Comments on: Kenneth, how could you?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:34:41 +0000

As far as that (your being tired) is concerned: I rest my case and I hope others would grasp the point. The President did not act in a way one would expect from the president of a constitutional state in both cases – that of JZ and that of Selebi. Furthermore, is the followingn Latin phrase appliccable to you, or me? – ‘aliena vitia in oculis habemus, a tergo nostra sunt’ (”The faults of others we notice, our own remain unseen.”) I would say ‘applicable to both’, because we both have a tendency to be drawn into side issues and miss the crux of the debate – but then again you would probably say, ‘only applicable to you’. Let’s concentrate on the new debates above and let’s leave this one (about the President, Ncguka, Pikoli, Zuma, Selebi) for another day – perhaps when the prosecutions have been finalized.

By: khosi

khosi — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:06:03 +0000

Anonymous,

I am tired of arguing with anything that replies in claptrap, while circumventing whats being put to him (sic it).

Perharps on another subject, you will get your head on.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 08:08:12 +0000

Khosi
Last post: “REPHRASE”
“charlatan” – perhaps.
“an examenor (sic) of the presidents (sic) ‘contaminated’ actions” – indeed.
“fraud” – never – ’self-preservbvation’, perhaps.
As far as “labeling” you as someone with a specific viewpoint to prove that I am right about my “ill-conceived argument on the president” is concerned – read all your and my previous posts carefully and objectively and “You be the judge!”

Previous post: 21 Feb 09:08
Please re-read my post of 20 Feb 10:12, and esp the following quote: “As far as Zuma is concerned, the findings made by Hillary Squires J, the SCA and the CC, have not yet proven that the allegations against Zuma are true so that he has to be convicted – his guilt (or innocence) still has to be established during a trial before a court of law, and chances are (however slim, provided the evidence against him and Shaik remains available and truthful) that he may yet be acquitted on the charges against him. The Shaik trial might have strengthened the hand of the NPA against Zuma, but that does not mean that the case against Zuma is an insurmountable edifice that cannot be breached.” Once again – you mis-read my post. I never said that both JZ and Selebi are guilty, or even that the NPA has an unbreachable case against both (or any) of them. A strong prosecution case on paper, everyone knows, will not necessarily result in a conviction.
Please try and read the posts objectively before artguing a specific point.

Lastly:
Stop taking everything so personally when the falacy of an argument of yours is pointed out. Remember the following saying in Afrikaans: “As mens ‘n klip in die bos gooi en iemand tjank – dan is hy raak gegooi.” (In Zulu: “Uma umuntu ephonsa itshe ehlathini, kumemeze [nomsa kukhale] umuntu, limshayile.”)
If you do not want to be criticised, don’t participate in the debate.Note that I did not say “Ouch!” at being called a ‘charlatan’ – and I agree that some people might think that I am one. And where my initial arguments are wrong, I usually concede without much fuss – see my responses on the ’second race’ debate when Prof De Vos pointed same out.

By: khosi

khosi — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 07:23:56 +0000

REPHRASE

Anonymous,

I think you should stop accusing me of being anti-JZ just because I find you point of view in Mbeki unfounded. I have never said one thing on this blog that is anti-Zuma. Stop labelling me to prove that you are right about your ill-concieved argument on the president. To add to your fraud, you wear a mask to this blog.

You cannot tell me how to think by telling me that my thinking makes me anti people that are dear to my being.

You quote me, so please tell me what part of that quote is devoid of fact?

Play the facts not ME! I suppose that is asking to much of charlatan who profess to be an examenor of the presidents ‘contaminated’ actions.

By: khosi

khosi — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 07:08:45 +0000

Anonymous,

I do not understand why you found that both Zuma and Selebi are guilty and that the NPA has an unbreachable case against either one of them. The poroblem is that you are itching to see both guilty and you are then misguiding yourself into finding justified actions of the president a double speak.

By: khosi

khosi — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 06:55:35 +0000

Anonymous,

You cannot tell me how to think by telling me that my thinking makes me anti people that are dear to my being.

You quote me, so please tell me what part of that quote is devoid of fact?

Play the facts not ME! I suppose that is asking to much of charlatan who profess to examenor or the presidents ‘contaminated’ actions.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 14:14:57 +0000

Khosi
Firstly, thanks for guiding me to this article in Argus of 20 Feb 2008 – however, nothing new is being said there that has not already been said, namely: JZ alleging that Mbeki and others conspired against him to have him prosecuted, whilst Pikoli was axed for not falling in with the conspiracy. That is however besides the issue. As far as your saying that JZ is guilty while Selebi currently only faces ‘allegations’, I can do no more than quote from one of your posts above: “Selebi and JZ are not the same thing. Selebi has allegations against him, in JZ a court found of an improper relation he was involved in. I am not too sure if one can fire a person based on allegations. ” You have done this previously as well when it was pointed out that you were pro-Mbeki and anti-Zuma – and there too you responded that you would defend JZ just as vigorously as you are Mbeki, but still that the criticism against Mbeki isn’t justified – I think there you tried to bring race, religion and so on into the argument, which was rightfully stopped by Prof De Vos on the previous postings. However, saying that one defends someone (JZ) just as vigorously as the other (Mbeki), while in the same breath invoking arguments in JZ’s case to prove that in his case Mbeki was right in suspending hime but in Selebi’s case, he was also right in not suspending him, but rather to suspend the prosecutor – does not seem to match and I sense a forked tongue. All I can do is ask of you to become real, to see what the facts say, and, therefore, to see that the President should admit that he has for undisclosed reasons been partisan towards one person’s case but vehemently opposed to another’s; that such actions were not justified; and that he has been very parsimonious with the truth in the case concerning Pikoli and Selebi. I, on the other hand, tend to believe the NPA when it says (whether through Ncguka, Pikoli or Mpshe) that it has a prima facie case (or rather a reasonable suspicion) against both JZ and Selebi, that they have committed crimes (and serious ones at that) and that theyt have enough evidence available to tghem with which, should it be accepted as proven in a court of law, they would be able to prove JZ’s and Selebi’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. I think that the available reports are clear enough to prove that, but not to justify the difference of approach to the two cases as evidenced by Mbeki’s actions.

By: khosi

khosi — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:17:11 +0000

Anon,

At what point did I say that JZ was guilty? And at what point did the president say that?

You see, you are now dragging me into arguing against JZ. I will not do that, I will defend him as much as I defend TM. I am still going to make sense of this report though: – http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20080220113209695C907278

What I say to you is that based on the information – in the public domain – that was presented by the prosecutors and the court findings, the president acted correctly.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:06:25 +0000

Khosi
I am not so sure that our argument – whether in the one case there are (were) only allegations of a person’s guilt (Selebi) whilst in the other there is (were) proof of a person’s guilt (JZ) – is a subjective one. Looked at objectively, the President acted (or over-reacted if you want) in JZ’s case while there were nothing else but evidence on record in another trial (not his) or on the police’s (or Scorpions’) docket that there is a reasonable suspicion that JZ is guilty of certain crimes – while, in Selebi’s case, there also existed evidence on a police (Scorpion) docket to to raise such a reasonable suspicion, the NPA went as far as to obtain a warrant for his arrest, and then the President reacted by suspending the NPA boss (in effect at least stalling Selebi’s prosecution) and, only after the new NPA boss and a few other experts confirmed the reasonable suspicion, and a High Court rejected Selebi’s argument, did he allow the NPA to continue with its job. Nothing subjective of drawing an inference that, in the case of JZ, Mbeki was partisan to the NPA’s cause by suspending JZ, whilst, in the case of Selebi, he was clearly partisan to Selebi’s cause, in the process almost de-railing the prosecution (but at least stalling it) and, when eventually he acted, he did nothing but allow Selebi to take long (paid) leave and to say that, now that it has been proven that there is a case for Selebi to answer, the law must take its course. And, in the process, he fired the NPA boss, who is not even being charged with suspected commission of a crime. Where is the balance (or consistency) one should be able to expect from the head of state?

By: khosi

khosi — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:40:02 +0000

Alleman,

Its all these selfless actions that make me and many leap to his defence the way I do. Because for each of his weaknesses he never puts himself first(bit of a paradox).

Anon

I think we both know that our argument is a subjective one.