Talk:Battle of Cassinga

From a broadcast letter I received from an American woman visiting Odibo in northern Namibia. I am relaying this to temper the South African point of view in the article about the Battle of Cassinga in Angola in 1978 on May 4th and give a feeling for what it was like to be under attack. I was in Odibo myself until April 5, 2006. Namibia now marks Cassinga Day to remember its dead in the raid. Sandra Eadie

To this day no source have produced proof of Cassinga being anything else than a military base, there for only one reason, to launch attacks in SWA. There are loads of documented facts and photographs from the old SADF's side, and only counter claims. Note claims. Even photograps of so-called mass graves after the battle, only show people in military atire. From the SWAPO side it was, is and will always remain one huge lie, for propaganda purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.19.250.119 (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

May 4, 2006 Newsletter #4 St. Mary’s Mission,Odibo, Namibia

Good morning dear friends and family, It is a glorious day here in northern Namibia. The rains have stopped; the ponds are filled with water; and the grain crops are ripening. I am in my favorite place, perched up on my kitchen counter, sitting in the sun streaming in through the window. Weather not withstanding, there is a sad overtone here, as the people remember the tragedy of Cassinga. 28 years ago today, many of them were living in camps in exile across the border in Angola, during the struggle for independence. With no warning, there was a raid by the South African troops. Helicopters swooped in from the sky and shot and killed 100’s of Namibians, including many women and children. My friend told me how terrible it was. For one thing, her younger sister was hit in the side with a bullet. Miraculously, it passed straight through and out the other side, missing all her vital organs. There are many people still here today who can tell tales of that horrific event.

.......... As you should know, a bus full of school children was abducted from St Mary's Mission by SWAPO and taken to Cassinga a few weeks before the Battle. These children were needed to dupe the UN mission who visited Cassinga a few days before the battle, that Cassinga housed refugees. This was necessary so as to get food and medicines free from the UN to help SWAPO and Plan care for their wounded and exhausted soldiers returning from SWA after operations. WE found the bus and many of the kids at Cassinga and it broke our hearts that we could not take then back home as we did not have enough space in the choppers. Guymullins (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but what aspects of the article do you specifically object to? What you wrote above does not help the article itself. Elf-friend 08:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, the fact that Namibia celebrates Cassinga day should be included in the article (probably the article should be balanced with the Namibian/Angolan view anyway). And if any great percentage of civilians were killed, that should also be mentioned, citing recognised sources.

But I still cannot see what the above (somewhat emotional) entry adds to the article, or the discussion ... examples ... "With no warning, there was a raid by the South African troops" - well, yes, surprise is an essential part of military operations, that is nothing unusual there, the military of all countries do it ... "Helicopters swooped in from the sky and shot and killed" ... South Africa had no specialised attack helicopters at that time, and it is debatable how effective they would have been in that situation anyway - this was an infantry action.

Regards, Elf-friend 14:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Good points. The emotional response by the anonymous contributor above is interesting, but it doesn't seem to contribute much of use to the article. It also has some interesting inconsistencies, such as claiming that the attack was begun by attack helicopters, yet the attack was begun by an extended bombing run as the article shows. Furthermore, the armed helicopters that did take part were fitted with 20mm cannons, which would most certainly not have passed through somebody without fatal consequences. Still, it's possible that those inconsistencies are due more to confusion than anything else.

No armed helicopters took part in The Battle for Cassinga, all the space in the helicopters was needed to extract the troops. Only Super Frelons and Pumas were used and Pumas only ever carried twin .50 Brownings not 20mm Cannons, which were carried by Alloette gun ships.<Eagle Strike> Guymullins (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This contentious debate is not helped by the fact that there almost certainly were women and children in the base at the time. It is a sad feature of most guerilla armies that all sectors of the population, including women and children, are often pressed into service as soldiers. Witness any demobilisation of a guerilla/rebel army in Africa, and the number of women and children coming forth to hand in their weapons is astonishing. Indeed, it's worth remembering that when United Nations peacekeeping forces opened fire on a rebel base in the DRC late last year, women and children were amongst the dead. There was a brief outcry, until it was pointed out that the women and children had been armed.

The issue with Cassinga, it seems, is that there's no agreement on what exactly the camp's status was. The SADF, and every single paratrooper in action that day, are and were adamant that it was a military base in its entirety, and during the raid took many photos and documents proving at the very least the base's military nature. The ICRC states on the other hand that the base was a combination of a military and refugee base, which in my mind would appear to be a violation of the Geneva Conventions at the very least, in placing military targets in amongst a civilian population. SWAPO, finally, claims that the camp was nothing but a refugee camp, but this statement is contradicted not only by the ICRC, but by the evidence collected by the SADF during the raid.

I've read widely about the battle, including SWAPO's claims, and the only conclusion I have been able to reach is that it is the SADF's version of events that seems to correspond most closely to reality, and to make the most sense. SWAPO accounts are filled with inaccuracies and impossibilities, making nearly all of them sound like statements cooked up by propaganda officers after the fact who weren't even present at the battle. Still, if the above contributor can provide some recognised and credible sources proving my assertion incorrect, I would be willing to see it. — Impi 13:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

SURVIVOR

This should be dedicated to those who survived in Cassinga. Your contribution might be of graete value to this site as there is only one side Story, perhaps I would like to have an go ahead or any authorization to add my story. I am a cassinga survivor at the age of 15 years in 1978, please for me to continue add most need valuable contribution I need a feed back, one can contact me at: mwanyekange@webmail.co.na —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.88.21.195 (talk • contribs) I am alarmed at

Move

I think we should move this article to "Cassinga massacre", as only the SADF calls it a "battle", while tons of media call it a "massacre". At the very least a neutral name should be used, such as "Cassinga event". Thoughts?--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Militarily it was a raid, being a surprise attack of very limited duration on a military target, followed by a complete withdrawal. But a raid is a type of battle, being a military action that includes other types - deliberate attacks, sieges and the like. So it is a battle. (I don't come from SA by the way, I'm a military analyst from the UK, though I admit that this war is not one of my specialisations.) The term massacre is, in this context, politically correct nonesense, promoted by people who wish to portray the event as an attack on a camp of unarmed civilians. Of course some innocent and unarmed civilians were killed; but thousands of innocent Frenchmen died in Normandy when the Allies launched D-Day in 1944, and we don't call that a massacre. Regrettably, these things happen in war.

Cassinga was obviously an armed camp or base - the clues lie in the presence of heavy machine-guns, AA guns, bunkers and trenches. The fact that it looks like a one-sided massacre from the casualty statistics is because the SA army was very effective (in terms of casualties inflicted per attacker), and the defenders were very ineffective (in terms of casualties inflicted per defender). Note also that many of the casualties were caused by aircraft bombing the guerrillas' morning parade - this is not a daily activity that one would associate with a refugee camp.

Just imagine what the discussion would have been if the defence of Cassinga had been successful, and the SA forces had been humiliated: not a massacre, but a heroic defence by the people against the forces of evil! It only needs be called a massacre to attempt to turn a military defeat into an event that can be used to gain sympathy for people who were caught up in a proxy war between the Soviet bloc, and a country that historically had strong links with the West.

Just because 'tons of media' call it a massacre doesn't mean that they are correct in doing so. It just means that they have failed to question the very effective spin put on the outcome of the raid by the Soviet-backed media at the time, and the anti-apartheid camp in the western world. I must admit that 'event' is a much more neutral term; my objection to this is that it is not normally applied to military operations. Note also that the term 'battle' doesn't necessarily mean that one supports the motives of the initiators - I for one don't support the motives of the staff who initiated the Battle of the Atlantic by sinking Allied merchant shipping in WW2.

A way in which this article could be made fairer, more neutral, is - if the statistics exist - by estimating how many of the dead and injured people in the camp were armed, and how many were not. --Wally Tharg (talk) 11:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphans to Cuba

The paragraph I added mentioning Cuba's care of children that were wounded and orphaned in this battle is completely relevant, and should remain. It is a relevant for 2 reasons - (1) it discredited South Africa's claims that Cassinga was only a military compound and that civilians were not involved (2) it demonstated one of the many humanitarian acts that Cuba undertook at a time when the US was painting Cuba as a brutal regime.

The information is supported by 2 sources, and another editor supports me in including it in the article. Please do not remove or alter it without discussing here first. Logicman1966 (talk) 12:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the only two sources for this claim are an obviously-partisan opinion piece and Fidel Castro's autobiography; there is no independent, neutral and reliable source for it. Indeed, the opinion piece itself does not quote any such sources, so it's entirely possible that Gleijeses himself used Castro's autobiography as his source for the claim. On balance, adding this to the article violates WP:RS.

Second, it does not prove at all that civilians were killed en masse at Cassinga. The claim is made that hundreds of children, some wounded at Cassinga and some being orphans from the battle, were sent to Cuba. Even if the claim were true, we have no way of knowing what percentage of that total was made up of the wounded, and how many were simply made orphans because their fathers and mothers were SWAPO soldiers who were killed legitimately at the battle. All wars create orphans, even those fought exclusively between soldiers, and so it's entirely possible that this was true for the majority of the kids and that only a tiny few were caught in the cross-fire during the battle itself. The claim is just too vague, too open to interpretation and too weakly-evidenced to make it possible to say that it proves (1). Indeed, the wording used and general non-committal vagueness is reminiscent of most state propaganda, which seeks to create impressions and perceptions without providing much in the way of evidence.

Which brings me to point (2): Our goal as editors should not be to add information to articles just because it makes certain countries look good or demonstrates their humanitarian bona fides. Doing so would violate WP:NPOV and a host of other guidelines. The question that should be asked is whether the paragraph added enhances the understanding around Cassinga or goes some way towards resolving the basic disconnect between the two versions of the story, but as I have demonstrated it does neither. Further, this sort of thing is not uncommon: the SA Defence Force evacuated hundreds of FNLA men and their families from Angola, giving them housing, free access to healthcare and education in Namibia, while the US did something similar in Vietnam by granting citizenship to hundreds of orphans and Montagnard fighters and their families. Yet nobody will claim that these individual acts of generosity are especially significant or that they obviate whatever brutal actions those governments may have done.

In sum, I see no reason for the paragraph to be included in the article. It is not backed by reliable sources, as Wikipedia policy requires, it does not actually prove anything about the events of the day and the sole remaining motive for its inclusion seems only to be a desire to make Cuba look good. I will wait one day for a reply and then remove it once more. — Impi (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Impi, why exactly do you object to the addition of this material? Is it that you - (a) don’t believe it happened (b) don’t regard the sources as reliable (c) don’t think it is relevant (d) something else?

That it happened is beyond dispute. If you don’t like the 2 sources provided so far, then try these 2 - http://amadlandawonye.wikispaces.com/The+Massacre+of+Cassinga,+Piero+Gleijeses , http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5391/is_/ai_n25418641. The first source is essentially the same piece as that currently in the article, but includes references. And by the way, your comments about Piero Gleijeses are way out of line; he is professor of American foreign policy at the School of Advanced International Studies at the Johns Hopkins University. The second source is an interview with Sam Nujoma, Namibia's founding president. If you don’t accept these as reliable sources, then what the heck will you accept? More could be found, but quite frankly it shouldn’t be necessary.

I maintain that the fate of hundreds of wounded and orphaned children from this battle is a very relevant part of the article; note that I added it to the section “Aftermath”. Yes I know that every war creates orphans, but that does not mean that their existence should be ignored. Regarding your argument about whether the children’s parents were soldiers or civilians, that’s immaterial: I am only talking about the children, who clearly were innocents. That Cuba took the children is noteworthy, because they were virtually the only county to provide that kind of humanitarian assistance on this occasion. Logicman1966 (talk) 11:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you even read what I wrote in response to you the first time around? I do not believe the paragraph you added proves what you claim it does, I do not believe any of the sources you have provided qualify as sufficiently neutral or reliable in this context and I most certainly do not think it is relevant to this article.

That it happened is not beyond dispute. At best, the most that can be reasonably claimed as being true is that a number of youths were sent to Cuba where they were educated as a measure of goodwill from the Cuban government to SWAPO and the MPLA and that some of them may have been wounded at Cassinga or orphaned by the events there. That's all, and even that's a stretch. Put simply, there is no single reliable and neutral source on this that proves anything of consequence. We do not know how many of those children were present at the battle, how many of their parents were uniformed SWAPO fighters (and thus killed legitimately) or even how old most of them were. You will also notice that neither of your sources claim that they were orphans or that they were even all from Cassinga; Nujoma's account for one makes it clear that the sending of youths to Cuba was part of a larger and unrelated program to the events at Cassinga. What exactly does it prove? Even young ANC cadres were sent to the USSR for education and training.

Of course, even your amended sources are in violation of Wikipedia's rules around reliable sources. The writings of Sam Nujoma are just as suspect and unreliable as those of Fidel Castro are in this context, and as a similar claim from PW Botha would be. They have a vested interest in promoting a certain point of view and as such their statements on issues like this are guaranteed to be swayed by that. Even if we accept that the sources are valid for the claim that a number of youths were sent to Cuba, we cannot accept them as being valid for the specific claim that hundreds of children were wounded at Cassinga. I hope you can understand the distinction here.

I find it amusing that you regard my comments on Gleijeses as being "out of line", because they are anything but. I am well acquainted with Gleijeses's writings and his personal stance on many of these issues and I have no hesitation in referring to his opinion piece as being partisan. What's more, his academic status is irrelevant as the claim was made in an opinion piece and not a peer-reviewed academic journal, so it would be silly to afford it the same respect and consideration. We treat the opinionated writings of academics as being separate to and subject to different rules from their academic output. This is, for example, the reason why an academic article by Noam Chomsky could easily be used as a source for a Wikipedia article, while editors would need to be exceedingly cautious about doing the same for one of his opinion editorials. The distinction is there for a reason, which is that an academic's personal writings are subject to far looser rules than their professional work. Indeed, even in the referenced version of Gleijeses's opinion editorial there is no referenced citation for the claim you've added here and so it still remains unsourced.

So without a third-party neutral source to prove the claim that there were hundreds of children wounded at Cassinga, the paragraph you added is not only irrelevant but profoundly misleading. It seeks to establish a perception that is not backed by evidence and as such alters the article's interpretation of the day's events. For that reason I am removing it once more and I recommend you don't re-add unless you can find neutral third-party sources which support the interpretation that your wording of the paragraph implies. — Impi (talk) 13:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Is the UNHCR a reliable source? According to this document, Cuba provided assistance as described in the article to Namibian children during the struggle. To quote it precisely (you can find it as number 51 in the document),

51. Cuba had traditionally offered assistance to refugees. A case worthy of note was that of the numerous Namibian children and adolescents who had come to Cuba, alone or accompanied, during the Namibian struggle for independence, and had studied in Cuban schools. Following independence, they had gone home to Namibia, but many had later returned to Cuba to undertake higher studies. Over the years many young people had come to Cuba from African and Latin American countries to continue their studies while they waited for conditions to normalize at home. Cuba continued to welcome refugees and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees had a representative office in Havana.

While it does not directly say they came to Namibia as a result of the Cassinga attacks, when combined with the other sources which state it directly, the idea should be included.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it should not. The existence of a program that took Namibian youths to Cuba has not been disputed by any of us; we know it existed and that between 500 - 2000 young men and women went to Cuba as part of it. The UNHCR source may be reliable, but it's being used to prove an undisputed point.

But the reliable sources we have do not support the conclusion, which Logicman1966's paragraph made, that hundreds of children were wounded at Cassinga or that all the children on the program came from Cassinga. So it can't be added to the article.

And as we have no reliable source to link the program directly to Cassinga (though even that would be of questionable utility) in such a way as to validate the paragraph's claims, the program itself is also irrelevant in the context of this article. It might be worth adding it to the article on Cuba or to the Angolan Civil War article, but it doesn't belong here. — Impi (talk) 08:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

http://www.namweb.net/content/remembering-cassinga-massacre

Namibian casualties

It is interesting that the number of casualties still showed the round number of "600 SWAPO" while all the studies with any degrees of impartiality agrees with the fact that a large number of civilian were killed.

The "Cassinga Raid" for example details, quite well this aspect and, I believe, it is quite important to try to be objective while we write about these sensitive matters. Chief of SADF was informed that (see "Cassinga Raid", page 161): "There were many women and children at Alpha and a reasonable number were killed."

While it is clear that a number of women were in uniforms, it is quite clear that a significant number were not combatant. Also, a large number of civilians were killed during the initial raid phase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.124.29 (talk) 10:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus to move the article to Cassinga massacre. Parsecboy (talk) 13:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this article should be moved to the title Cassinga massacre. If we discount how it is called in official Cuban, Namibian and South African media due to possible partisanship, international scholarship generally considers the event to be a massacre. According to Google Books, Namibia By Bryan O'Linn, The Devils are Among Us by Denis Herbstein, John A. Evenson, Rethinking Resistance By J. Abbink, Mirjam de Bruijn, Klaas van Walraven all describe it as a massacre, not a battle.--TM 14:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support; Google Books suggests that "Battle of Cassinga" is confined to the "Webster's" series of reference books, presumably following some single source. Let's call it what histories of Namibia call it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose; The term 'Cassinga massacre' implies a version of events that is heavily disputed and at odds with serious scholarship on this event. Google Books references only a tiny subsection of the available literature on this event, and none of the books listed above could be considered neutral, non-partisan or serious academic treatments of what happened that day. In fact, the definitive official Namibian analysis of the attack, published by the National Archives of Namibia and written by Annemarie Heywood, shies away from the term 'massacre' and is instead named The Cassinga Event. So to move the article to the suggested title would be a severe violation of Wikipedia's NPOV principle.
  The term 'Battle at Cassinga', while admittedly imperfect, is at the very least more accurate than 'Cassinga massacre' would be, as the camp had a definite military aspect as reported by South Africa's Truth & Reconciliation Commission in its final report. In this, while finding fault with the SADF's official version of events, the TRC reported that the camp contained at least 300 male and female PLAN soldiers, had a network of trenches and anti-aircraft defences and was home to several senior officers from SWAPO's armed wing. It also reviewed the SADF's intelligence, communications and operational orders relating to the attack and concluded that the SADF was convinced before mounting the attack that Cassinga was primarily a strategic military target, being SWAPO's main operational base and planning headquarters, and that they did not believe it was a refugee camp. Further, the operational orders issued to commanders before the mission emphasised caution with regards to civilians, stating: "Where possible, women and children are not to be shot." However, it accused the SADF of having insufficient regard for civilians present at the base, which was described as 'both a military base and a refugee camp', and of using indiscriminate weapons. (TRC Report, Volume 2, p 48). Thus the term 'battle' is appropriate, since there was without doubt a military engagement between SADF and PLAN soldiers (and a Cuban armoured column) and the SADF's operational planning was based on a conviction that Cassinga was a strategic military base and therefore a legitimate military target. Importantly, it does not imply that there was no indiscriminate killing of civilians or that Cassinga may have been a refugee base in addition to its military dimension in the same way that referring to the 'Battle of Stalingrad' as a battle does not in any way diminish the fact that over 40 000 civilians were killed during it.
  If the current page title is objectionable enough to require a move, it would be far more neutral and accurate to move it instead to a title such as 'Cassinga raid' or 'Raid on Cassinga' than to the non-neutral, disputed and inflammatory term 'Cassinga massacre'. We should not seek to replace one perceived POV title with another one. — Impi (talk) 10:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The presence of military forces among the dead does not mean it isn't a massacre; consider the massacre of Elphinstone's Army, the first part of the First Afghan war. It's a general perception of atrocity and cruelty that makes the massacre; if this exists, and the language is customary, we shoudl use it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - That's not a fair comparison. Elphinstone's Army, as mentioned below, was a vastly depleted, largely unarmed force encumbered with civilians, wrought with disease and retreating under perceived conditions of safe passage. They were in no shape to provide much of a fight back. — Impi (talk) 09:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - agree with above comment that "massacre" is not neutral. That said, I don't think that "Battle of Cassinga" is either, i.e. due to historial Cold War allegances, the published versions tend to be polarised one way or the other. How about the more neutral "Cassinga Event" or "Cassinga Raid"? Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • • Concern massacre: Significant precedent exists for the term "massacre", including Category:Massacres in South Africa and more generally Category:Massacres. Some people considered what happened in Sharpeville in 1960 to be justified and certainly the apartheid authorities justified it; however, this does not mean it wasn't a massacre. We shouldn't use apartheid-era justifications for not accurately titling the article.--TM 16:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment It's not a fair comparison: The victims at Sharpeville were all unarmed civilians (no parade grounds, trenches or military personnel shooting back with machine guns and mortars). Neutrality is important. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment - For the record, although I defended the term 'Battle of Cassinga' in my original response, I did so mostly to show that it was more suited than 'Cassinga massacre' would be. However, I have no great attachment to it and I see no problem with us moving the article to the more neutral 'Cassinga raid' or similar. — Impi (talk) 09:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Firstly, it is —rightly or wrongly— widely known by the current name (acknowledged by the original proponent of the move). It should therefore be the article title according to official policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use the most easily recognized name. Even if this policy is ignored, the incident does not satisfy the very basic definition of a massacre —to kill in considerable numbers where much resistance can not be made— and to compare it to other cases were where the dead were ill or unarmed combatants (Elphinstone's Army) or unarmed civilians (Sharpeville) is inaccurate. — Deon Steyn (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose. For all the reasons given so far. In addition I would like to point out that the word "massacre" implies a deliberately premeditated criminal act. The TRC's comprehensive investigation into all the SADF documentation related to the event as will as witness accounts show no evidence at all of intentional murder by the SADF. Decades of "spin" by SWAPO and their 5th columnists simply do not match up with the objective facts. Roger (talk) 09:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Picture of troops emplaning helicopters not from Cassinga

All the Cassinga choppers had large letters taped to their sides to identify them to the troops so that each troop could catch the chopper allocated to him. These choppers on the photo shown have no such ID marks.It also looks like the troops emplaning are wearing floppy hats. We wore steel helmets only at Cassinga Guymullins (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I was thinking about this very point recently - specifically that a photographer could hang back taking photos when the departure is described in various texts as "hot". Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

There were two waves of Choppers and I took pictures of the first wave departing and this shows both steel helmets and marked choppers Guymullins (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The photograph is definitely inaccurate. I can't recall where I obtained it, but the original intention was for it to be illustrative rather than seen as an accurate picture from the battlefield. As far as I'm aware, there were no photographs taken of the actual departure. Looking on this with older (and one hopes, wiser) eyes, I don't think the picture should be included at all and the image itself should probably be deleted. It adds no value to the article and it would be far better to replace it with a simple map rather than continuing to present a misleading picture. I'll wait a few days and remove it if I don't get any objections. Impi (talk) 14:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I would be glad to supply a genuine pic when this one is withdrawn, although I am unsure as to how it is done. Guymullins (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC) I see the chopper pic has been binned. How do I post its replacement?Guymullins (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Paratrooper account of Battle link bogus

The link was written by Cobus Venter who purports to have been a Paratrooper at Cassinga. He was not. Guymullins (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC

Wrong flag in Infobox

Why is the post-independence Namibian nationmal flag being used instead of SWAPO's own flag? The Namibian flag did not even exist at the time. The Swapo flag is here: [1] I don't know how to create a small icon sized flag from it. Roger (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)