For those who think Iran is just fine

Narges Mohammadi, an Iranian Nobel Peace Prize laureate and prominent human rights activist, was transferred to a hospital in the city of Zanjan, where she was in prison, after collapsing and losing consciousness on Friday, according to a statement by her family.

Ms. Mohammadi is currently in the hospital’s intensive care unit. But the judicial authorities have refused requests from her family and her lawyer to transfer her to a better-equipped hospital in the country’s capital, Tehran, where she could be cared for by her longtime cardiologist, according to a statement by her foundation, the Narges Foundation, and her husband, Taghi Rahmani.

Mr. Rahmani said the family fears for her life and has pleaded for mercy from the Iranian authorities. Iran’s mission to the United Nations said it had no comment on Ms. Mohammadi’s health situation.

“We are extremely worried about her; she has collapsed and lost consciousness several times, and her life is in danger,” Mr. Rahmani said in an interview from Paris, where he lives in exile with the couple’s children. “Our request is basic and urgent: send her to a hospital in Tehran immediately.”

Ms. Mohammadi’s health has been deteriorating rapidly for the past few months, but on Friday, she experienced extreme pain in her chest and fainted, said her lawyer, Mostafa Nili, in a post on social media.

Ms. Mohammadi, 54, suffers from chronic heart problems and has also had a lung embolism and headaches from ill treatment in prison, including beatings by prison guards, Mr. Rahmani said. In the past, prison authorities have refused to transfer her to a hospital and treated her instead in the prison’s primitive clinic, he said.

In response to this latest health emergency, Mr. Nili, her lawyer, said that the authorities in Zanjan and Tehran have refused Ms. Mohammadi’s request to be transferred to the capital for medical treatment.

Ms. Mohammadi, known for her tireless pro-democracy activism, has spent much of her adult life in and out of prison in Iran’s authoritarian theocracy. She had been sentenced to 10 years on charges of threatening national security. But in February a court sentenced her to an additional seven and a half years because of her continued opposition to the government. She was arrested again in December, while on a yearlong furlough from prison because of her health, after she delivered a fiery speech critical of the government at the funeral of a fellow activist.

In 2023, while she was imprisoned, the Nobel Committee awarded her the Peace Prize, noting “her fight against the oppression of women in Iran and her fight to promote human rights and freedom for all.”

In recent weeks, as the world has focused on the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran, the authorities in Iran have intensified crackdowns on dissent. Every few days, reports have emerged of arrests of student activists and journalists. Iran has executed 22 people in the past six weeks, some were protesters in anti-government demonstrations that swept the country in January, and dozens more are at risk of execution, according to the Center for Human Rights in Iran.

On Thursday, Sasan Azadvar Junaqani, a 21 year old from Isfahan, a central city in Iran, was executed, according to media reports and rights groups. He was arrested in January for participating in nationwide protests and accused of throwing a stone at security agents, according to Iran’s judiciary reports. Mr. Junaqani, a karate athlete who participated in tournaments, was charged with “moharebe,” or being “the enemy of God,” in a speedy sham trial, according to HRANA, an Iran-focused human rights group in Washington D.C., and media reports.

Omid Memarian, a senior fellow and an Iran expert at Dawn, a Washington D.C. think tank focused on U.S. foreign policy, said the treatment of Ms. Mohammadi and the recent executions were all part of a wider campaign of intimidation.

“The wartime security environment has significantly increased the risks of activism in Iran, giving the government a broader pretext to use violence and making the level of repression, outside peak protest moments, considerably harsher than before the war,” said Mr. Memarian.

Let's just bomb them then, and blow up the decent people along with the bad ones.

Take out their schools, civilian energy infrastructure and water...

The Arabs have a right to self-determination (within Arab countries where they should remain)..

Ou Snarks...less people died in this war than in the preceding protests earlier this year....and that's still less than the people getting murdered in South Africa every year...but then you have to ad the rapes and armed robberies...yet SA gets close to no mention on this board and abroad...strange that these things are acceptable to so many...

The Arabs have a right to self-determination (within Arab countries where they should remain)..

Yes they do….that and stopping their terrorism and march to a nuclear weapon is what we are fighting for. And after reading this article no fair person could actually believe the Iranians have actually had the right to self determination.

Iranians need to unite and overthrow their leaders; that is their right to self-determination.

America have no business in Iran. This is another attempt by Trump to force Iran to trade in dollars and to approve supply routes to try to damage China. The nukes are a pretext motive.. Trump knows this is a disaster as the midterms loom.

Easy to say….but how many religious, military dictatorships have been overthrown by people whose best weapon is a stone?

The problem is that this is not an isolated incident, so when taking in context, is anyone outside of America really going to believe that America is doing this as a goodwill gesture?

The context is, that n the last year, Trump has threatened to invade Greenland, Canada, and Panama. That is all, while creating blockades on Cuba and Venezuela to overthrow their governments to secure trade deals that favour America. Additionally, America now says they own the Western Hemisphere and decides trade in this part of the world. Then there is Trump's Board of Peace to replace NATO.

Then there is the sanction garbage causing damage to the global economy, followed by the latest crisis in Iran.

No one believes Trump. Yet America democratically elected this person, and they have done nothing to intervene in Trump's wars. The world can see who America is, another Russia threatening the nuclear destruction of a nation.

Whoosh!...all the places where China was doing nothing ...

Well Shark Europe is hardly on a positive path, the smack across the chops may help to shake it out of this Pollyanna view of the world. It appears the Ukraine and Iran are having some effect:

Key developments in Europe's nuclear landscape as of May 2026 include:

1. Belgium: The government has made a U-turn, passing a law that allows for the extension of the Doel-4 and Tihange-3 nuclear plants until 2035. NucNet +1
2. France: Remaining deeply committed to nuclear energy, France is pushing forward with plans to build six new nuclear reactors and considering eight more. +1
3. The Netherlands: The government is aiming to build two new plants and extend the life of its current reactor. Yahoo News Singapore
4. Italy: Despite a 2011 referendum against it, Italy is reconsidering nuclear power as part of its energy transition, with 2030 targets to reintroduce it1
5. Sweden: A new law was passed in early 2025 to fund the construction of a new generation of nuclear reactors. com
6. Denmark: The country is considering lifting its long-term ban on nuclear energy to explore new, small-scale technologies.
7. Poland: As part of its transition away from coal, Poland is moving ahead with its first-ever nuclear power project, with the first reactor expected to be operational in the 2030s.

The Exception: Germany

While some nations are pivoting back, Germany has largely remained on its path to abandon nuclear, having shut down its last three reactors in April 2023. However, the debate remains contentious, with some politicians arguing the shutdown was a "strategic mistake". While some industry advocates argue for a restart of recently closed plants, operators consider it technically or economically unfeasible.

Europe legislating the internal combustion engine into oblivion, while being far less competitive in electric cars than China….effectively destroying one of its core industries. At least the pivot back to nuclear is one ray of sanity….but Germany’s continuing act of self destruction is going to do nothing to solve the real CO2 problem, China,

Europe is doing a grand job of destroying it’s industries and alienating the one country that’s been it’s staunchest friend for over a 100 years.

And you think Trump is misguided.

We are all Hamas.

No they are much smarter, with a sense of self preservation….you are more like a religious cult waiting for some leader to reveal the next windmill to charge.

What does EU energy have to do with the war against Iran, other than worsening the problem?

If you are going for a drive, always remember to put the kettle in the fridge.

America has lost most of the world, not just Europe.

Global opinion on President Trump's recent military actions, including the US-led war and naval blockade against Iran, economic sanctions, and tariffs, is predominantly negative. Polls from 2025-2026 show widespread disapproval, with concerns over economic fallout, diplomatic failures, and heightened global tensions.

Views by Top 30 Countries

Limited country-specific polls tie directly to 2026 actions like the Iran blockade, but Pew (24 countries, mid-2025) and Gallup trends provide estimates of confidence/approval in Trump's leadership (proxies for policy views). High: allies like Israel; low: Europe/Canada/Mexico. Extrapolated averages (high/medium/low) based on available data:

Remaining top 30 (e.g., Thailand, Colombia) lack specifics; trend toward low-medium amid global decline.

Countries that support the US

Support persists in Africa (Kenya 78%, Nigeria), parts of Asia (Japan, India), and select Middle East/Europe spots due to shared interests vs. Iran/China. Overall, Gallup global US leadership approval hit 31% (vs. China's 36%), the lowest in decades

"Europe legislating the internal combustion engine into oblivion, while being far less competitive in electric cars than China….effectively destroying one of its core industries."

I'm sure it's coincidentally and the Chicoms have got absolutely nothing to do with it ...not.

So the world’s most populous country has strong confidence in Trump….case closed

Case closed because the pajeets like America. LOL..

India is a great replacement country, and despite having a GDP of 10%, it has extreme poverty due to a very high birth rate. They migrate to other countries and send back a lot of money to India.

Any trade deal with India always seems to include a complementary 5-10 million migrants.

India is the biggest beneficiary of Big Tech jobs.

America Offices located in the US employ more than 70% foreign born workers, with under 30% American born. Big Tech keeps increasing its offshoring to India while reducing jobs in American offices. The shareholders will justify this as winning the battle against China, but America will lose the long-term battle if they offshore most of the jobs.

Who would have thought Spain is higher than Denmark and Lebanon is higher than Israel

.

.

SB

We all know you hate Trump so in your mind he is always wrong,

Answer a few questions you never complained about in the past. what we does not know is whether you support or not support the Iran Ayatollah Regime iro the following :-

1. We know you hate Christianity - but do you hate the ultra=religious and cruel regime in Iran?
2. Do you support th murder of mopre th an 30 000 people by the Ayatollah Regime = thus far more than 30 000 people died because they protested against regime cruelty and crazy policies?
3. Do you support Iran de veloping nuclear arms and deliv ery missies?
4. Do you support th e Iran Regime spreading terrorism worldwide?

You apparently want nothing being done to prevent the above key objectives of the Iran Regime So what do you stabnd for?

@Dumbike,

1) I dislike all Abrahamic religions, including Islam. In modern times, Islam is worse than Christianity - but it is the same Kool-Aid. However the facts are that the Bible and Koran are very similar - with the same characters, and they were Arabs and Jews (both of whom are genetically orientated from the same tribes). Iran is still mostly Persian, much better than the ancient Arabs who later overthrew them with Islam.

Let's take Apartheid, where the Boers were being led to the promised land, and Jesus was White, and black people were the wood carrying class - like in the Bible. It was God's will that black people were subservient and this rhetoric was pushed through the Church- all while you ate Ouma's oat cakes and sung Sakkie, Sakkie boerie dance. People make God in their own image, not the other way around.

2.Here you Display your Abrahamic reality of good versus bad. It is one or the other. No, I don'I t support Iran killing its own people, nor do I support America bombing schools and civilian locations. Same stuff.

However Iranians need to decide what happens in their own country, but with so many religious sects it is difficult for them to unite and overthrow their leaders. By the way, at the start of the Iranian war - some of them supported their government being bombed. However, their sentiment to America quicky declined with Trump bombing schools and architecture. This worsened when Trump threatened to end their entire civilisation, after threats to destroy their civil water and energy infrastructure did not work. So most of Iranians now hate America even more than they did before. ,

3.) I don't support Iran having nukes, that is why I supported the Nuclear agreement negotiated by Obama that was working. America's actions will push Iran to make a nuke to protect itself. While Iran are dangerous, America is the one invading countries and creating proxy wars.

America invaded Iran for economic motives, to try damage China by forcing Iran to trade oil in dollars -as is the case with Venezuela.

4) I don't support Iran spreading terrorism, but right now America is worse than Iran. If Iran had the means, perhaps they would be the same as America or worse - but that is speculation. Right now America are the biggest threat to global peace. Incidentally, America has filled his cabinet with Christian fundamentalists- fake Christians with their Abrahamic ways. It is the 21st century and all attempts to discourage Islam should be made, but this is not very realistic when America has the likes of Pete Hegarty quoting the movie "pulp fiction" lines, while thinking they are God's words. Or the Trump cabinet having a prayer just before bombing Iranian schools.

Snarkbot, you saying there isn't good vs bad? No evil?

"Let's take Apartheid, where the Boers were being led to the promised land, and Jesus was White, and black people were the wood carrying class - like in the Bible. It was God's will that black people were subservient and this rhetoric was pushed through the Church- all while you ate Ouma's oat cakes and sung Sakkie, Sakkie boerie dance. People make God in their own image, not the other way around."

Almost...

.

Gatvol trying to post pics these days...very little able to imbed.

Snarkbot, you saying there isn't good vs bad? No evil?

Two periods in human history.

Before the rise of liberalism and after the rise of liberalism

1. Before the rise of liberalism: Good and evil were perceived in relative terms. That is each human group defined the terms of evil and good relatively to their perceptions. This used to be called moral relativism. Liberals had to distort the notion to make it match with arbitrary decision making or selective principledness etc That stated, groups of human beings were claiming that good and evil exist in absolute terms, independent on human beings' perception. Mostly Abrahamic religions (but not only) Only one true god and good vs evil is inherited from that God. It is independent from human beings.
2. After the rise of liberalism: liberalism is built on the human being condition: human beings are human beings and are owed a specific treatment because of it. Good vs evil perception is attached to this condition, which is absolute, no matter how hard liberals try to deny it. Every single human being is a human being. It is absolute. There is no discussion possible about it. This situation is very different from the previous situations as they relied on the acceptance of a god. Humanity does not require to be accepted to be. Despite all liberals' efforts to deny this.

Now it has changed everything: evil vs good must exist in absolute terms (and this by the way regardless of any period in humanity, human beings have been human beings since they are human beings)

It is very funny as liberals have kept failing to act in a good way and preferred to have in an evil way, one conclusion is that evil and good does not exist in a liberal society.

That is the conclusion favoured by Nietzsche . Liberals have devolved in the mandatory obligation of calling arbitrariness as moral relativism. Arbitrariness and the impossibility to stick to a self imposed standard in this case is usually the hallmark of evil, it is injustice at its core.

Since liberals can only act in an evil way, they are forced to claim evil and good do not exist. If there were to accept the existence of evil and good, they will be forced to admit they are evil by absolute standards.

Draad, who decides what is good and bad? That is the problem with Abrahamic religions - they all claim to be arbitrators of truth.

Do you know what the meaning of the word "Kaffir" is?

It means a non-believer in God, and originates in the Middle East.

During apartheid in South Africa (1948–1994), the ruling Afrikaner population developed theological arguments to legitimise racial segregation.

A central institutional actor was the Dutch Reformed Church, which provided formal theological backing for apartheid policies, particularly in the mid-20th century.

Core Biblical Interpretations Used

One of the most cited passages was Genesis 9:20–27, often referred to as the “Curse of Ham” (more accurately, the curse of Canaan). Some apartheid-era theologians argued:

1. That descendants of Ham were divinely destined for servitude
2. That African populations were linked (incorrectly and without historical basis) to Ham
3. That racial hierarchy was therefore part of a divine order

Verses such as Ephesians 6:5 (“Slaves, obey your earthly masters…”) were used to:

1. Promote acceptance of social hierarchy
2. Frame inequality as morally acceptable if “orderly”
3. Reinforce the idea that subordinate groups should not resist authority

Afrikaner nationalism often incorporated a belief that they were a covenant people, similar to the Israelites in the Old Testament. This included:

1. Viewing their migration (e.g. the Great Trek) as divinely guided
2. Believing they had a God-given mandate to rule and “civilise”
3. Interpreting separation of races as part of maintaining divine order

This ideology blended religion with nationalism rather than being purely theological.

Analytical Perspective

From a modern academic standpoint:

1. These religious arguments are widely regarded as selective, decontextualised interpretations of scripture
2. They reflect how religion can be used to legitimise existing political and economic power structures
3. Similar patterns have appeared in other historical contexts (e.g. slavery in the United States, colonialism globally) (Many years ago - e.g. 1700, 1800)

Conclusion

The religious justifications for apartheid were not inherent to Christianity itself but were constructed interpretations aligned with political goals. They demonstrate how theological frameworks can be adapted—sometimes distorted—to support systems of control.

-------------------------------

In the Bible, Jesus says that only through him can people get into heaven.

Additionally, the Abrahamic God also says that only people who worship him get into heaven, and all other Gods are false.

However, Jesus contradicts himself with the parable of the "Good Samaritan" who is of a different religion, but will get into heaven.

SB

Let me explain some history to you in respect to the following BS:-

Let's take Apartheid, where the Boers were being led to the promised land, and Jesus was White, and black people were the wood carrying class - like in the Bible. It was God's will that black people were subservient and this rhetoric was pushed through the Church- all while you ate Ouma's oat cakes and sung Sakkie, Sakkie boerie dance. People make God in their own image, not the other way around.

Who introduced APARTHEID in SA. Apartheid did not start after 1910 - it was started by the English colonial administration. It discriminated against the Coloreds, the Blacks and the Dutch Speaking population, Initially in the Cape Colony where the English missionaries were the ones undermining the Black tribes and caused the establishment of the Bunga in Umtata in 1890.

However lets go back to the Great Trek - who went with the farmers - the colored and Black workers they protected and treated humanely, A soon as they were established in KwaZulu-Natal - the Boers fought the Zulu's in one battle - after the English took over their were strings of battles where the English removed the Kings of the Zulus repeatedly and tried to replace them with dummies.

When the Boers moved back into what was the Free State and what was the Transvaal to get away from the hell of English Government and established the Free State and Zuid- Afrikaanse Republics. The English followed them - but their colonization of the Free State ended in 1854 with restoration of the Free State Republic.

The discovery of diamonds in the Free State area - now the Kimberley area - the colluded with the Griekwa tribe heads and promised them riches beyond believe, So what did the English do once the area was colonized - they took over the land of the tribe and sent the residents to the area of Kokstad - where nobody saw the riches they promised. the Griekwas would get,

In 1880 the wish to colonize the Transvaal kicked in and they send troops in to occupy part of the Republic - which at the time included Utrecht and the area around Newcastle. Unfortunately for them the Boers fought back and destroyed the strongest element of E$nglish troops in the battle of Majuba. As a result the Zuid-Afrikaanze Republic. The annexure had bad results for the .English Colonial Government in the Cape. The Afrikaans speaking population in the Cape Colony and they were joined by some of he local English-speaking community, The leadership of that Party included John X Merriman - son of the Bishop of Grahamstown - regarded as the leadership of liberalism worldwide.

In the Cape Colony the move went to allow voter rights to include Coloreds and Blacks meeting certain requirements. In essence the Bond alsoo klno0wn as Het Volk was against discrimination against anybody in the basis of race or language, The Bond was led by Merriman - with the backing of Marie Koopmans De Wet. Cecil B Rhodes with the help of the Afrikaner Bond Smuts was educated at Cambridge University and his father was a Afrikaner Bond Member of Parliament for Malmesbury where he was a prominent farmer. Smuts came back a red-hot supporter of the British Empire - but he was really ostracized by the Cape Afrikaans community and he married He then marriesd a woman called Issie Krige. Issuie ah ted the UK and when she gave birth to her children after 1902 she had the ZAR Flag lying opver her not wanting to give birth to a subject of the English,

Rhodes once squad the feared Marie Koopmans De Wet more than anybody else in SA. She protected the culture of all South Africans and stop the elimination of the Muslim cemetery in Cape Town and some mosques as well and stop the Rhodes effort to destroy the Castle. She was a clos friend of King Willem III and Queen Emma of the Netherlands and Ex-empress Eugene - wife of Ex-Emperor Napoleon 111 of France.

Be it as it nay Rhodes wanted to get hold of what is now called Zimbabwe, He sent in Company troops to occupy the area and starved the population by killimg of their cattle and destroying their other food supplies. The idea was that Zimbabwe had more gold mining potential than Johannesburg - but that soon turned into disappointment. The died of Rhodes then was to conquer the two Republics instead, The Jameson Raid was organized with the help of Rhodes and when the Afrilkaner Bond found out he was kicked out as Prime Minister of the Cape Colony,

In turbulent times Presidents Kruger, Steyn and Merriman agreed that there is no justification for discrimination against any race group when they became Christianized, The Cape Colony had that system in place and it was to be extended to the Free State and ZAR. So that ws the way the Afrikaans leadership wanted to introduced,

The UK was determined to kill Republicanism totally and prepared to send enough troops to get hold of the Republic. That War was a crime against humanity. In the end the English burned down homes on farmed and took wives and children to concentration camps - but it was not only Whites who ended up in Concentration Camps to die - it included also Blacks and Coloreds so the death toll of over 50 000 people.

The Anglo-Boer War costed the UK too much money and by 1904 the Liberals beat the pro-war Conservatives in the UK elections. The main idea was to use Smuts - with his pro-English attitude he got from Cambrigde University. So self-Government was The effective leaders became Merriman in the Cape Colony , President Steyn in the Free State - with Fischer (the father of the later Communist leader) as Prime Minster and Botha as Prime Minister of the Transvaal moved to start Unification of the and that is where the fight started. The Free State and Cape want extension of voting rights to Coloreds, Indians and Blacks to the other three colonies, The English controlled Natal and the Transvaal under Botha - who was born in Greytown - opposed it totally. The avoid a total collapse of the talks it was agreed that in the Cape Coloureds and Blacks would elect 4 an d 3 members respectively to represent them in Parliament. That was what caused the real discrimination system in SA.

The second fight was who should be the Prime Minister of the Union. The Cape and Free State nom inat6ed Merriman to be appointed as Prime Minister, The English hated Merriman since he was placed under House Arrest during the Anglo-Boer War and a worldwide protest resulted against it - so the English Government was forced to release him. Smuts on the other hand had close ties with the English Government and the royal family persuaded the English King to appoint Botha as Prime Minister,

Botha was a good-hearted man - but was totally controlled by Smuts. In 1914 the leadership of the Afrikaners in the Free Sate rebelled against the Botha Government and riots started in Johannesburg and in Black areas, It was oppressed by deadly force by General Botha whos aw what he believed collapsing in hatred, Botha died in 1918 an was succeeded by Smuts,

In 1921 there were uprisings in Black areas and brutally with the loss of thousands of deaths. That led to Smuts b accused of bloodthirsty and cruel in Parliament. Due to the scorch earth policy n during the Boer War the majority of mineworkers were Afrikaans speaking and they rebelled in 1921 as well. Over 200 people died in the battle to get Government control in Johannesburg alone, When army troops refused to fire on their family strikers they were court-marshalled and executed,

Smuts lost power in 1924 and only regained the Prime Minister ship in 1939. In 1946 a rebellion of Blacks in Durban wAs brutally oppressed with over 3 000 deaths by the Smuts Government,

So what happened after 1948 and subsequently were based on systems in existence since the second half of the 19th century, The reactionary Strydom, Verwoerd and Vorster were all Transvaal leaders - but the situation started changing under Botha and was demolished by De Klerk leading to the ANC taking over power

Instead of unification the AN C became the new exponents of Apartheid oppressing the White, Coloured and In dian communisites in SA . As a result the Whites, Coloureds and Indians now support the Democratic Alliance. with the ANC corruption resulting in Blacks not voting in the last election.

.

.

by General Smuts as Prime Minister,

. . ,

DumbMike

Hall Of Famer

57,393 posts

May 05, 2026, 16:49

Who introduced APARTHEID in SA? Apartheid did not start after 1910 - it was started by the English colonial administration. It discriminated against the Coloreds, the Blacks and the Dutch-speaking population. Initially, in the Cape Colony, the English missionaries were the ones undermining the Black tribes and caused the establishment of the Bunga in Umtata in 1890.

-----------------------------------------------

No, you bumbling fool. Apartheid was introduced after WW2, and was designed to protect the White Afrikaaner male, above all else. It even discriminated against white women, and even to some extent, white English speakers.

Apartheid is an Afrikaans word that means "to develop apart".

Yes, colonialism was bad, but it was some time ago. Back then, Colonialists also used religion to justify their conquests. Apartheid legalised segregation. It was a short-sighted system designed first and foremost for old white Afrikaners who were religious- Gods people .

Joe Kent

"Let's just arm one more group of moderate rebels... It'll work this time; I can feel it!" This is the gamblers fallacy in action. Graham is laying the groundwork for decades of chaos and blow back terrorism. The concept of sending arms to the locals sounds good at first but has never served our long-term interests. Our efforts to "arm the people" of governments we don't like led to the rise of the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, ISIS, every Shia militia in Iraq as well as the destabilization of Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen, just to name a few.

I say this as a former Green Beret and CIA Paramilitary Ops officer who has been involved in these operations- they simply don't work in the long run. There is no military solution to our conflict with Iran, POTUS should stop listening to those who have not updated their thinking since 2003 and get us out of this mess before we are sucked further in.

SB

Apartheid was discovered as a way to describe the attacks on the new government by the media after 1948 and spread all over the world. There were worse human rights abuses for over 150 years in SA that was based on the racism and language situation that prevailed in SA for at least 150 years.

Read carefully what happened in 1910 when the union of SA was negotiations the majority of the members wanted the voting rights of Coloureds and Blacks extended to cover the whole of SA - but the pro-UK representatives from the Transvaal and Natal refused to join the Union if that happened.

You are just a parrot to come up with BS like you did. If you think Blacks and Coloreds had any democratic rights before 1948 - you

suffer from piss on the brain disease.

A more accurate version would be: South Africa had long-standing racial discrimination before 1948, but apartheid was the name given to the National Party’s post-1948 policy that expanded and systematized segregation into law. The 1910 Union settlement preserved a racially unequal political order instead of extending voting rights nationwide

The key apartheid laws after 1948 were the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act (1949), Population Registration Act (1950), Group Areas Act (1950), Immorality Act (1950), Suppression of Communism Act (1950), Separate Representation of Voters Act (1951), Bantu Education Act (1953), Native Resettlement Act (1954), and later laws such as the Terrorism Act (1967).

Main purpose

These laws classified people by race, banned interracial marriage and sex, enforced residential segregation, stripped many non-white South Africans of political rights, controlled education, and gave the state broad powers to suppress opposition.

Most important early laws

1. Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act (1949): banned marriages across racial lines.
2. Population Registration Act (1950): forced every person to be classified by race.
3. Group Areas Act (1950): assigned racial groups to separate residential areas and enabled forced removals.
4. Immorality Act (1950): prohibited interracial sex.
5. Separate Representation of Voters Act (1951): removed Coloured voters from the common voters’ roll.
6. Bantu Education Act (1953): created a separate and inferior school system for Black South Africans.

Later enforcement laws

The system was reinforced by laws such as the Bantu Authorities Act (1951), Native Resettlement Act (1954), Extension of University Education Act (1959), and Terrorism Act (1967), which helped entrench segregation, forced removals, educational exclusion, and detention without trial.

Would you like a timeline of the main apartheid laws by year?

sb

i Like your quote a lot - but the shIt applicable under Bush Junior and Obama reigns supreme as long as long as it is associated with bribery and corruption.

It also started the shit in Ukraine under Obama when the CIA caused to0tally undermining a democratic election and it morphed into a civ il war in Ukraine where the USA arms the Ukraine king faction and the Russia the Russian. Corruption in both Washington was linked to everything funded by the USA in Ukraine,

Trummp did n ot cause the shit in Afghanistan, Iraq and Ukraine. Befgore you, preach to people about wea[pm n supply to anybody start blaming the originators of the present situation. .