Mandela was just a man, and that made what he did extraordinary - Page 5




 
--
Boots
 
December 13th, 2013  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by George
Just commenting on the fact that "Libs" have designated Mandela to the lofty position of St. Nelson, or close to it & we who disagree with that are called "extremeists" in this Thread.
You were actually wrongly commenting that the "Libs" (whoever they are) have done anything in this matter. It has been world opinion that has elevated Mandela to his present status, unless of course you are saying that the majority of the world's population are all "Liberals"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by George
Is it really being an "extremeist" to say that he doesn't compare to Ghandi, MKL, & Mother Theresa???
You really need to read and quote what people actually write, and leave the political BS and deliberate misquotations out of it. What was actually said was: He as also a terrorist, he planted bombs that killed innocent women and children for which he should have hanged.

Quote:
Originally Posted by George
Is "roughing up' prisoners in Afghanistan/Iraq really the same as putting a tire filled with flaming gasoline around the neck of someone who disagrees with you as was suggested(not to mention distractions & finger pointing).
No it's not, but again you are so quick to display your dazzling ignorance and even more disgusting arrogance, as the totally innocent person in question was not just "roughed up",.... he was slowly beaten to death over a period of four days, whilst suspended overhead by chains (This is a warcrime in itself, worthy of the very worst of Gestapo or NKVD prisons).
Not that I condone it, but in the end, the person who was Necklaced died a far quicker and probably less painful death than he who was slowly beaten to death for hours at a time over four days.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
George, read this carefully before you dig your own grave here. I've been around far too,long to let an amateur political sh!t stirrer like yourself get away with misquoting what I and others have said.
I think you will find that you'd be very wise to get out of this debate, while the getting is good or your cause is not going to end very well at all. You have neither the facts nor the political guile to make a valid point. Your main shortfall being FACTS.
December 13th, 2013  
George
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
You were actually wrongly commenting that the "Libs" have done anything in this matter. It has been world opinion that has elevated Mandela to his present status, unless of course you are saying that the majority of the world's population are all "Liberals"?

You really need to read and quote what people actually write, and leave the political BS and deliberate misquotations out of it. What was actually said was: He as also a terrorist, he planted bombs that killed innocent women and children for which he should have hanged.



No it's not, but again you display your dazzling ignorance and even more disgusting arrogance, as the totally innocent person in question was not just "roughed up",.... in fact, he was slowly beaten to death over a period of four days, whilst suspended overhead by chains (This is a warcrime in itself, worthy of the very worst of Gestapo or NKVD prisons).
Not that I condone it, but in the end, the person who was Necklaced died a far quicker and probably less painful death than he who was slowly beaten to death for hours at a time over four days.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
George, read this carefully before you dig your own grave here. I've been around far too,long to let an amateur political sh!t stirrer like yourself get away with misquoting what I and others have said.
I think you will find that you'd be very wise to get out of this debate, while the getting is good or your cause is not going to end very well at all. You have neither the facts nor the political guile to make a valid point. Your main shortfall being FACTS.
"World Opinion" is guided by the Liberal Press. As I said earlier if they repeat the same comments long enough opinion is formed. Here in the US he is refered to as a "Political Prisoner" , i.e. one who is in jail for his beliefs, not as a convicted Terrorist. If your press is covering the terrorist aspects of his incarceration they doing better than here. Once again, here he's being compared to Ghandi, Mother Theresa & MLK. They acknowledge, as did I, that he could have started a race war or massacre of whites and didn't. The Press here though puts in perspective of him not seeking revenge for being put in jail for his political beliefs, the "Political Prisoner" angle, instead of the true reason for conviction. Seems that you had said something about distractions & then threw in Iraq/Afghanistan wich is a distraction from S.A. Topic. And I've spent a long time on Political Forums with Libs arguing the same stuff in pretty much the same way as on here. Are you a professional political Shiitsterrer? If not then don't worry about my status.
December 13th, 2013  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by George
"World Opinion" is guided by the Liberal Press. As I said earlier if they repeat the same comments long enough opinion is formed. Here in the US he is refered to as a "Political Prisoner" , i.e. one who is in jail for his beliefs, not as a convicted Terrorist. If your press is covering the terrorist aspects of his incarceration they doing better than here. Once again, here he's being compared to Ghandi, Mother Theresa & MLK. They acknowledge, as did I, that he could have started a race war or massacre of whites and didn't. The Press here though puts in perspective of him not seeking revenge for being put in jail for his political beliefs, the "Political Prisoner" angle, instead of the true reason for conviction. Seems that you had said something about distractions & then threw in Iraq/Afghanistan wich is a distraction from S.A. Topic. And I've spent a long time on Political Forums with Libs arguing the same stuff in pretty much the same way as on here. Are you a professional political Shiitsterrer? If not then don't worry about my status.
Ahhh,... the mythical and much vaunted "Liberal Press". Obviously it's time to break this down into pieces that you can understand.

Name me one,.... just one, Major International Press agency you would call "Liberal" as these are the purveyors of world's news.

There were no "distractions" the quotes I made were direct and pertinent comparisons for your statement about Necklacing. If you want to start on distractions this is a good point, as I seriously doubt that Mandela ever actually necklaced anyone. (Remembering who we are supposedly talking about)
--
Boots
December 13th, 2013  
BritinAfrica
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
You are either deliberately refusing to understand what I've posted, or you are illiterate. More likely playing stupid games.
I'm not refusing to understand anything, Mandela was a terrorist who Amnesty International would not touch with a 10 foot barge pole because he refused to end the violence. How on earth am I playing games by pointing out the terrorist acts he committed against innocent civilians? You are the one who is refusing to understand not I.

Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
It's odd that the rest of the world seems to understand perfectly, but for reasons only known to yourself, you can't, end of story, they are all wrong and you have it all worked out, quoting Blogs and extremist pseudo religious Internet posts as your "evidence".
Whatever I posted you will refuse to accept as whatever I post won't jell with your blinkered opinion. What exactly does the world understand, do they accept that blowing people to pieces is perfectly OK or have they simply ignored his terrorist actions like you have? Until 2008 Mandela was on a terrorist watch list in the USA.


Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
So, the violence never ended? He was never President and the fighting is still going on?
What?

Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
The fact is, that he never ended the violence until the Apartheid government were willing to do the same,... and you feel that, that is a crime?
Yes it is a crime when he and his cohorts targets innocent people including women and children.
December 13th, 2013  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BritinAfrica
I'm not refusing to understand anything, Mandela was a terrorist who Amnesty International would not touch with a 10 foot barge pole because he refused to end the violence. How on earth am I playing games by pointing out the terrorist acts he committed against innocent civilians? You are the one who is refusing to understand not I.
It's quite simple. You point out Mandela's alleged crimes for which you eagerly state that he should have been hung, but pointedly refuse to acknowledge the far worse crimes of the regime he was up against committed over a much longer period. Crimes acknowledged by the UN and almost every aid agency in the civilised world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BritinAfrica
Whatever I posted you will refuse to accept as whatever I post won't jell with your blinkered opinion. What exactly does the world understand, do they accept that blowing people to pieces is perfectly OK or have they simply ignored his terrorist actions like you have? Until 2008 Mandela was on a terrorist watch list in the USA.
I will accept whatever you say, when you can say something based on even handed facts.

It doesn't have to Jell with just my opinion,.... it has to jell with World opinion. There is an enormous difference,... But then again there are people who feel that world opinion is of no consequence, like the Israelis and we know how they are loved and cherished around the world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BritinAfrica
What?
You stated categorically that he "refused to end the violence". Something that is clearly a lie because the violence did end. It ties in with the following statement. "The truth is, "that he never ended the violence until the Apartheid government were willing to do the same",... and you feel that, that is a crime?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by BritinAfrica
Yes it is a crime when he and his cohorts targets innocent people including women and children.
So, you are saying that it's OK for the Apartheid regime to deliberately kill and maim innocent people, but not those resisting them? The ANC were merely fighting fire with fire and that the Apartheid regime were committing far worse crimes and had been for many years, treating the natives like animals, subjecting them to Police murder squads, Laws no White man had to obey, Laws enforced by daily harassment, beatings and murder.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  • 2 December 1950 — The General Assembly declared that "a policy of 'racial segregation' (apartheid) is necessarily based on doctrines of racial discrimination". (Resolution 395(V))
  • 1 April 1960 — The Security Council, in its first action on South Africa, adopted Resolution 134 deploring the policies and actions of the South African government in the wake of the killing of 69 peaceful African protesters in Sharpeville by the police on 21 March. The Council called upon the government to abandon its policies of apartheid and racial discrimination.
  • 2 April 1963 — First meeting of the Special Committee on the Policies of Apartheid of the Government of the Republic of South Africa, It was later renamed the "Special Committee against Apartheid".
  • 7 August 1963 — The Security Council adopted Resolution 181 calling upon all States to cease the sale and shipment of arms, ammunition and military vehicles to South Africa. The arms embargo was made mandatory on 4 November 1977.
  • 13 November 1963 — The General Assembly, in Resolution 1899 (XVIII) on the question of Namibia, urged all States to refrain from supplying petroleum to South Africa. It was the first of many efforts by the UN to enact effective oil sanctions against apartheid.
  • 23 August-4 September 1966 — International Seminar on Apartheid, Brasilia, organised by the UN Division of Human Rights, the Special Committee against Apartheid and the government of Brazil - the first of scores of conferences and seminars on apartheid organised or co-sponsored by the United Nations.
  • 2 December 1968 — The General Assembly requested all States and organisations "to suspend cultural, educational, sporting and other exchanges with the racist regime and with organisations or institutions in South Africa which practice apartheid.
  • 30 November 1973 — International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid approved by the General Assembly (Resolution 3068(XXVIII)). The convention came into force on 18 July 1976.
  • 1 January 1976 — The UN Centre Against Apartheid was established.
  • 16 June 1976 — The Soweto uprising: People in Soweto riot and demonstrate against discrimination and instruction in Afrikaans, the language of whites descended from the Dutch. The police react with gunfire. 575 people are killed and thousands are injured and arrested. Steven Biko is beaten and left in jail to die from his injuries.
  • 17 August 1984 — In Resolution 554 the Security Council declared null and void the new racist constitution of South Africa.
  • 16-20 June 1986 — World Conference on Sanctions against Racist South Africa, organised by the United Nations in cooperation with the OAU and the Movement of Non-aligned Countries
  • 14 December 1989 — The General Assembly adopted by consensus the "Declaration on Apartheid and its Destructive Consequences in Southern Africa," calling for negotiations to end apartheid and establish a non-racial democracy (Resolution A/RES/S-16/1).
  • 22 June 1990 — Nelson Mandela addressed the Special Committee against Apartheid in New York -- his first appearance before the Organisation.
  • 30 July 1992 — With political violence escalating and negotiations at risk, Nelson Mandela requested the United Nations to send observers to South Africa. On the following day the Secretary-General announced that he would send a small group of UN monitors. The United Nations Observer Mission in South Africa was established by the Security Council on 17 August 1992.
  • 8 October 1993 — The General Assembly requested States to restore economic relations with South Africa immediately, and terminate the oil embargo when the Transitional Executive Council in South Africa became operational (Resolution 48/1).
  • 10 May 1994 — South Africa’s first democratically elected non-racial government took office following the general elections of 26-29 April.
  • 23 June 1994 — The General Assembly approved the credentials of the South African delegation and removed the item of apartheid from its agenda. The Security Council removed the question of South Africa from its agenda on 27 June.
  • 3 October 1994 — The first democratically elected president of South Africa, Nelson Mandela, addresses the General Assembly.
December 14th, 2013  
BritinAfrica
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
It's quite simple. You point out Mandela's alleged crimes for which you eagerly state that he should have been hung, but pointedly refuse to acknowledge the far worse crimes of the regime he was up against committed over a much longer period. Crimes acknowledged by the UN and almost every aid agency in the civilised world.
Those crimes are not alleged, Mandela admitted to them in court

Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
I will accept whatever you say, when you can say something based on even handed facts.
I don't care if you accept what I say or not, the facts of his crimes are in the public domain as well as Mandela's trial transcripts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
It doesn't have to Jell with just my opinion,.... it has to jell with World opinion. There is an enormous difference,... But then again there are people who feel that world opinion is of no consequence, like the Israelis and we know how they are loved and cherished around the world.
Again I don't care what world opinion is, they are overlooking of deliberately ignoring the crimes he committed against innocent civilians, that doesn't say much for world opinion. As for Israel, you know full well what my opinion is, I even agree with you 100% regarding their crimes against the Palestinians. Israel IS a rouge state.

Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
You stated categorically that he "refused to end the violence". Something that is clearly a lie because the violence did end. It ties in with the following statement. "The truth is, "that he never ended the violence until the Apartheid government were willing to do the same",... and you feel that, that is a crime?"
Once again its public record that he refused to end violence to obtain an early release from jail. I wasn't privy to discussions between Mandela and the apartheid government and neither were you, so neither of us know for sure what was discussed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
So, you are saying that it's OK for the Apartheid regime to deliberately kill and maim innocent people, but not those resisting them? The ANC were merely fighting fire with fire and that the Apartheid regime were committing far worse crimes and had been for many years, treating the natives like animals, subjecting them to Police murder squads, Laws no White man had to obey, Laws enforced by daily harassment, beatings and murder.
You are misquoting me yet again, I keep saying over and over which you chose to ignore that I did not and still do not agree with the apartheid regime.

I received this in my email this morning.

History in Perspective

Since this tired old canard keeps cropping up to hit white South Africans over the nose like a rolled up newspaper, I thought it perhaps time to separate fact from fiction once and for all. Let those who object say so now or forever hold their peace. While we're at it, let's put apartheid as a system into perspective.

Do we know how many blacks were killed under apartheid?

We do, and the source ...is none other than the Human Right Commission submitted as evidence to the TRC in 1997.

The statistics they proffered relate to the number of blacks killed between the years 1948 up to the election in 1994. The total number of blacks killed were 21,000.
But wait, it gets more interesting. It's not the full story.

The HRC report also makes a distinction between two periods. One from 1948 till 1989 and the next from 1990 to the election in 1994. The number killed for the period from 1948 until 1989 is 7,000.

That means the number killed from 1990 to 1994 which is AFTER the unbanning of the ANC and for all intents and purposes apartheid had ended is a whopping 14,000, involving mostly black on black violence between the ANC and the IFP and various other factions! Not whitey's fault.

Of the 14 000 killed during those 4 years, 92% of deaths were caused by blacks killing blacks. Only 5.6% were attributed to the Security Forces at the time and usually in retaliation to attacks initiated by the ANC/UDF that had been unbanned. Remember Ciskei ? The difference in % is due to unknown causes.

What this means is that during the apartheid reign of 41 years, 7 000 blacks died compared to double the amount of dead in just 4 years! Let me break it down yet further, 170 blacks were killed as a result of apartheid ANNUALLY. That's 170 people per year! That's the HRC’s figures! Sounds like an insignificant number now doesn't it?

More blacks then were killed under De Klerk's 'new' anti-apartheid government of 4 years than in 41 years of government under full blown apartheid!

Let me summarise, this needs to sink in:
1948 - 1989: 7 000
1990 - 1994: 14 000 (of which 92% as a result of 'black-on-black' violence)

Really, is this the death toll of the "heinous" apartheid system the world grew to hate? Just 7000 deaths?

And was it the worst thing to happen in the 20th century? Um, let's look at the Left's favourite socialist/ communist/ Marxist/ dictators leaders to name but a few:

• Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39) : 23 million (the purges plus Ukraine 's famine)
• Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) : 78 million
• Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79): 1,7 million
• Menghistu ( Ethiopia, 1975-78): 1,5 million

The list of far worse political systems is quite extensive and apartheid wouldn't even feature. But such was the venom against it that the result is a country destroyed.

Apartheid was far from the monster it continues to be portrayed. I agree though that it was unjustifiable and unsustainable and just plain wrong and given a do-over, whites would rather leave blacks to find their way than provide jobs and healthcare and other services which caused their population to balloon from 500,000 when Van Riebeeck landed to the almost 40 million in 1994.


(Facts are really just inconvenient little things that keep getting in the way!)
December 14th, 2013  
senojekips
 
 
You talk absolute crap and the proof is in your own words
"Again I don't care what world opinion is"
That statement alone reduces any credibility you may have had, to zero. You'd make a great mate for Benny Netandhairdo.

Nobody is comparing the numbers of deaths as it is completely baseless, the fact is, that Mandela was the leader of the ANC and according to you, committed the gross crime of refusing to be blackmailed into giving up his rightful cause,... which in fact counts in his favour rather than against him, as you would portray. It shows that he had more backbone than his oppressors.

No one is talking about deaths in other countries, this thread relates to Mandela, who believe it or not, had nothing to do with it.

The other thing I saw (I only skimmed through your post as it is 99% bullsh!t) was this statement that is nothing short of laughable. "Apartheid was far from the monster it continues to be portrayed". I suppose it was so good, you fought to have yourself recognised as Non White? Once again obviously the UN and virtually every Civil Rights and Humanitarian Aid agency in the world must have got it wrong and only you are privileged to see the "truth".

Just Google "Apartheid" and let me know the percentage of credible answers you can find in it's favour. Oh, that's right,... you don't care about world opinion,.. Well you may as well start caring, as whether you like it or not, you are going to have to live with it, that's how this world works.

You remind me of the proud parents at the Army march past, "Look Harold, out of 100,000 men, our little Johnny is the only one in step"
December 15th, 2013  
BritinAfrica
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
You talk absolute crap and the proof is in your own words
"Again I don't care what world opinion is"
That statement alone reduces any credibility you may have had, to zero. You'd make a great mate for Benny Netandhairdo."
Who? Never heard of him. According to your own figures 1/10 of the world didn't/don't think Mandela was the great man that 9/10 think he is, so that's .7131 billion and me that don't think he was such the saint that 9/10's of the world thinks he was. Neither do I give a sh!te if you think I don't have any credibility, in my eyes and others, Mandela was and always will be a terrorist just like Gerry Adams and his crew, or do you think they were wonderful freedom fighters like Mandela who's terror campaign was justifiable?

Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
Nobody is comparing the numbers of deaths as it is completely baseless, the fact is, that Mandela was the leader of the ANC and according to you, committed the gross crime of refusing to be blackmailed into giving up his rightful cause,... which in fact counts in his favour rather than against him, as you would portray. It shows that he had more backbone than his oppressors."
He was asked to stop the violence to earn his freedom, he didn't. That's why Amnesty International wouldn't touch him with 10 foot a barge pole. As I said no one least of you or I were privy to the discussions between him and government so neither of us know what sort of agreement was being discussed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
The other thing I saw (I only skimmed through your post as it is 99% bullsh!t) was this statement that is nothing short of laughable. "Apartheid was far from the monster it continues to be portrayed". I suppose it was so good, you fought to have yourself recognised as Non White? Once again obviously the UN and virtually every Civil Rights and Humanitarian Aid agency in the world must have got it wrong and only you are privileged to see the "truth". "
LOL I thought that would rattle your cage.

Why on earth would I fight to have myself recognised as non white? Amnesty International didn't agree with you or the civil rights and Humanitarian Agencies. The only reason the UN got pissed off with South Africa is because the South African numbnuts brought the word "Apartheid" into the general council. Other countries effectively practice Apartheid, yet because they haven't put it into law the UN (and you) don't jump up and down about it.

Nope not only me, remember those .7 billion people around the world?

Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
Just Google "Apartheid" and let me know the percentage of credible answers you can find in it's favour. Oh, that's right,... you don't care about world opinion,.. Well you may as well start caring, as whether you like it or not, you are going to have to live with it, that's how this world works."
No I don't care about world opinion, I get along quite nicely not caring about it. And as I keep telling you which you refuse to acknowledge, I did not agree with Apartheid or are you too thick to realise that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
You remind me of the proud parents at the Army march past, "Look Harold, out of 100,000 men, our little Johnny is the only one in step"
Now you are being silly, I don't have a son named Johnny.

Quite frankly I don't care what your opinion is regarding Mandela, for all I care you can erect a life size statue of him in your front yard.

You and I agree on many things, the subject of Mandela will never be one of them.
December 15th, 2013  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BritinAfrica
Who? Never heard of him. According to your own figures 1/10 of the world didn't/don't think Mandela was the great man that 9/10 think he is, so that's .7131 billion and me that don't think he was such the saint that 9/10's of the world thinks he was. Neither do I give a sh!te if you think I don't have any credibility, in my eyes and others, Mandela was and always will be a terrorist just like Gerry Adams and his crew, or do you think they were wonderful freedom fighters like Mandela who's terror campaign was justifiable?
I bet everyone else knows exactly who I was referring to and so do you. The fact that the greatest part of that 713 million you refer to, are totally unaware of any world happenings due to such things as illiteracy, or remote location makes your reasoning somewhat pointless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BritinAfrica
He was asked to stop the violence to earn his freedom,
I answered that last time, They attempted to blackmail him into giving up his cause and he rightfully stood his ground, which makes him a hero in anyone's eyes, (including Amnesty International, who gave him an award for his conscience on the matter)

Quote:
Originally Posted by BritinAfrica
LOL I thought that would rattle your cage.
You would have done far better actually quoting some verifiable facts instead of talking trash.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BritinAfrica
Amnesty International didn't agree with you or the civil rights and Humanitarian Agencies.
Yeah, Right,... So here's a direct quote from Amnesty International's own website: http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/nelson-mandela-1918-2013-06-27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amnesty International



Amnesty International paid tribute today to one of the world’s most visionary leaders in the fight to protect and promote human rights, Nelson Mandela.
The death of Nelson Mandela is not just a loss for South Africa. It is a loss for people all over the world who are fighting for freedom, for justice and for an end to discrimination.
“As a world leader who refused to accept injustice, Nelson Mandela’s courage helped change our entire world,” said Salil Shetty, Secretary General of Amnesty International. “His death leaves a massive hole, not just in South Africa but around the world.”
You know it takes only a mouse click to uncover these obvious lies you are telling. What really makes me scratch my head is, that with all of the evidence freely available you still not only hold the views you do, but attempt to justify them to others. It's VD and Israel all over again.

Not only the majority of International Aid agencies (including Amnesty International) opposed the Apartheid regime, but most of the International community.

Quote:
While some countries (Israel: my inclusion), and organisations, like the Swiss-South African Association, supported the Apartheid government, most of the international community isolated South Africa. One of the primary means for the international community to show its aversion to apartheid was to boycott South Africa in a variety of spheres of multinational life. Economic and military sanctions were among these, but cultural and sporting boycotts also found their way in. South Africa, in this way, was cut off from the rest of the globe.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign...ring_apartheid
Quote:
Originally Posted by BritinAfrica
Nope not only me, remember those .7 billion people around the world?
The majority of whom are completely unaware of any world events. So,... Yes, only you and a handful of racist inspired extremists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BritinAfrica
No I don't care about world opinion,
And that is why your own opinion will never mean anything,... not here or anywhere else outside your closed mind.
December 16th, 2013  
BritinAfrica
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
I answered that last time, They attempted to blackmail him into giving up his cause and he rightfully stood his ground, which makes him a hero in anyone's eyes, (including Amnesty International, who gave him an award for his conscience on the matter)
How was being offered his freedom if he would renounce violence and move back to his homeland in the Transkie blackmail?.

Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
You would have done far better actually quoting some verifiable facts instead of talking trash.
How am I talking trash, its public record that Mandela was personally responsible for the murder and maiming of hundreds of innocent people including women and children. He even admitted his crimes in court which is also public record. Anyone who states that such acts are justifiable loses all credibility in the minds of decent people. Not once have I stated that I supported Apartheid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
Yeah, Right,... So here's a direct quote from Amnesty International's own website: http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/nelson-mandela-1918-2013-06-27
So what? At the time of his incarceration Amnesty International would NOT touch him with a ten foot barge pole because he refused point blank to renounce violence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
You know it takes only a mouse click to uncover these obvious lies you are telling. What really makes me scratch my head is, that with all of the evidence freely available you still not only hold the views you do, but attempt to justify them to others. It's VD and Israel all over again.
Yes and its only a mouse click to prove that Mandela was a terrorist who planted explosive devices, that public record. So how am I telling lies, Mandela planted explosive devices with the intent to kill and maim as many innocent people as possible. That's fact not bullsh!te there are records of it in the public domain. If you think that's justifiable then I pity you. If he had targeted government ministers I wouldn't care, but he didn't, like the cowards bombers are, they chose soft targets. Yes it is like VD and Israel all over again, except this time you are taking the part of VD, you keep prattling on and on about how good a chap he was, when he was a self confessed terrorist.

[quote=senojekips;666221]Not only the majority of International Aid agencies (including Amnesty International) opposed the Apartheid regime, but most of the International community.

I am not saying that Amnesty International didn't oppose Apartheid, I even opposed Apartheid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
The majority of whom are completely unaware of any world events. So,... Yes, only you and a handful of racist inspired extremists.
So being anti terrorist and pointing out the fact that Mandela was a terrorist is racist and extremist? I'm surprised that you aren't a fan of Osama Bin Laden and Gerry Adams. Or are you? By the way, who are those who are completely unaware of world events?

Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
And that is why your own opinion will never mean anything,... not here or anywhere else outside your closed mind.
How is it my opinion that Mandela was a terrorist? That's not my opinion, that fact.