Flags at half staff for Nelson Mandela

I completely agree that the honors associated with lowering our flag to half mast have been diluted, but I do not disagree with lowering the flag for Nelson Mandela. Considering that the regulations established do allow us to pay respect to foreign dignitaries and that Nelson Mandela was a champion for human rights who is widely recognized for opposing oppression and inequality he is rightfully deserving of this honor. It may raise hairs that he is a black South African, but don't let subconscious racism or your disdain for our current black president cloud your judgement here. Without going into a history lesson, the good that Nelson Mandela has done is undeniable and, quite frankly, as a proud American who respects our own history I will respect anyone who fights for oppressed people and against injustices. White, Black, Christian, or Muslim, it doesn't matter. As Cstone said, "as long as the US flag is flying, and no other flag is above it, it doesn't matter where it is on the pole. It is my flag."

NOW, if there is any scrutiny to be had here, it should be that President Obama, in way, superseded the remembrance of Pearl Harbor by overlapping it with the remembrance of Nelson Mandela. Flags shall be flown at half mast in remembrance of Pearl Harbor only on the 7th, while Nelson Mandela receives the whole weekend. This really supports the idea that this honor is being severely diluted and is almost being used haphazardly. Why can't Nelson Mandela receive one day, and Pearl Harbor receive one day? Does the fact that Nelson Mandela gets a whole weekend mean that he is more important? There's some misinformation on this thread and a lot of getting hung up on erroneous topics (Whitney Houston), but this should be the glaring offense here.

No F*****g Way should it be at half staff, not for some un-American commie like Mandela.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SvenJorgensen

I completely agree that the honors associated with lowering our flag to half mast have been diluted, but I do not disagree with lowering the flag for Nelson Mandela. Considering that the regulations established do allow us to pay respect to foreign dignitaries and that Nelson Mandela was a champion for human rights who is widely recognized for opposing oppression and inequality he is rightfully deserving of this honor. It may raise hairs that someone a black South Africbelieve but don't letwarrantedconscious racism or your disdain for our current black president cloud your judgement here. Without going into a history lesson, the good that Nelson Mandela has done is undeniable and, quite frankly, as a proud American who respects our own history I will respect anyone who fights for oppressed people and against injustices. White, Black, Christian, or Muslim, it doesn't matter. As Cstone said, "as long as the US flag is flying, and no other flag is above it, it doesn't matter where it is on the pole. It is my flag."

NOW, if there is any scrutiny to be had here, it should be that President Obama, in way, superseded the remembrance of Pearl Harbor by overlapping it with the remembrance of Nelson Mandela. Flags shall be flown at half mast in remembrance of Pearl Harbor only on the 7th, while Nelson Mandela receives the whole weekend. This really supports the idea that this honor is being severely diluted and is almost being used haphazardly. Why can't Nelson Mandela receive one day, and Pearl Harbor receive one day? Does the fact that Nelson Mandela gets a whole weekend mean that he is more important? There's some misinformation on this thread and a lot of getting hung up on erroneous topics (Whitney Houston), but this should be the glaring offense here.

---

My research today makes believe that this man does NOT deserve the flags to be at half mast. His targets in his revolts were not military or police but white civilians or blacks that did tow the mission. Putting landmines on highways and blowing up pubs should not make one a hero regardless of the good you have done after the acts. Sorry racism is not clouding my mind. However I am not president Obama nor anyone that can influence the flag status of our country but I am a man who does not have to beleive this honor is warranted. So if you believe that laying ramdom land mines and blowing up pubs is forgivable or justified then that is your business.

Seems like popular person gets the 1/2 staff......................................

http://i1094.photobucket.com/albums/...psa7b00364.gif

Whitney Houston gets it at half mast- Why didn't Chris Kyle?????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by battle_sight_zero

My research today makes believe that this man does NOT deserve the flags to be at half mast. His targets in his revolts were not military or police but white civilians or blacks that did tow the mission. Putting landmines on highways and blowing up pubs should not make one a hero regardless of the good you have done after the acts. Sorry racism is not clouding my mind. However I am not president Obama nor anyone that can influence the flag status of our country but I am a man who does not have to beleive this honor is warranted. So if you believe that laying ramdom land mines and blowing up pubs is forgivable or justified then that is your business.

---

I do not know anything about the pub bombing reference. Source?

The landmines were in use from 1985-1987 and were discontinued after civilian deaths were found to be occurring. Also, to accurately define the maliciousness of the landmines used by the African National Congress, you must take the international humanitarian laws at the current time. Landmines were not restricted in internal conflicts by international law. The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons was set into place on in 1980, but Protocol II was expanded in May of 1996 to include them in this instance, well after the ANC landmines were used. Also, the Ottawa Treaty which seeks to eliminate the use of anti-personnel mines around the world, and has been accepted by the international community, did not take place until 1997.

To summarize: The mines were legal by law. They were not used to target civilians, but civilian casualties were suffered. The mines were removed because of civilian casualties. Civilian casualties, even by modern consensus, are a grim, but relatively accepted part of warfare. Nelson Mandela did not himself physically lay mines, but was a part of the leadership of the African National Congress that did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bunny

Whitney Houston gets it at half mast- Why didn't Chris Kyle?????

---

Short answer- because it's Oblahblah.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin13

Short answer- because it's Oblahblah.

---

That was such a slap in the face to Americans from obummer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SvenJorgensen

I do not know anything about the pub bombing reference. Source?

The landmines were in use from 1985-1987 and were discontinued after civilian deaths were found to be occurring. Also, to accurately define the maliciousness of the landmines used by the African National Congress, you must take the international humanitarian laws at the current time. Landmines were not restricted in internal conflicts by international law. The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons was set into place on in 1980, but Protocol II was expanded in May of 1996 to include them in this instance, well after the ANC landmines were used. Also, the Ottawa Treaty which seeks to eliminate the use of anti-personnel mines around the world, and has been accepted by the international community, did not take place until 1997.

To summarize: The mines were legal by law. They were not used to target civilians, but civilian casualties were suffered. The mines were removed because of civilian casualties. Civilian casualties, even by modern consensus, are a grim, but relatively accepted part of warfare. Nelson Mandela did not himself physically lay mines, but was a part of the leadership of the African National Congress that did.

---

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=85889

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