Jump to content
Baseops Forums
Sign in to follow this  
HeloDude

US flags at half-mast for Nelson Mandela--thoughts?

Recommended Posts

Why not? Anybody who can do great things such as he did deserves our nations respect. It's a symbol of a nation mourning and if we can do it for Tsunami victims, we should definitely do it for a respected and honorable statesman.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it an issue? Because of dickbags like this?

Anybody who has issue with this might want to try and read the US Code: Position and manner of display

(m) The flag, when flown at half-staff, should be first hoisted to the peak for an instant and then lowered to the half-staff position..... By order of the President, the flag shall be flown at half-staff upon the death of principal figures of the United States Government and the Governor of a State, territory, or possession, as a mark of respect to their memory. In the event of the death of other officials or foreign dignitaries, the flag is to be displayed at half-staff according to Presidential instructions or orders, or in accordance with recognized customs or practices not inconsistent with law.

It shouldn't be terribly surprising that somebody from South Carolina is making a huge stink about it.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I convinced myself it was half mast for Pearl Harbor. Perception is reality.

Why is it a problem to honor Nelson Mandela? Was it OK for John Paul II?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not? Anybody who can do great things such as he did deserves our nations respect. It's a symbol of a nation mourning and if we can do it for Tsunami victims, we should definitely do it for a respected and honorable statesman.

Respected and honorable statesman?

I think you misspelled Marxist Terrorist.

http://americanfreepress.net/?p=11873

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necklacing

http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/12/nelson-mandela-media-fawns-though-marxist-terrorist/

  • Upvote 8
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Buddy Spike called it...if we start honoring guys with a terrorist past/ties to communism then I think that's a very very slippery slope.

He also didn't have the most kind things to say about the United States over recent years.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Buddy Spike called it...if we start honoring guys with a terrorist past/ties to communism then I think that's a very very slippery slope.

He also didn't have the most kind things to say about the United States over recent years.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter?

Are you now saying the revolutionaries who started our path to freedom from Britain should be considered terrorists and shouldn't be honored?

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ask Britain how they felt about George Washington and the American Terrorists after the Revolutionary War and you'd probably get a very similar tale. I'm not saying Nelson was a saint but Ghandi wasn't either. I do think he made some very positive impacts on extreme racism occurring in South Africa and choose to look at the positives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unbelievable sources. From the first one, "Under white rule, blacks in South Africa enjoyed better living conditions than any other African country where blacks kill each other in tribal warfare."

Wrong empirically and qualitatively. My toilet paper is more reliable than that site.

Edited by Masshole
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter?

Are you now saying the revolutionaries who started our path to freedom from Britain should be considered terrorists and shouldn't be honored?

I'll answer you question with another question: Is it ok for the Taliban and/or Al Qaeda to purposefully target civilians in order to push their agenda and achieve their goals? Yasser Arafat really cared about his people and pushing his agenda to benefit the Palestinians--did he deserve our American flag lowered at half-mast when he died?

I agree about the terrorist vs freedom fighter remark, and it is largely about point of view. But I never support direct targeting of civilians to push an agenda. Timothy McVeigh believed is his cause, but I'm not about to sign his praises either. Any revolutionaries who intentionally targeted civilians were also wrong.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unbelievable sources. From the first one, "Under white rule, blacks in South Africa enjoyed better living conditions than any other African country where blacks kill each other in tribal warfare."

Wrong empirically and qualitatively. My toilet paper is more reliable than that site.

Ah yes because a stable country, prosperous economy, is lesser preferred to the countries of Rwanada and Uganda. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad apartheid is gone, it was a horrible system. However, when the ANC came to power their Affirmative Action policies and the outright murder of tens of thousands of whites and confiscation of their property has in fact led to a worse South Africa. Johannesburg is now the rape and murder capital of the world.

Did things need to change? Absolutely, however the process that they took while it improved some areas (minority rights), it also severely hurt others.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unbelievable sources. From the first one, "Under white rule, blacks in South Africa enjoyed better living conditions than any other African country where blacks kill each other in tribal warfare."

Wrong empirically and qualitatively. My toilet paper is more reliable than that site.

Really? What was the unemployment rate before compared to after Mandela and the apartheid? The rape capital of the world ring any bells?

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter?

Are you now saying the revolutionaries who started our path to freedom from Britain should be considered terrorists and shouldn't be honored?

It depends on how they did it and what they did once in power.

Ask Britain how they felt about George Washington and the American Terrorists after the Revolutionary War and you'd probably get a very similar tale. I'm not saying Nelson was a saint but Ghandi wasn't either. I do think he made some very positive impacts on extreme racism occurring in South Africa and choose to look at the positives.

Rather naive viewpoint. That's like saying Saddam imposed order on Iraq while ignoring him gassing the Kurds or killing his own people.

And no one has any issues with Obama hustling off to South Africa, yet ignoring our ally when Margaret Thatcher died?

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather naive viewpoint. That's like saying Saddam imposed order on Iraq while ignoring him gassing the Kurds or killing his own people.

Maybe, but your view is very cynical. In this age of technology, you can look at anybody's life and if it doesn't conform to exactly how you want it to, you can rip them apart for it. By using your logic, Mother Teresa can be viewed as a terrorist, Michael Jordan isn't the greatest because he's an asshole, and Elvis isn't the King because of drug use. Mandela did great things and it's easy to second guess every detail in hindsight. I'm not saying these things shouldn't be scrutinized but good deeds need to be celebrated since they're far and few these days.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one who knows anything about South Africa argues that Apartheid was beneficial and that some sort of economic malaise can be attributed to its removal. In fact, it experienced huge economic gains until the financial crisis, taking its place as the 'S' in BRICS.

This is an argument along the same lines as we should nuke the Middle East, or adopt anarchy.

Edited by Masshole
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And no one has any issues with Obama hustling off to South Africa, yet ignoring our ally when Margaret Thatcher died?

This.

Maybe, but your view is very cynical. In this age of technology, you can look at anybody's life and if it doesn't conform to exactly how you want it to, you can rip them apart for it. By using your logic, Mother Teresa can be viewed as a terrorist, Michael Jordan isn't the greatest because he's an asshole, and Elvis isn't the King because of drug use. Mandela did great things and it's easy to second guess every detail in hindsight. I'm not saying these things shouldn't be scrutinized but good deeds need to be celebrated since they're far and few these days.

Hitler built churches hospitals and schools and Stalin greatly helped the western allies to defeat Hitler and the Nazis...so then I ask you: Where do we draw the line in who we praise and for what cause? Honoring Mandela is a conscious act, it's not occurring by accident.

ETA: I originally meant to say/type hospitals but for some reason typed churches..sorry, my brain was off in a different direction.

Edited by HeloDude
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe, but your view is very cynical. In this age of technology, you can look at anybody's life and if it doesn't conform to exactly how you want it to, you can rip them apart for it. By using your logic, Mother Teresa can be viewed as a terrorist, Michael Jordan isn't the greatest because he's an asshole, and Elvis isn't the King because of drug use. Mandela did great things and it's easy to second guess every detail in hindsight. I'm not saying these things shouldn't be scrutinized but good deeds need to be celebrated since they're far and few these days.

Second guessing putting a tire around someones neck and setting it on fire or executing political enemies is not being cynical. Please.

No one who knows anything about South Africa argues that Apartheid was beneficial and that some sort of economic malaise can be attributed to its removal. In fact, it experienced huge economic gains until the financial crisis, taking its place as the 'S' in BRICS.

This is an argument along the same lines as we should nuke the Middle East, or adopt anarchy.

Copy, you have no data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hitler built churches and schools and Stalin greatly helped the western allies to defeat Hitler and the Nazis...so then I ask you: Where do we draw the line in who we praise and for what cause? Honoring Mandela is a conscious act, it's not occurring by accident.

Anything that can improve lives and culture should be celebrated. Hitler, dare I say, did good things too. *Gasp*. I know it's crazy but the autobahn, modern rocketry, innovations to film, and huge medical advances were attributed to him and his reign. RADAR was developed to help combat invasions from Germany. Those things should be celebrated but we don't celebrate Hitler, as a person, because he was bat shit crazy and murdered millions of people.

Last thing I'll say and I'm done: by the logic shown, George Washington, and his army, should never been seen as honorable for using tactics the British viewed as terroristic and unconventional. I'm thankful for what President Washington did, just like there are many citizens of South Africa who are thankful for the fight Nelson Mandela fought. Nelson Mandela fought for his people and should be honored for his role in ending brutal apartheid's in South Africa. I don't think he's a saint, but I think he fought against a very brutal system and should be celebrated for helping bring that bull-shit system of government down.

  • Downvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything that can improve lives and culture should be celebrated. Hitler, dare I say, did good things too. *Gasp*. I know it's crazy but the autobahn, modern rocketry, innovations to film, and huge medical advances were attributed to him and his reign. RADAR was developed to help combat invasions from Germany. Those things should be celebrated but we don't celebrate Hitler, as a person, because he was bat shit crazy and murdered millions of people.

Last thing I'll say and I'm done: by the logic shown, George Washington, and his army, should never been seen as honorable for using tactics the British viewed as terroristic and unconventional. I'm thankful for what President Washington did, just like there are many citizens of South Africa who are thankful for the fight Nelson Mandela fought. Nelson Mandela fought for his people and should be honored for his role in ending brutal apartheid's in South Africa. I don't think he's a saint, but I think he fought against a very brutal system and should be celebrated for helping bring that bull-shit system of government down.

I am not aware of GW intentionally targeting civilians...also did a quick search and couldn't really find anything. Please let me know if you know otherwise, and that is a legitimate request.

We have to draw the line somewhere, and I believe that targeting innocent civilians is at a minimum, where the line should be drawn. Timothy McVeigh believed he was doing a good thing by blowing up the OKC federal building, regardless of the fact that he knew innocent civilians were inside.

There's a difference between acknowledging 'good things' that a person has done and honoring their entire life while conveniently leaving out all the bad things. By the way, Mandela was not a champion for 'Liberty', he was a champion for ending Apartheid (valid and noble cause) and he was also a champion for socialism. Are you going to suggest the US lower our flags at half-mast when Fidel Castro dies?? Where do you draw your line?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last thing I'll say and I'm done: by the logic shown, George Washington, and his army, should never been seen as honorable for using tactics the British viewed as terroristic guerrilla and unconventional.

FIFY, there's a difference between unconventional military tactics and terrorist tactics. While the two may not always be mutually exclusive they are in fact different, which is why your analogy between GW and Mandela is faulty.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not aware of GW intentionally targeting civilians...also did a quick search and couldn't really find anything. Please let me know if you know otherwise, and that is a legitimate request.

We have to draw the line somewhere, and I believe that targeting innocent civilians is at a minimum, where the line should be drawn. Timothy McVeigh believed he was doing a good thing by blowing up the OKC federal building, regardless of the fact that he knew innocent civilians were inside.

There's a difference between acknowledging 'good things' that a person has done and honoring their entire life while conveniently leaving out all the bad things. By the way, Mandela was not a champion for 'Liberty', he was a champion for ending Apartheid (valid and noble cause) and he was also a champion for socialism. Are you going to suggest the US lower our flags at half-mast when Fidel Castro dies?? Where do you draw your line?

I think it's only fair I answer your question. I don't know of anything saying GW did either. Mandela freely admitted he regretted targeting civilians when he was on trial and later after prison in his biography. He spent 27 years in prison for it (isn't that what prison is for? rehabilitation?) and instead of coming out more bitter and radicalized, he fought the battle using peaceful negotiations. How many people could you honestly say would be peaceful after 27 years of a brutal prison? His life is a great lesson in the things people are capable of with the right drive and energy that, despite opposing political views and huge mistakes, great things can be accomplished. The fact that he admits his skeletons gives me more respect for him than almost any other politician today because he fought the fight, lost, and still came out asking for forgiveness in the end.

If we can't celebrate a person (even though he went to prison for his crimes and fully admits them) performing great deeds then maybe we're just too cynical. To answer your question: I draw the line after evaluating the person and their history. In this case, I don't agree with his socialist tendencies and his targeting of civilians, but I can't ignore his prison time, humility, and the great accomplishments he did after such a complicated life and fully believe his life has better lessons learned than almost any other politician today.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's only fair I answer your question. I don't know of anything saying GW did either. Mandela freely admitted he regretted targeting civilians when he was on trial and later after prison in his biography. He spent 27 years in prison for it (isn't that what prison is for? rehabilitation?) and instead of coming out more bitter and radicalized, he fought the battle using peaceful negotiations. How many people could you honestly say would be peaceful after 27 years of a brutal prison? His life is a great lesson in the things people are capable of with the right drive and energy that, despite opposing political views and huge mistakes, great things can be accomplished. The fact that he admits his skeletons gives me more respect for him than almost any other politician today because he fought the fight, lost, and still came out asking for forgiveness in the end.

If we can't celebrate a person (even though he went to prison for his crimes and fully admits them) performing great deeds then maybe we're just too cynical. To answer your question: I draw the line after evaluating the person and their history. In this case, I don't agree with his socialist tendencies and his targeting of civilians, but I can't ignore his prison time, humility, and the great accomplishments he did after such a complicated life and fully believe his life has better lessons learned than almost any other politician today.

He is lucky he wasn't executed for his crimes, but that is a different discussion. So we honor someone just because they serve 27 years in prison for crimes? Are we going to honor Terry Nichols if and when he gets released after 27 years? I mean, hey, he may apologize, you never know. He and McVeigh were fighting to restore our Rights under The Constitution (so McVeigh said). See what happens when it comes down to opinion?

By the way, I did a fairly extensive google search for Mandela in regards to 'regretting' and 'apologizing'...one or two things come up for 'regretting' and nothing for apologizing. Semantics? Perhaps. But you'd think I'd be able to find more on the subject if it was more widespread. By all mean, share what you have as I'm truly about more education.

And for the record, I'm not saying we drag the guy through the dirt when he dies just because he's dead...but you hear very little about the atrocities he committed/was involved in, and I think that is the same to equating to sweeping those things under the rug because it doesn't further the desired narrative. So to be fair, I believe an honest debate needs to occur. You also didn't answer my question about Fidel Castro. A lot of people think he's done some positive/remarkable things over the years--suggest we lower the flags him as well?

By the way, isn't it funny that people like to call Obama a communist and the Tea Party/GOP terrorists...but when we actually have a guy that was both then we're afraid to call him out on it?

**Edited for spelling/grammar...and I'm sure I'm missed even more errors.

Edited by HeloDude
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can tell you that neither one of my South African friends shed a tear over his passing. In fact they both had rather harsh things to say while he was still sick. True, their status quo as whites changed greatly once the ANC and Mandela came into power, but they've implied that SA turned to shit pretty rapidly in the mid-90's. One transplanted here with his family as some of their relatives were murdered, and the other came over in his early 30's to escape the destruction of any semblance of civility in his home nation,

Edited by Grabby
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is lucky he wasn't executed for his crimes, but that is a different discussion. So we honor someone just because they serve 27 years in prison for crimes? Are we going to honor Terry Nichols if and when he gets released after 27 years? I mean, hey, he may apologize, you never know. He and McVeigh were fighting to restore our Rights under The Constitution (so McVeigh said). See what happens when it comes down to opinion?

By the way, I did a fairly extensive google search for Mandela in regards to 'regretting' and 'apologizing'...one or two things come up for 'regretting' and nothing for apologizing. Semantics? Perhaps. But you'd think I'd be able to find more on the subject if it was more widespread. By all mean, share what you have as I'm truly about more education.

And for the record, I'm not saying we drag the guy through the dirt when he dies just because he's dead...but you hear very little about the atrocities he committed/was involved in, and I think that is the same to equating to sweeping those things under the rug because it doesn't further the desired narrative. So to be fair, I believe an honest debate needs to occur. You also didn't answer my question about Fidel Castro. A lot of people think he's done some positive/remarkable things over the years--suggest we lower the flags him as well?

By the way, isn't it funny that people like to call Obama a communist and the Tea Party/GOP terrorists...but when we actually have a guy that was both then we're afraid to call him out on it?

**Edited for spelling/grammar...and I'm sure I'm missed even more errors.

I actually agree with you in part--a lot of people aren't quite educated about who Mandela was and wasn't. He's often thrown into the same vein as MLK/Gandhi when, in fact, his past is much murkier. Still, Chief does have a point: you can't underestimate how tempting it was for Mandela to just pull a Mugabe and play the revenge game on those who had been part of the Apartheid regime. He didn't, and a lot of people who did really awful things (both under the previous regime as well as ANC people) weren't punished as a result of pursuing national reconciliation instead.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  



×