tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36284819.post8088135287213393625..comments2024-03-09T10:58:56.668+02:00Comments on constitutionally speaking: Robert McBride, reconciliation and “fatuous” remarksPierre de Voshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17861888910368295788noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36284819.post-7215233711804895602007-01-18T18:47:00.000+02:002007-01-18T18:47:00.000+02:00You make some interesting points about war and vio...You make some interesting points about war and violence. But very few people in SOuth Africa would argue that in a war the killing of civillians is never justified. I supported the ANC's armed struggle (in which some civillians were killed) but balked at any policy of deliberately targeting of civillians like McBride did. My main point remains, however, that those who supported the freedom struggle or acknowledge the fact that there was nomoral equivalence between the liberation movements and the apartheid government, would generally not be so hateful towards McBride. They do not seem hateful towards Magnus Malan, say, or FW de Klerk, who both through acts or ommissions caused the deaths of thousands of South Africans. Why not? Because McBride was on the ANC side; because he targeted whites, because he did not pretend to be sorry afterwards?Pierre de Voshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17861888910368295788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36284819.post-61425870722652476092007-01-17T23:01:00.000+02:002007-01-17T23:01:00.000+02:00In your first post you made the fatuous suggestion...In your first post you made the fatuous suggestion that McBride’s (white) critics simply viewed him as an “uppity coloured”, implying that their only possible motivation could be racism. Do you not accept, having read through that amnesty application, that McBride’s critics may have other reasonable grounds for their opinion, even if you disagree with them? <br /><br />The bombing of German civilian areas in the dying days of WWII was absolutely wrong, not least because it served no strategic purpose whatsoever. Hiroshima was quite clearly a crime against humanity, although the defenders of the bomb could credibly claim that it put an end to the war. The simple reason why the Allied commanders were not prosecuted on war crimes charges for these acts was that they won the war. <br /><br />In any event the more apposite example would be of an allied soldier who, motivated by a hatred of Nazism, went and murdered a few German civilians because he felt like it. <br /><br />Even if I were to accept that the targeting of white civilians was justified under apartheid, which I do not, you fail to address the fact that a number of McBride’s victims were not white. Or that his killings, and attempted killings, served no purpose other than to strengthen the hand of the securocrats and push the country closer to civil war. <br /><br />I am surprised that you (seem to) believe that having the right motive is sufficient justification for the murder of innocents.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com