Mandela's dead

[mrswdk]

Let's all pour forth emotion and pretend we aren't just glorifying a terrorist.

[Agent 86]

Let's all pour forth emotion and pretend we aren't just glorifying a terrorist.

You are way out of line on this one. Do some research or better still prove to me he was a terrorist. How the f*ck can you come up with this statement?

So mrswdk, which country do you come from and what do you do in China?

[patches70]

Let's all pour forth emotion and pretend we aren't just glorifying a terrorist.

You are way out of line on this one. Do some research or better still prove to me he was a terrorist. How the f*ck can you come up with this statement?

So mrswdk, which country do you come from and what do you do in China?

Heh, heh, Mandela was on the US terrorist watchlist up until 2008. He and the ANC (the ANC which is pretty terrible in it's own right) were branded as terrorist and terrorist organization by the US.

The ANC's track record since taking power in South Africa is also horribly brutal unto this very day. High amounts of graft, corruption, violence and crime. But hey, if that's what SA wants, then so be it. South Africa's new bosses are the same as the old bosses, the only thing that's different is who's cow is being stolen and slaughtered.

[Lootifer]

RIP public face of stopping apartheid.

Regardless of ANC's crap he was still the predominant figurehead involved doing something good for the world. And his life should therefore be celebrated as such.

[2dimes]

You should add a pole for best cartoon.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Let's all pour forth emotion and pretend we aren't just glorifying a terrorist.

You are way out of line on this one. Do some research or better still prove to me he was a terrorist. How the f*ck can you come up with this statement?

So mrswdk, which country do you come from and what do you do in China?

Heh, heh, Mandela was on the US terrorist watchlist up until 2008. He and the ANC (the ANC which is pretty terrible in it's own right) were branded as terrorist and terrorist organization by the US.

The ANC's track record since taking power in South Africa is also horribly brutal unto this very day. High amounts of graft, corruption, violence and crime. But hey, if that's what SA wants, then so be it. South Africa's new bosses are the same as the old bosses, the only thing that's different is who's cow is being stolen and slaughtered.

So how is this different than the States?

-TG

[BigBallinStalin]

Let's all pour forth emotion and pretend we aren't just glorifying a terrorist.

You are way out of line on this one. Do some research or better still prove to me he was a terrorist. How the f*ck can you come up with this statement?

So mrswdk, which country do you come from and what do you do in China?

Heh, heh, Mandela was on the US terrorist watchlist up until 2008. He and the ANC (the ANC which is pretty terrible in it's own right) were branded as terrorist and terrorist organization by the US.

The ANC's track record since taking power in South Africa is also horribly brutal unto this very day. High amounts of graft, corruption, violence and crime. But hey, if that's what SA wants, then so be it. South Africa's new bosses are the same as the old bosses, the only thing that's different is who's cow is being stolen and slaughtered.

So how is this different than the States?

-TG

Because terrorism, Uhmerica, and freedom.

Spoiler

[patches70]

RIP public face of stopping apartheid.

Regardless of ANC's crap he was still the predominant figurehead involved doing something good for the world. And his life should therefore be celebrated as such.

Oh, I don't have anything against Mandela, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. But by pretty much every definition of a terrorist, Mandela met the criteria. Called for, plotted and carried out violent overthrow of a government and such. In virtually any nation on the planet, anyone who does that will be branded a terrorist.

If the terrorist wins then he'll there after be known as a hero. Or maybe a Founding Father. Our own Founding Fathers of the US, branded as traitors back in the day, would have been branded terrorists if such a term existed back then.

But the fact remains as agent 86 asked for, Mandela was indeed a terrorist according to not just the previous South African government, but also by the US government. Agent 86 may still claim that doesn't make Mandela a terrorist. That's fine, there are plenty of people in the world who never thought of Bin Laden as a terrorist either. Doesn't change the fact that both have been labeled by governments as terrorists at one point or another. Both used violence for political goals.

Mandela died, I shrug my shoulders. Everybody dies at some point. At least Mandela accomplished what he set out to do I guess, the end of Apartheid and the beginning of something, much much worse. Though I suppose Mandela didn't mean for the latter to happen.
In the end I don't think he had much choice or influence in how badly the ANC made a mess of things. Maybe Mandela was just a very good front man. Either way, the man was no saint. Then again, who is a saint? There are lots of people who do actual good in the world without unleashing ever greater evil, such as Mandela had a hand in (not likely of his own choosing mind you, I'd like to think that Mandela didn't want South Africa to become baby rape capital of the world when his ANC took over, for instance), and those people die in quiet anonymity every single hour of every single day. Those people deserve more praise than Mandela would ever deserve, IMO.

[patches70]

Let's all pour forth emotion and pretend we aren't just glorifying a terrorist.

You are way out of line on this one. Do some research or better still prove to me he was a terrorist. How the f*ck can you come up with this statement?

So mrswdk, which country do you come from and what do you do in China?

Heh, heh, Mandela was on the US terrorist watchlist up until 2008. He and the ANC (the ANC which is pretty terrible in it's own right) were branded as terrorist and terrorist organization by the US.

The ANC's track record since taking power in South Africa is also horribly brutal unto this very day. High amounts of graft, corruption, violence and crime. But hey, if that's what SA wants, then so be it. South Africa's new bosses are the same as the old bosses, the only thing that's different is who's cow is being stolen and slaughtered.

So how is this different than the States?

-TG

How is what different?

Agent 86 said-
"You are way out of line on this one. Do some research or better still prove to me he was a terrorist. How the f*ck can you come up with this statement?"

and the answer is-

Easy, because he was labeled as a terrorist by the United States.

One person's terrorist is another person's hero, duh, but Mandela was indeed at one time a terrorist by pretty much every standard of the meaning. So agent 86 now has the answer to his question, it's up to him to accept the answer or not.


EDIT: Oh, and if your talking about the US' Founding Fathers, it's pretty much no different, except the Founding Fathers after winning their war didn't turn the new found United States into murder, rape and lawless capital of the world.

That came much later.....
The ANC came out the gates pretty much murdering, raping and pillaging not only their former political masters, but each other as well.

Let's all give a big thumbs up to Mandela and his efforts!




There, I've properly honored Mandela. Now for God's sake let's let the man rest in peace.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

EDIT: Oh, and if your talking about the US' Founding Fathers, it's pretty much no different, except the Founding Fathers after winning their war didn't turn the new found United States into murder, rape and lawless capital of the world.

That came much later.....
The ANC came out the gates pretty much murdering, raping and pillaging not only their former political masters, but each other as well.

One should note the time difference between the two instances. If the Revolutionary War were to take place in a theoretically modern world (lol like the world would be so awesomely modern without Uhmerica, f*ck YEAH) would post-revolution America and S. Africa be so different?

-TG

[BigBallinStalin]

EDIT: Oh, and if your talking about the US' Founding Fathers, it's pretty much no different, except the Founding Fathers after winning their war didn't turn the new found United States into murder, rape and lawless capital of the world.

That came much later.....
The ANC came out the gates pretty much murdering, raping and pillaging not only their former political masters, but each other as well.

One should note the time difference between the two instances. If the Revolutionary War were to take place in a theoretically modern world (lol like the world would be so awesomely modern without Uhmerica, f*ck YEAH) would post-revolution America and S. Africa be so different?

-TG

Yeah. The two have different histories--especially in their institutions. The US enjoyed a long period of expansion versus little organized resistance, and its overall story has been one of increasing economic success. South Africa was a product of full colonization which consisted of controlling the local populace. The introduction of Europeans into the US more or less eliminated about 90% of the local populace through disease, so they simply expanded outward, instead of having to control the local populace--as was done in South Africa. South Africa and its neighboring tribes also offered a stiffer resistance and seemed to have been more resilient to European diseases (I could be wrong on that). The different results in from this story are due to the different demographics and different nature of colonization (expansion v. control).

One very interesting point about South Africa is how the white-only labor unions supported the ANC's pushes for higher minimum wages (which they've set to W. European standards, thus contributing to massive unemployment). The most racist of organizations was supporting a commonly praised public policy that's intended to help the poor, but in reality raising the price of unskilled labor makes the price of skilled labor relatively cheaper.

[patches70]

EDIT: Oh, and if your talking about the US' Founding Fathers, it's pretty much no different, except the Founding Fathers after winning their war didn't turn the new found United States into murder, rape and lawless capital of the world.

That came much later.....
The ANC came out the gates pretty much murdering, raping and pillaging not only their former political masters, but each other as well.

One should note the time difference between the two instances. If the Revolutionary War were to take place in a theoretically modern world (lol like the world would be so awesomely modern without Uhmerica, f*ck YEAH) would post-revolution America and S. Africa be so different?

-TG

I don't know, I don't think there is any reason to think that in said instance that the US would degenerate like South Africa did. Look at the Soviet Union, they fell apart, and it was chaotic, but nothing of the nature like South Africa. What happened in South Africa was not only a great shame, but the results sullied Mandela's efforts.

It's ok to praise one's intentions while ignoring actual results, but at least people should be honest about it. Mandela probably had good intentions but the results pretty much wipe those good intentions away IMO. For myself, it's impossible for me to not take into account the results of one's good intentions.

Not everyone is like that, plenty of people can see only the intent and completely ignore the results.
Just like when people cannot be objective they take offense to statements like the OP. The OP made the off cuff comment that bears truth however distasteful it may be and another took offense. Except the one offended didn't even realize that Mandela was indeed a terrorist.

It's ok if one is a terrorist so long as the terrorist is supporting one's own ideology I guess. I can understand that, like I've said, one man's terrorist is another's hero. Usually a terrorist is what the big army calls the little army. And if the terrorist wins the war, lo and behold they are no longer a terrorist, they are a national hero. Go figure.

Like I said, I don't have anything against Mandela. The ANC is complete crap IMO, but I sure as hell aren't going to deify Mandela or treat him like a saint. Too much evil happened under his watch by the very group he founded and led. It can be argued that it wasn't all his fault, or that he even tried to stop the terrible things that happened, but we get back again to the intentions vs results. He may have tried but he failed miserably.

For those who ignore what happened it's easy to look at Mandela with pride.
For those who remember what happened after he and the ANC triumphed, one cannot help but shake their head in great sadness.

But at least he tried I guess. It is admirable for one to stand up for what one believes in I guess. But then again I suppose it matters what one believes in, eh?

It's easy to take vengeance on one's enemies once vanquished. And often far less admirable and taints all that one stands for when such things happen.
It's a far better road to give mercy and compassion in accordance to one's beliefs. And a far more difficult and praise worthy road to travel.

Former leads to great abuses in the future. Like the ending of WWI and the horrible way Germany was treated sowed the seeds for an even worse war in the future. At least the world learned their lesson I think after WWII, that you don't treat your enemies like dogs in the street. When we do that we end up treating everyone like dogs. Like the ANC treats the people of South Africa. Though they are getting a little bit better of late, but it's going to take a lot to wash away all the blood on their hands. And they ain't even close to getting there yet.

Live and learn I suppose, such things happen often enough to not be very surprised when it happens. Who knows how it would be for the US when we eventually go through something like what South Africa went through. Maybe we'll devolve and start raping, murdering and pillaging or maybe not. I guess we won't know till it happens, but let's pray we have more capable figureheads than Mandela was when that time comes.

We shall see.

[patches70]

Yeah. The two have different histories--especially in their institutions. The US enjoyed a long period of expansion versus little organized resistance, and its overall story has been one of increasing economic success. South Africa was a product of full colonization which consisted of controlling the local populace. The introduction of Europeans into the US more or less eliminated about 90% of the local populace through disease, so they simply expanded outward, instead of having to control the local populace--as was done in South Africa. South Africa and its neighboring tribes also offered a stiffer resistance and seemed to have been more resilient to European diseases (I could be wrong on that). The different results in from this story are due to the different demographics and different nature of colonization (expansion v. control).

One very interesting point about South Africa is how the white-only labor unions supported the ANC's pushes for higher minimum wages (which they've set to W. European standards, thus contributing to massive unemployment). The most racist of organizations was supporting a commonly praised public policy that's intended to help the poor, but in reality raising the price of unskilled labor makes the price of skilled labor relatively cheaper.

I'm reminded of a joke, I think it was on The Daily Show. At the beginning of the 2nd Iraq war, Sadaam is having a mock interview. The reporter asks him- "How can you treat your people so brutally? Why do you have to be such a powerful dictator to rule this country?"
to which Sadaam replied-
"Have you met my people?"

As in how else can this particular populace be kept in check and law abiding.

<shrugs>

Maybe there is some truth in that joke.

[Phatscotty]

Mandela should be remembered as a person who turned to peace when he became leader, and he gave up power when his time was over when he easily could have made himself dictator or King for life

Yeah he did some bombings and stuff and was a Communist, but that doesn't mean he can't be remembered for the change he led.

[BigBallinStalin]

Yeah. The two have different histories--especially in their institutions. The US enjoyed a long period of expansion versus little organized resistance, and its overall story has been one of increasing economic success. South Africa was a product of full colonization which consisted of controlling the local populace. The introduction of Europeans into the US more or less eliminated about 90% of the local populace through disease, so they simply expanded outward, instead of having to control the local populace--as was done in South Africa. South Africa and its neighboring tribes also offered a stiffer resistance and seemed to have been more resilient to European diseases (I could be wrong on that). The different results in from this story are due to the different demographics and different nature of colonization (expansion v. control).

One very interesting point about South Africa is how the white-only labor unions supported the ANC's pushes for higher minimum wages (which they've set to W. European standards, thus contributing to massive unemployment). The most racist of organizations was supporting a commonly praised public policy that's intended to help the poor, but in reality raising the price of unskilled labor makes the price of skilled labor relatively cheaper.

I'm reminded of a joke, I think it was on The Daily Show. At the beginning of the 2nd Iraq war, Sadaam is having a mock interview. The reporter asks him- "How can you treat your people so brutally? Why do you have to be such a powerful dictator to rule this country?"
to which Sadaam replied-
"Have you met my people?"

As in how else can this particular populace be kept in check and law abiding.

<shrugs>

Maybe there is some truth in that joke.

Ha, I'm not sure about that because although order can be maintained through massive brute force, you can still have order with lesser degrees of brute force (e.g. Zimbabwe v. Denmark). However, it's true that SAF's crime rate skyrocketed when the ANC took control. After Nelson decided not to run again as president, (I forget the next president's name) the ANC mucked it all up. In my opinion, it was heading that way anyway. When you pass laws which create massive unemployment, then I'd expect higher crime rates--especially in unstable democracies.

Great book about South Africa--written by a former politician of the ANC:

After the Party: Corruption, the ANC and South Africa's Uncertain Future

Independent's summary of it

[Phatscotty]

That's where religion and culture and morality of the people are all important.

[Phatscotty]

Yeah. The two have different histories--especially in their institutions. The US enjoyed a long period of expansion versus little organized resistance, and its overall story has been one of increasing economic success. South Africa was a product of full colonization which consisted of controlling the local populace. The introduction of Europeans into the US more or less eliminated about 90% of the local populace through disease, so they simply expanded outward, instead of having to control the local populace--as was done in South Africa. South Africa and its neighboring tribes also offered a stiffer resistance and seemed to have been more resilient to European diseases (I could be wrong on that). The different results in from this story are due to the different demographics and different nature of colonization (expansion v. control).

One very interesting point about South Africa is how the white-only labor unions supported the ANC's pushes for higher minimum wages (which they've set to W. European standards, thus contributing to massive unemployment). The most racist of organizations was supporting a commonly praised public policy that's intended to help the poor, but in reality raising the price of unskilled labor makes the price of skilled labor relatively cheaper.

That's where religion and culture and morality of the people become so important.

I'm reminded of a joke, I think it was on The Daily Show. At the beginning of the 2nd Iraq war, Sadaam is having a mock interview. The reporter asks him- "How can you treat your people so brutally? Why do you have to be such a powerful dictator to rule this country?"
to which Sadaam replied-
"Have you met my people?"

As in how else can this particular populace be kept in check and law abiding.

<shrugs>

Maybe there is some truth in that joke.

Ha, I'm not sure about that because although order can be maintained through massive brute force, you can still have order with lesser degrees of brute force (e.g. Zimbabwe v. Denmark). However, it's true that SAF's crime rate skyrocketed when the ANC took control. After Nelson decided not to run again as president, (I forget the next president's name) the ANC mucked it all up. In my opinion, it was heading that way anyway. When you pass laws which create massive unemployment, then I'd expect higher crime rates--especially in unstable democracies.

Great book about South Africa--written by a former politician of the ANC:

After the Party: Corruption, the ANC and South Africa's Uncertain Future

Independent's summary of it

That's where a people's religion, culture, and morality become so important.

Anyways, this

[Fewnix]

well if he was listed on the US government terrorist watchlist that settles that. I mean, if you can't trust the US government, who can you trust?

Let's all pour forth emotion and pretend we aren't just glorifying a terrorist.

You are way out of line on this one. Do some research or better still prove to me he was a terrorist. How the f*ck can you come up with this statement?

So mrswdk, which country do you come from and what do you do in China?

Heh, heh, Mandela was on the US terrorist watchlist up until 2008. He and the ANC (the ANC which is pretty terrible in it's own right) were branded as terrorist and terrorist organization by the US.

The ANC's track record since taking power in South Africa is also horribly brutal unto this very day. High amounts of graft, corruption, violence and crime. But hey, if that's what SA wants, then so be it. South Africa's new bosses are the same as the old bosses, the only thing that's different is who's cow is being stolen and slaughtered.

[Agent 86]

Ok well..there are few more embarrassing things in the closet for a Conservative politician than having once called Nelson Mandela a terrorist.

It was a phrase that muddied the legacy of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.

In 2006, David Cameron apologised and denounced Thatcher's policies, saying she was wrong to have branded Mandela's African National Congress as 'terrorists' and to have opposed sanctions against the apartheid South Africa.

It was, embarrassingly, only in 2008, that Mandela was removed from the US terrorism watch list by President George W Bush.

So, it shows it's very easy these days to label someone as a terrorist. The sheeples will believe any propaganda as the government is never wrong and always tells the truth

Mandela fought for the freedom of his people against a cruel unjust system, a system which denied them basic human rights. He was prepared to accept the consequences revolutionaries often pay, imprisonment, torture and possible death at the hands of the oppressor.

He did not export or thrust his beliefs on the outside world. he stayed at home and righted a wrong.

[patches70]

The sheeples will believe any propaganda as the government is never wrong and always tells the truth

Yes, because there is absolutely zero propaganda concerning the results of Mandela and his ANC.

Let's see, Mandela takes power, what happens? Apartheid ends, murder skyrockets, whites are butchered, women are raped in droves, unemployment runs rampant, political assassinations abound to anyone opposing the ANC (a trend which continues to this day), government graft, corruption.

The more things change, the more things stay the same. Mandela "righted a wrong" by just making sure that someone else's cat was getting skinned.

Mandela fought for the freedom of his people against a cruel unjust system, a system which denied them basic human rights. He was prepared to accept the consequences revolutionaries often pay, imprisonment, torture and possible death at the hands of the oppressor.

Hey, I bet ya most terrorist would say the exact same of themselves!

He did not export or thrust his beliefs on the outside world. he stayed at home and righted a wrong.

He just forced his beliefs on South Africans and didn't right a wrong, just made sure it was different people being wronged.

I hope and like to believe that Mandela didn't intend for things to go as badly as they did when Apartheid ended. If you are unable to actually see how "just" South Africa became with the ending of that cruel system and ignore how bad and cruel the new system was, well, I guess you are the one who is buying into propaganda.

The journey didn't end with Apartheid. That was just the very beginning. If you only pay attention to that and ignore every atrocity that happened after, well that's just not very wise IMO.

How does one define a "terrorist"?
Different definitions by different people. The terrorist himself doesn't view himself as a terrorist, he views himself as a freedom fighter. As does all who are sympathetic with his cause.

If one defines a terrorist as someone who uses violence* to achieve political goals, then Mandela certainly fits the bill completely.

So was Bin Laden a terrorist? Some would say he was fighting to free Muslims from secular control. Which I suppose he was.

Mandela himself admitted that the ANC had indeed violated human rights in their struggles against Apartheid. Mandela was the leader of the ANC military wing and carried out attacks which killed not only government personnel but also civilians. The killing of civilians to achieve political goals is indeed a criteria for being labeled a "terrorist", is it not?
And Mandela was the leader of the faction that carried out those attacks.


So to you Mandela was a freedom fighter, but to those who were killed or relatives of those killed would certainly (and legitimately) disagree with you and would certainly view Mandela and the ANC is terrorist and terrorist organization.

Mandela was no saint. Freedom fighter has certain connotations that don't quite fit right with Mandela's and the ANC's actions.
It comes down to "do the ends justify the means?" If one answers "yes" to that question, then there is no such thing as a terrorist at all. Including people like Bin Laden. Because if the ends justify the means then it's perfectly legitimate to use planes flying into buildings to attempt to reach political goals. The killing of civilians is perfectly acceptable, because the ends justify the means.

Was it worth ending Apartheid if it meant that 1 in 4 women of the entire population were to be raped?

It just doesn't do justice to the horrible events in South Africa to say- "Mandela was a freedom fighter, simple as that!" It's not that simple, not by a long shot.
One can certainly make the legitimate argument that Mandela was a terrorist. Simply dismissing the argument does absolutely nothing to actually evaluating history at all.

Like I said, I like to believe that Mandela didn't intend for all those terrible things to happen under his watch by the organization he created. But the fact remains that terrible atrocities did happen under Mandela and under the thumb of his political party. It does no justice to the victims of the past or the future victims by ignoring those atrocities.

Here, happened about a year ago, a scene that could have happened during the 1980's Apartheid rule-



Not much difference is there? The State gunning down civilians. If it's a white run State then it's evil, if it's the ANC run State then it's justified?

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

The truth is probably closest to, those who were getting screwed under Apartheid are the ones still getting screwed under the ANC.

Because that's what the State often devolves into no matter what noble cause brought it to power in the first place. Why? Because people in power almost universally use that power to enrich themselves and their friends to the detriment of everyone else. Mandela is not immune to this phenomenon, nor is the ANC. (Nor the US government or any other government on the planet).

And if someone doesn't want to bow down to the alter of Mandela's greatness, then so be it. One probably shouldn't take too much offense in it, because South Africa's track record after Apartheid is appalling if one actually looks. Every bit as bad as Apartheid and Mandela bears some responsibility of those crimes.





*Violence using non uniformed, unconventional tactics an/or targeting civilians. War between two opposing, uniformed armies apparently doesn't consist of terrorism, though often enough the results are the same.

[kuthoer]

We'll said Agent 86. Mandela was a freedom fighter and forgave those who tortured and murdered his fellow countrymen. He united South Africa, despite the different tribal groups and races. He truly was a peace maker.

[patches70]

We'll said Agent 86. Mandela was a freedom fighter and forgave those who tortured and murdered his fellow countrymen. He united South Africa, despite the different tribal groups and races. He truly was a peace maker.

Yes, Mandela was a freedom fighter. And when he won that freedom that's when things got really bad.

[kuthoer]

We'll said Agent 86. Mandela was a freedom fighter and forgave those who tortured and murdered his fellow countrymen. He united South Africa, despite the different tribal groups and races. He truly was a peace maker.

Yes, Mandela was a freedom fighter. And when he won that freedom that's when things got really bad.

Things got bad for whom? The Blacks and mix races finally received full rights as citizens. Are you just playing Devil's advocate or are you just ignorant? The oppressors were not lined up and shot or beheaded like in revolutionary France or The Soviet Union.

I personally would have rounded up the Apartheid leaders and hanged them.

[BigBallinStalin]

We'll said Agent 86. Mandela was a freedom fighter and forgave those who tortured and murdered his fellow countrymen. He united South Africa, despite the different tribal groups and races. He truly was a peace maker.

Yes, Mandela was a freedom fighter. And when he won that freedom that's when things got really bad.

Things got bad for whom? The Blacks and mix races finally received full rights as citizens. Are you just playing Devil's advocate or are you just ignorant? The oppressors were not lined up and shot or beheaded like in revolutionary France or The Soviet Union.

I personally would have rounded up the Apartheid leaders and hanged them.

Yeah, there's like zero black-on-black crime in SAF.

[kuthoer]

We'll said Agent 86. Mandela was a freedom fighter and forgave those who tortured and murdered his fellow countrymen. He united South Africa, despite the different tribal groups and races. He truly was a peace maker.

Yes, Mandela was a freedom fighter. And when he won that freedom that's when things got really bad.

Things got bad for whom? The Blacks and mix races finally received full rights as citizens. Are you just playing Devil's advocate or are you just ignorant? The oppressors were not lined up and shot or beheaded like in revolutionary France or The Soviet Union.

I personally would have rounded up the Apartheid leaders and hanged them.

Yeah, there's like zero black-on-black crime in SAF.

Not sure what's your point is, but being silly would win you a merit badge.