hypochondriac

It very much depends from whose perspective you are viewing that from doesnt it:

No just indiscriminate killing of innocent civillians and families (not to mention the drone strikes). So not as bad at all. oh... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike http://www.britisharmykillings.org.uk/page/113/The-Issuess

But the occupying forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have committed all manner of atrocities at least comparable to apartheid south Africa in a number of cases. Have you seen the wikileaks stuff? And how does creating a peaceful democratic South Africa absolve him of his previous crimes as head of a terrorist organisation that bombed innocents?

My point was that the bloke was dead so there seemed little point since he couldn't be brought to justice. He still can't be and an investigation should have happened earlier. Not sure what this has to do with this discussion...

OK then using that logic and my example below, the Iraqi tries protest and sabotage against the British army in Iraq and gets nowhere so presumably bombing the tube would be perfectly justified and he should be applauded? How is that any different?

I wouldn't use any western government as an example to follow. They aren't being idolised and held up as shining beacons of peace though are they.

Imagine for a second that an Iraqi is fed up with the British army ruining his country and oppressing his fellow countrymen so he goes and organises a load of bombings in protest in the UK which kills a load of innocent people. He then gets sent to prison for ages and in the meantime we come to understand that the Iraq campaign was totally wrong. After a couple of decades he is freed and welcomed as a hero and an example for out children to follow because he doesn't harbour any Ill will against the authorities that imprisoned him. Now how is that much different from what happened here?

He expressed regret apparently.

My point is that expressing regret for mass killings of innocent people doesn't absolve you of the crime or make you some sort of example for people to follow.

Oh that's alright then.

Are you comparing Nelson Mandela to the British army?

I've given my views on conspiracy theories before (see numerous pap threads). I suspect some find it easier to forgive past sins because they are so ashamed of South Africa's racist past. It doesn't make what he did before right though and my suspicion is that he would be one of the first to admit that.

Where was he compared to either of those two? I would suggest it is you who is failing to grasp what is being said but rather than calling you thick perhaps it is my fault for not explaining my argument in easier to understand terms.

I notice that rather than addressing any of the points that differ from your own you are just going around calling everyone thick. That's interesting behaviour.

Oh OK then. You heard it here first, Kim Jong un is officially blameless if he starts advocating peace. Excellent.

Running away from the argument is always the best tactic.

Explain to me how the principles differ. Or you know continue with abuse. Your choice I suppose.

Oh I see we are following what the media say now. Well if they say he is great then it must be true. The media are clearly beyond reproach.

Sarcasm doesn't translate well on here.

Erm no I don't think that. I don't think he should be held up as some shining example for everyone to follow though. He even said that himself btw. I already mentioned that the likes of Martin Luther King are the ones who are truly great. Mandela did some truly bad stuff.

Mandela Advocated violence and harmed people. Kim Jong un advocates violence and harms people. The principle is exactly the same.

I must be really thick I just don't follow your logic. If Kim Jong un suddenly Advocated peace in North Korea do we just ignore everything that went before?

Oh that's alright then. He became a man of peace so let's forget the stuff before then. What a weird argument!

It was predictive text. Anyone who uses correcting someone's spelling to try and win an argument has already lost. As Turkish says I presume it's OK to advocate violence against the British army or the people of the UK considering some of the atrocities we have committed in Iraq and Afghanistan?