleland. Mugabe called it the "Gukurahundi" (Google it)

I wonder why that did not provoke an outcry at the time.

Do you have any ideas on that CJ Morgan?

Omar al-Bashir has been president of Sudan since 1993.He has been responsible for the deaths of over a million people. He makes even Mugabe look like a pussycat.

In Burundi there were Hutu – Tutsi clashes resulting in tens of thousands of deaths in the 1960s and 1970s. Nobody took any notice of them.

Here's the thing CJ Morgan. The Apartheid regime in South African was vile. You are right. And contrary to what you allege I do not defend it.

But you know what is really sad?

By African standards they were not exceptionally bad.

That is the real tragedy of Africa. One which the world is FINALLY coming to grips with.

stevenlzionist: << In case that last rant was directed against me.
>>

Actually, my comment was directed at Austin Powerless and Boazycrap. I've never thought nor suggested that you are overtly racist or a supporter of the erstwhile apartheid regime in South Africa.

I think that you're Islamophobic and a supporter of Zionism, but they're not necessarily racist ideologies. And I agree that there are still a number of vile regimes in Africa that need to be brought to account.

In which case, your own "rant" is somewhat misdirected in this case :)

Oops CJ Morgan.

Apologies ;-)

I confess to being Islamophobic in the same sense that I confess to being Nazi-phobic. I do not equate the two but I see good reasons to be phobic about both.

I also confess to being a Zionist in the sense that I support Israel. This does not mean I support each and every action of the Israeli government.

I further confess to being Hindu-phobic.

In addition I confess to being Christianity-phobic and Judaism-phobic though, as you have noted elsewhere, I feel less strongly about these two.

Here endeth my confessions for the day.

Polycrap, as in all wars, struggles, uprisings and revolutions etc there is usually no "absolute" innocence from ANY side. I took the time to point out this type of thing in my post (it's a pity you can't read). In the South African struggle there were wrongdoings from ALL sides... black and white and coloureds. This does not mean, as you have falsely suggested, that if someone recognises that the regime in apartheid South Africa was orgainsed by "white" people, and that the "white" regime was brutal, that one therefore must be a "racist" against all "white" people.

Your logic is so stupid and errant that it makes you look foolish.

A tiny minority of people still, to this day, think apartheid was good. Just like in the USA, where there's "still" a tiny minority who think black slavery was a good thing.

Any country, whose governance is based on "racial" ideology, via the brutal suppression of "any" particular race or racial mix, deserves condemnation. But I guess we won't be getting that type of balanced viewpoint here form the likes of Austin Powerless and Polycrap. That's ok, their ridiculous posts make good comedy reading.

CJ Morgan and phillips,what's with your little accusations?

So I'm a racist even though I sympathised with the Black victims of Mandela's violence? I'm anti-resistance? I am anti-murdering thug. I am anti-Mandela yet have to suffer the fools who treat him as a saint.

While not being pro-apartheid, the system was better than the chaos of Zimbabwe that is right now spilling over into South Africa.
South African Blacks attacking Zimbabwean Blacks and vice-versa. Is that another form of racism?

stevenlmeyer's comments on apartheid 'The Apartheid regime in South African was vile' and 'By African standards they were not exceptionally bad.' says it all. Maybe the chattering chardonnay socialists should consider that. Especially as Mugabe did it all in the name of 'Socialism'.

So, put up or shut up. Where are my 'racist' posts? Frootloops.

Austin Powerless: << I had an uncle lived for many years in Jo'burg who had Black servants who got on well with him. This was typical of the majority of South Africans.
To 'pretend' that other than a minority of Blacks (under Communist encouragement) were at war is plainly fooling yourself. >>

Anybody who'd defend the South African apartheid era by pretending that only "a minority of Blacks (under Communist encouragement) were at war" is either a racist, a frootloop or is plainly fooling themselves.

More likely a combination of all three, I reckon.

CJ, your post just proves your ignorance of the subject.

More fool you.

BTW I asked you "Where are my 'racist' posts?". Was the question too hard?

Austin Powerless - on the off-chance that you're not being obtuse and/or disingenuous, your framing of the South African revolution in "Black" and "White" terms is classic racism. Your one-eyed condemnation of the brutality deployed by some "Black" thugs while totally ignoring that of the brutal and racist apartheid regime is also racist, particularly given your apologetics for "White" masters of "Black" "servants", who were contented and happy recipients of "White" largesse in the form of education.

More racist you.

Is that clear enough for you?

CJ, again you show your ignorance.

To deny that the South African 'revolution' was basically a 'Black' and 'White' situation (with a fair dose of Communism thrown in) is indicative of your type of armchair moralising. So, who were the two opposing sides in SA if not Black and White? Grey?

To label my opposing view as 'classic racism' is a joke, though use of that label is typical of your kind when they can't come up with solid facts to support their POV. And if the label fails to provoke,I have noticed that you resort to distorting some posters' on-line names. How mature. Maybe, to keep all things even, we should refer to CJ as 'Court Jester'. I could think of better names but I would be banned if I wrote them.

Was my statement from a previous post 'While not being pro-apartheid, the system was better than the chaos of Zimbabwe that is right now spilling over into South Africa.' racist? If you think so, please explain.

A couple of other things, 'White' masters do not have 'Black' servants. Slaves have masters, servants have employers. And it was pretty stupid to label education for Black students as 'largesse'. Education was provided to better their lot, not make it worse.

CJ.... you are way off the mark there. (I'll self censor the 150 or so other colorful adjectives which would be unbecoming a man of spiritual inclination :)

Would you mind showing me in my post where I denied any criminality in the White regime and where I even mentioned the black?

err.. all I did was attack Philips 'racist' use of language.

I didn't mention the 'white regime' or the 'black resistance'..

tut tut.. you must have had one too many cherries.

There is a verse about that :)

There you go Steven - you've attracted at least two intransigent racists in denial. I think I'll leave you to continue playing with yourselves on this thread.

Do have fun, chaps. For an avowed non-racist, you keep some interesting company, Steven.

better to play with ourselves on this thread than to play with yourself in the dunny. But you know what you like best, CJ.

You may as well leave as you haven't even remotely tried to back up your foolish accusations with facts. All bluster, no substance.

Polycarp...

>>Would you mind showing me in my post where I denied any criminality in the White regime and where I even mentioned the black?<<

You are beginning to morph into an exact replica of Oswald Mosley, Boaz.

Minus the incisive intellect, of course.

Mosley used much the same tactics, on the totally valid assumption that his audience knew precisely where he was coming from.

He even wrote in his autobiography, presumably with a straight face:

"I never attacked any man on account of race or religion, and I never shall." [Sir Oswald Mosley: My Life 1968]

In the same way, we know exactly what to make of your protestations that there is no racist intent in your posts.

Does this ring a bell with you?

"ONE NATION, ONE RACE, ONE CULTURE"

I know, I know, it was your evil twin Boaz who used this mantra.

But we know that it really is you, we're just puzzled why you continue to pretend. Are you ashamed of where Boaz took you, perhaps, and would prefer to forget some of the more ridiculous statements he made?

But you clearly haven't changed, so why not just confess?

It's supposed to be good for the soul, you know.

Dear Pericles,

Did you know that Polycarp was a Saint
(A.D. 697-155), bishop of Smyrna,
and a Christian martyr ?

Austin Powerless and polycarp/boaz: What opinion do you two people have regarding the philosophy of the National Alliance?

Hi Foxy.

>>Did you know that Polycarp was a Saint(A.D. 697-155), bishop of Smyrna, and a Christian martyr ?<<

Yes I did. I researched Polycarp when Boaz first started to use the name back in June.

It fascinates me that he chose it to signal his abandonment of his previous persona.

Boaz, apparently, was a rich landowner from the Old Testament.

From rich landowner to martyred bishop.

A shrink would have heaps of fun with that, I would imagine.

Dear Pericles,

I don't want to derail Steven's
thread, but I do just want to
briefly add that much as David
Boaz could frustrate us all,
I miss his "inimitable"
style (as Fractelle so aptly put it).

Polycarp just isn't the same David.
But, that's he's choice, and we have
to respect it - I guess.

philips, I'll have to see if I can find reliable material about its philosophy before I can form an opinion.

In the meantime, what's your opinion on murdering Communist-inspired 'freedom fighters' a la Mugabe, Mandella et al?

Well Mr Powerless, as you already know, all you have to do is go to the National Alliance website. You'll find your "reliable material" there, but you've already done this. So, how about actually answering my question.

My opinion on Mugabe: He's a murderous, out of control tyrant.

My opinion on Mandela: One of the greatest freedom fighters of the last century. A thoroughly decent human being, with all his imperfections past and present.

Now answer my question......without playing games.

philips, what games am I playing? Have you been consulting a crystal ball to see what websites I have looked at? Answer that without any of your 'games'.

The only difference between Mandella and Mugabe is that Mandella had better press coverage when he was seen to be doing good and zero coverage when doing bad. If you call arranging the murders of his fellow people 'imperfections', you really need some help.

As for the National Alliance, while I don't agree with some of their aims and the way that they put it across, their ultimate aim seems to be to preserve the continental USA for North Americans. Before you jump up screaming 'racist' and possibly give yourself a hernia, consider this:- The Chinese want to keep China for the ethnic Chinese peoples. The Arabs want the Middle East for themselves. Last time I was in Malaysia, I was told that I should stay out of their country. So they must all be racists too, by your 'logic'.

Anyway, why did you ask about the National Alliance? Was it relevant to the subject? And what is your view on the National Alliance? I've answered your question, now you answer mine.

philips, you asked me a question. I had the decency to answer it and ask you some questions.

You failed to reply. Too hard, or are you the one that's playing games?

First question: Because you seem to have "some" views that are quite similar.

Second question: Yes.

Third question: My view is that they are a separtist, white supremacist organisation.

Happy now baby?

oooh, philips. Got your little dander up, did I?

Don't ask if the answers will upset you.

The National Alliance is as seperatist as the Cinese ruling elite and al Qaeda. But I suppose that you see al Qaeda as 'freedom fighters' in your treasonous 'newspeak'.

Oh Austin baby, you "reeeeeeally" showed me up for what I truly am.....an evil AL QAEDA LOVING COMMUNIST. You're so intuitive and "on the ball" baby. And you're just soooooooo clever, for "getting my dander up", and boy, did you ever "upset" me. You're just soooooooooo smart. What intellect! Congratulations.

philips

While I may be 'on the ball', it's not a crystal one like yours, as you still haven't come up with any backing for your accusations of what websites I do or don't visit.

I just found it strange why you asked a question and took umbrage at the reply, once you finally got round to it. Also, you side-stepped my comments on Mandella.

No need to congratulate me, you were easy meat.

No, no......I'm very happy to congratulate you on your "victory".

When I was a member of my old University Debating club all those many years ago, we had a very true adage as our motto, "you can't win a debate against an idiot".

So many congratulations on your "victory" dear boy.

In case you don't quite understand what I'm saying, please get an educated acquaintance to explain things.

hello, philips, using the old adage that if I don't agree with your views, I'm uneducated? If you can't win a debate the other party is an idiot? Your inferiority complex is clouding your judgement.

What a joke.

You're the one that was writing in the forum late on a Saturday night when normal people were socialising and having a good time. BTW, the people that I socialised with last night, as you typed away in your little room, are by and large 'educated aquaintances'. More so by your standards.

philips

I forgot to mention, an educated person would not 'get an educated acquaintance to explain things', he/she would have an educated acquaintance explain things'.

You just showed your own lack of education.

Mr Powerless, please read my post at the top of this page.

Have a nice day.

philips, it looks as if you never learned anything at your debating club. Your post http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2017#42336 was supposedly written by an educated person? At least you made me laugh so your time wasn't wasted.

I read your post at the top of the page. I assume you mean http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2017#42427. You must be in a cryptic phase.

Have a nice day.

Mr Powerless (maybe you should change that name......it "does" say a lot you know), once again "congratulations on your victory" old boy, and please again read my post at the top of this page. Try not to be too upset. I know it hurts, but with some effort you can overcome this major trauma in your life. Don't give up, and have a nice day.

philips,

I give up on you. You never got over being found out as easy meat. I even read your 'post at the top of the page again', but you still don't make sense.

Signing off this thread now, as I have better things to do (as apparently you don't in the wee small hours of the morning).

Cheerie Bye.

"Signing off" for good are we now old boy"? That's nice.

Once again, congratulations on your victory, and how about reading my post at the top of page 10 one more time.

"Signing off" may help you..........moving on is a good life skill to learn. Have a nice day.