RIP Nelson Mandela

[Turkish]

The nearest tube to Speakers Corner is Marble Arch. It is on the Central Line. Why don't you pop along there and give the world your views ??? I am sure that if you go there for long enough you willl find a few people who will believe in what you say.

 

You will probably find that most people will laugh at you .... but then you will be used to that from your posts here on the Saints Web.

 

Now what were you saying about intelligent replies?

 

 

why won't you talk about why Mandela refused to renounce ANC violence in 1985 in exchange for release from Prison? Why won't you task about the video of him singing about killing whites? why won't you talk about the Mandela football team and their tortures? You only want to talk about what suits you and scream racism at anyone that mentions it.

[aintforever]

Yet again twice gets mentioned. Seems its impossible to say he's done anything wrong without being called a racist

 

Its hard for me to comprehend and call me a liberal, but I don't agree with killing and torturing innocent people and being branded a hero for it, that why.

 

What he did post 1994 should be lauded, I'm not disputing that. I'm also say why won't anyone talk about what he did before that and if you do you're called all sorts of names and accused of being racist.

 

That's because I think you are racist. Like I said, if Mandela was a white English man who fought for our freedom you wouldn't see him as a terrorist. He would be a hero, like Churchill.

[Bearsy]

What is necklacing?

[Turkish]

That's because I think you are racist. Like I said, if Mandela was a white English man who fought for our freedom you wouldn't see him as a terrorist. He would be a hero, like Churchill.

 

 

 

Yeah I've got David Copelands poster on my wall. You thick c*nt.

[Tamesaint]

Now what were you saying about intelligent replies?

 

 

why won't you talk about why Mandela refused to renounce ANC violence in 1985 in exchange for release from Prison? Why won't you task about the video of him singing about killing whites? why won't you talk about the Mandela football team and their tortures? You only want to talk about what suits you and scream racism at anyone that mentions it.

 

There used to be an old boy at Speakers Corner who reckoned that he was the Sun God and that he controlled the sun. You should find him, stand next to him and explain to the world why we should ignore apartheid when judging Mandela. He wouldn't look quite so odd then.

[Turkish]

There used to be an old boy at Speakers Corner who reckoned that he was the Sun God and that he controlled the sun. You should find him, stand next to him and explain to the world why we should ignore apartheid when judging Mandela. He wouldn't look quite so odd then.

 

Why won't you talk about any of the things I've mentioned? you've been on holiday in South Africa, you would know all about them.

 

Edited 8 December, 2013 by Turkish

[aintforever]

Yeah I've got David Copelands poster on my wall. You thick c*nt.

 

You're a different type of racist to him, you are just too stupid to understand your own prejudices.

 

"He's a black bloke who killed whites - why are people calling him a great man, I don't understand!"

[Turkish]

You're a different type of racist to him, you are just too stupid to understand your own prejudices.

 

"He's a black bloke who killed whites - why are people calling him a great man, I don't understand!"

 

You're too thick to get it aren't you pal as you've proven time and time again. He was a great man for what he achieved after 1994, I've never said he wasn't. But I'm not quite sure why anyone who mentions what he did pre this is called a racist. Seems to me the thick tw*ts like yourself who won't even enter the conversation are the ones with the issue. They went it air brushing from history, or the few that do mention it all claim killing and torture of innocent people is fully justified if you're got a political point to make, which is even more worrying.

[Tamesaint]

Why won't you talk about any of the things I've mentioned? you've been on holiday in South Africa, you would know all about them.

 

 

You keep using that analogy of the head in the sand. I think you are losing on here. You need to find another forum for your views. Go on , go up to Speakers corner and try to convince people there. You might find people who will listen to you without laughing ..... there won't be many but there may be some. Go on.go up there.

[Turkish]

You keep using that analogy of the head in the sand. I think you are losing on here. You need to find another forum for your views. Go on , go up to Speakers corner and try to convince people there. You might find people who will listen to you without laughing ..... there won't be many but there may be some. Go on.go up there.

 

Why won't you talk about any of the points I've raised?

 

The bombings. By his people

The tortures by his people

The refusal to renounce ANC violence in 1985

Th video of hi singing about killing whites?

[Batman]

really odd how a few are desperate not to acknowledge what he did in his earlier life.

 

as said, i highly doubt the great man himself thought like that.

[aintforever]

You're too thick to get it aren't you pal as you've proven time and time again. He was a great man for what he achieved after 1994, I've never said he wasn't. But I'm not quite sure why anyone who mentions what he did pre this is called a racist. Seems to me the thick tw*ts like yourself who won't even enter the conversation are the ones with the issue. They went it air brushing from history, or the few that do mention it all claim killing and torture of innocent people is fully justified if you're got a political point to make, which is even more worrying.

 

I see I have touched a nerve with my explanation of your racism. Truth hurts maybe?

[Turkish]

I see I have touched a nerve with my explanation of your racism. Truth hurts maybe?

 

Not at all pal. Just continue to claim killing innocent people is fine, like you did earlier.

[Saint in Paradise]

Wasn't he a member of this lot for a very long time ?

 

There may be a chance to fix things, but the ANC regime has no interest in doing so. They prefer to follow Mugabe's lead and screw the country into the ****ter to appease their followers with freebies in order to hang on to power.

 

 

Quote:

http://www.politicsweb.co.za/mailstr...id=3757&mid=35 67&l=3&a=

Richard Wilkinson

21 October 2013

 

Richard Wilkinson replies to Michael Fargher's advocacy of equality of outcomes

 

My good friend Michael Fargher has written an article on South African inequality, its causes and the steps that should be taken to alleviate it ("White-washed equality" Politicsweb October 5 2013). I disagree very strongly with almost everything he says. This is quite something because five years ago I could easily have written exactly the same article. Yet experience has caused me to question past assumptions to the point where today I take a view that is practically diametrically opposed to Mike's.

 

First, let's start with the points where I think Mike and I are in agreement. I agree that South Africa is deeply unequal and that economic inequality is a serious threat to the country's future - a threat that could become lethal when coupled with a prolonged period of economic stagnation. Secondly, let me be clear that I support ‘transformation:' a hard-to-define concept which at its most basic consists of trying to make South Africa's future better than its past; a future which is wealthier, more peaceful, more socially coherent and - yes - less unequal.

 

The mistaken belief that redistribution necessarily reduces inequality

I think that the core of our disagreement concerns the belief that any and all models of transformation and redistribution will ineluctably lead to reduced inequality. Post-Apartheid South Africa has seen one of the largest peaceful redistributions of wealth in history.

 

A procession of well-intended schemes has been set up: industry-wide affirmative action charters, state-led industrial plans, racialised university admissions processes, quotas on sports teams and, most notably, Black Economic Empowerment (which was hastily renamed Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment following the emergence of egregious cases of corrupt enrichment). Redistribution has been matched by ballooning government handouts: nearly one-third of the population now receives some form of taxpayer-funded welfare. I'm not sure what more could possibly be done.

 

You would think that after all this the country would be more equal. And yet it isn't. According to an OECD study conducted by Leibbrandt et al, South Africa's Gini co-efficient increased from 0.66 in 1993 to 0.70 in 2008. The real kicker lies in the breath-taking increase in inequality within ‘black' South Africa since the early 1990's, a phenomenon which led the authors to urge ‘policy initiatives which address the increase in intra-racial inequality, rather than those focused solely on redistribution between inter-racial population groups.'

 

I can't remember precisely but I think it was Brian Pottinger who summed up this trend in his terrifying but outstanding book ‘The Mbeki Legacy' by pithily rearranging Churchill's famous phrase: ‘never before in the history of human endeavour has so much been redistributed from so many to so few.'

 

Why then has transformation failed so spectacularly? I will argue that it is due largely to the unintended consequences which flow from a model which is practically hardwired to give rise to pernicious outcomes. These deficiencies consist of four beguiling post-Apartheid premises that are so widely held that they may as well be referred to as the ‘Gospel of the New South Africa' in that those who apostatise them are susceptible to charges of heresy. As I explain below, each of these premises is deeply flawed.

 

1) The fallacy that in order to be successful transformation needs to be racialised

 

Firstly, the argument that race serves even as a remotely accurate measure of disadvantage is well and truly dead. South Africa is now a country where black shack dwellers living in execrable poverty tick the same racial box on the census form as Patrice Motsepe and Kenny Kunene. Mike also seems to assume that white South Africa is uniformly well off. Yes, some of the families of Sandhurst and Constantia might have connections which make jobs easier to come by. But not every white person lives in Sandhurst or Constantia. They don't all fly business class.

 

Contrary to popular liberation folklore, whatever wealth the bulk of the white minority does have is largely due to parents waking up early, working really hard to create businesses or earn a living, handing over up to half of their incomes in tax (all in the aim of bettering the broader country) and using whatever's left over to effectively pay twice so that their children can avoid the world's worst public education system. If after all this the white middle class is left with some money I hardly resent them having some fun with it.

 

Ironically, one unintended consequence of racialised transformation has been that retrenched and otherwise discarded white workers have been spurred on to build up an enormous amount of business: former policemen have established highly profitable private security firms, former state teachers, nurses and doctors now devote their energies to private schools and private hospitals, the rise of DSTV now means we don't have to endure the SABC.

[Saint in Paradise]

Continued:-

 

I have difficulty understanding how this success can be used to argue that inherent privilege remains with the white minority. For twenty years a democratically elected government has been in undisturbed possession of the nation's tax revenue, the entire civil service, countless state owned enterprises, the SABC, the police, the military and now large parts of the judiciary. How can anyone sensibly argue that ‘white South Africans' somehow retain magical and exclusive access to privilege? I'm sorry Mike: this argument might have worked in the 1990's but it doesn't work anymore.

 

Secondly, even if race is a valid proxy for disadvantage, the unintended consequences of racialised transformation have been disastrous. Much of what Mike is proposing has been implemented to the fullest degree in the last 20 years: racialised affirmative action and BEE have all been tested to destruction.

 

And the result?

 

The construction of an insider/outsider system of patronage in which the same politically connected elite is licensed to be repeatedly enriched and empowered; the deterioration and in some cases the outright collapse of large parts of the state; the legitimisation of the race card used most egregiously in the corruption and politicisation of the Judicial Services Commission. Our mining industry is in vertiginous decline, our schools are now the very worst in the world - and Mike is calling for more? Just one more heave and this time it will work?

 

Above all, this racialised transformation has led to a sharp increase in inequality - the very measure Mike is so keen to improve. This is the problem not only with Mike's article but with so much commentary, public policy and indeed many constitutional court judgments over the past 20 years: we presume not only that racially infused socialism is progressive but that it is the only legitimate ideology in town. The truth is that whatever progress has been made in the past 20 years has occurred not because of these policies but in spite of them. We do not need to reheat these rotten ideas any further.

 

Perhaps the most frustrating thing is that it doesn't have to be this way. We could construct a system of transformation which is colour-blind and pro-poor. We could give heavily weighted school vouchers to children (of all races) who come from impecunious backgrounds so that they can attend the low-cost private school of their choice. We could favour small firms (of all races) when awarding state contracts. The trouble is that these ideas are dismissed out of hand with the ultimate irony being that their proponents are often labeled as racists.

 

In the final analysis, what should matter is whether or not you are born into poverty. The colour of your skin should be as (ir)relevant as the month in which you have your birthday - after all, you choose neither.

 

2) The fallacy that in order to be successful transformation must be driven and dictated by the state and/or judiciary

 

Mike's second big problem, in my view, is that his dream is idealistic to the point of being quixotic. He insists that we should strive not just for ‘equality of opportunities' but for ‘equality of outcomes.' The trouble is that it is not clear by what mechanisms he recommends that this be achieved.

 

Does Mike propose that the state confiscate and redistribute all land and private property until equality of outcomes is achieved? Does he agree with Pierre de Vos that white people should be forced to pay a ‘race tax' as reparation for their supposedly odious legacy?

 

Even if Mike does not propose economic suicide of this order, one can only assume that in his vision of transformation the state is accorded a central role. The trouble is that this approach has a woeful track record. State-driven service delivery has become bogged down in protests and corruption as an under capacitated bureaucracy (whose incapacity is ironically entrenched by non-merit based appointments) finds itself unable to cope.

Once again, there are alternatives if we're prepared to give them a look-in.

 

I am a libertarian. I am a libertarian because my interpretation of millennia of economic history is that people are best off when their core civil rights are protected and not displaced in favour of the collective good. I sincerely and genuinely believe that classical, radical liberalism is the most progressive, pro-poor approach to public policy. So, what does classical liberalism have to offer poor South Africans deeply scarred by the legacy of centuries of unequal and degrading treatment? The short answer is that pro-business liberalism generates economic growth which in turn generates jobs and tax revenue.

 

This doesn't mean the state should sit back and do nothing. On the contrary - in order to create an economy which works for the majority we need to implement reforms which take power away from the state and organised cartels and transfer it to individuals. We need to reform African customary law so that rural people - especially rural women - own the land on which they live. We need to reform labour law to incentivise the hiring of workers. We need to make tender processes transparent and slanted in favour of small businesses. Finally, we need to make it easier for innovative, quality private schools to offer state-funded opportunities to poor children.

 

But all of this involves confronting entrenched interests: the rural chiefs, the trade unions and the tenderpreneurs who have become too deeply embedded in the scaffolding of transformation to allow any hint of reform.

 

3) The fallacy that token feel-good schemes are substitutes for massive economic growth

 

The simple fact is that if South Africa is to be a viable country it needs a far larger economy. Arguing about how we currently slice the cake is futile: $ 500 billion simply does not go far when shared amongst 50 million people. We need to double our annual GDP to $ 1 trillion, then again to $ 2 trillion and then $ 4 trillion. For this we will need 8% economic growth for the next 30 years.

 

Economic history is clear: this sort of transformation can only be achieved through strongly protected property rights, a business climate that is friendly to investors and entrepreneurs and quality education probably delivered by privately run chains of low-cost schools. The trouble is that this conflicts with all manner of post-Apartheid holy cows which are regularly milked by ‘progressive' commentators - most notably that our increasingly fraying property rights system should be further unstitched.

 

An example of an inadequate ‘token feel-good scheme' which Mike supports is the policy of making university graduates perform a year of community service. Mike correctly acknowledges the price of this policy: a year of community service will divert precious skills away from productive economic activity once again costing the country jobs and tax revenue. But then he just ignores this cost. The truth is that fads and gimmicks - no matter how sincerely expressed - simply cannot serve as a substitute for jobs and increased tax revenue.

 

Moreover, these stop-gap solutions detract from the core issue: ANC governance has inflicted upon South Africa an economic and humanitarian catastrophe of truly monumental proportions. Sliding life expectancy and literacy rates have meant that we have tumbled down the UN Human Development Index from 62nd in the world in 1990 to 121st in 2012. Despite being one of the most naturally rich countries in the world we now find ourselves sandwiched between Kiribati and Vanuatu, trailing well behind the beleaguered peoples of Syria, Palestine and Albania.

 

4) The fallacy that wholesale racialised land reform is anything other than a blueprint for national famine

 

Nowhere is the triumph of ‘transformation ideology' over pragmatism more complete - and nowhere are the consequences for human welfare more horrifying - than in the area of land reform. At precisely the moment when South Africa should be boosting its agricultural capacity by creating massive, job-rich agribusinesses we are doing the exact opposite. Pervasive land claims make using land as collateral for loans impossible, choking off the capital needed for investment. Government policy now glorifies the miserable existence that is small-scale subsistence farming.

 

The narrative explained above is replicated with metronomic and depressing predictability. Instead of empowering the masses, tens of thousands of newly retrenched black farmworkers (many of whom benefitted from modest farm-sponsored housing, health and educational services) face destitution and starvation. Urban food prices will continue to rise as we entrench our position as a net importer of food. Ironically, the white farmers forced off their land will largely be OK. They'll take whatever compensation they get and move off to farm somewhere else in the world or into some other industry. Meanwhile, our once productive countryside will be left fertile but fallow.

 

But hey - at least it will have been successfully ‘transformed!'

 

It's at times like this when I wonder whether the model Mike is punting should be renamed, as I think Pottinger once phrased it, from ‘transformation' to ‘deformation' - because that's exactly what it is.

[Saint in Paradise]

Final Part:-

 

Conclusion

 

Putting aside my disagreements with the erudite and highly personable Michael Fargher, I cannot help but be struck by the galling injustice which often frames this debate.

 

I am terribly sorry, but when a government that I have never voted for squanders hundreds of billions of Rands of taxpayers' money not on schools nor on hospitals nor even on bland civil service jobs but rather on submarines that we don't need and fighter jets that we can't fly; when this same administration pursues the genocidal policy of denying those infected with HIV access to anti-retrovirals whilst recommending that they alleviate their agonising deaths by eating beetroot and garlic; when this monstrous regime applauds Robert Mugabe's desecration of Zimbabwe and then has the audacity - the mind blowing hypocrisy - to blame a highly economically productive, peaceful and largely self-sufficient racial minority for rising economic inequality I find myself possessed by the overwhelming and irrepressible urge to tell that regime and all who defend it to get stuffed.

 

 

Richard Wilkinson is currently reading for a Masters of Law degree at the University of Cambridge.

[Turkish]

really odd how a few are desperate not to acknowledge what he did in his earlier life.

 

as said, i highly doubt the great man himself thought like that.

 

Exactly mate, won't even discuss it and anyone that mentions it is racist apparently.

[Tamesaint]

Why won't you talk about any of the points I've raised?

 

The bombings. By his people

The tortures by his people

The refusal to renounce ANC violence in 1985

Th video of hi singing about killing whites?

 

Quite easily - because by your own admission you ignore apartheid. Cherry picking events that suit your argument and ignoring the wider picture makes your views at best laughable and at worst racist.

[Noodles34]

So because me and some others are not particularly devastated about the death of someone who has killed innocent people, we're racist. I've got it. I see what we're up against now. Lunatic.

 

explain the Doreen Lawrence quote then? I mean, whats she got to do with it? Or whats your agenda in bringing it up?,

[Tamesaint]

really odd how a few are desperate not to acknowledge what he did in his earlier life.

 

as said, i highly doubt the great man himself thought like that.

 

... and right on cue "jamie" comes wading in to support his mate Turkish. Do you guys have some sort of alarm system ...

 

"Help . I am getting a kicking on the Saints Web. Come to my rescue!!"

 

We just need that great brain CB Fry to make an aopearance and then it will be confirmation that Turkish is getting a kicking.

[Turkish]

Quite easily - because by your own admission you ignore apartheid. Cherry picking events that suit your argument and ignoring the wider picture makes your views at best laughable and at worst racist.

 

No, I said two wrong don't make a right and I described apartheid as a crime against humanity. This isn't about apartheid, it's about if Mandela was the man the media are making him out to be or not. You won't even enter into a discussion about it, instead you put on sneering posts about going to speakers corner. Won't even talk discuss it and as you've done again say if you mention it you're racist.

[Turkish]

... and right on cue "jamie" comes wading in to support his mate Turkish. Do you guys have some sort of alarm system ...

 

"Help . I am getting a kicking on the Saints Web. Come to my rescue!!"

 

We just need that great brain CB Fry to make an aopearance and then it will be confirmation that Turkish is getting a kicking.

 

Quite how I'm 'getting a kicking' when you won't even discuss any of the points I've raised and ignore them with sneering comments and scream 'racist' when it's mentioned is anyone's guess, nice try though.

Edited 8 December, 2013 by Turkish

[Batman]

Exactly mate, won't even discuss it and anyone that mentions it is racist apparently.

 

its like those morons who get offended by everything on behalf of everyone else.

Mandela became a great great man. was that BECAUSE of his violent past, or in spite of it?

[Turkish]

its like those morons who get offended by everything on behalf of everyone else.

Mandela became a great great man. was that BECAUSE of his violent past, or in spite of it?

 

Ultimately and if its inspire of or because of, he realised at some point to unite the nation he needed to make his enemy his friend, which is what he did. He realised that violence wasn't the answer. Which makes Aintforvers comments that the murders and tortures were justified absolutely laughable.

Edited 8 December, 2013 by Turkish

[CB Fry]

 

We just need that great brain CB Fry to make an appearance

 

Still waving your Table Mountain fridge magnet around like it's a doctorate in African History, then?

 

Well done. The Judith Chalmers of Political debate is at it again.

[Joensuu]

Good work people. Hopefully one of our resident trolls will get himself banned for his outrageous views. Keep pressing his self destruct buttons. But if I could ask if you could all refrain from quoting him, it would make him far easier to avoid.

[Turkish]

Good work people. Hopefully one of our resident trolls will get himself banned for his outrageous views. Keep pressing his self destruct buttons. But if I could ask if you could all refrain from quoting him, it would make him far easier to avoid.

 

Laughable.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Got to say, he should be more divisive than he actually is.

 

Any death is sad, so RIP. However, the bloke was not all good. Some of his acts as parts of the ANC were deplorable, and are often glossed over in favour of what he did later in life, which was obviously good.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Was Nelson Mandela the God-like saintly figure some now choose to make him out to be? Well I'm pretty sure he would have laughed out loud at any such suggestion. In truth precious few mere mortals ever come even close to that level of perfection. He was just a man afterall ... but it seems to me a pretty exceptional one.

 

How complicit could he possibly have been, from his prison cell most of the time, in ANC terrorist/freedom fighting* (*delete according to your politics) activities during the era of the despicable Apartheid regime? Well the answer to that difficult question doesn't seem entirely clear at this time - sometimes you just have to wait a while for history to judge on that type of matter.

 

What some on here seem unable to grasp is that sometimes circumstances quite beyond the control of any one man force 'good' men into doing 'bad' things in pursuance of a higher goal. For example many terrible things were done in the name of defeating the forces of Fascism during WWII - anyone on here want to claim those manifest war crimes invalidated the moral justice of resisting that wicked philosophy?

 

No, the inherent contradiction implicit in all of this is a (regrettable) aspect of the complexity of life on this very imperfect world of ours. He may not have been another Gandhi, few are, but it seems to me that Nelson Mandela played a significant part in leaving his country a somewhat better place when he died than it was when he was born. A life well spent you might say.

Edited 8 December, 2013 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[shurlock]

So there we have it: for half of his life Mandela hated peace.

 

It is irrelevant to discuss what legal alternatives existed to purse his goals as it is whether he was plunged into trade-offs that were not entirely his choosing. It is also irrelevant to put actions in the context of a struggle against a violent, repressive system that treated millions as a subspecies of humanity.

 

No he hated peace and the rest is irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant.

Edited 8 December, 2013 by shurlock

[Verbal]

Except of course he wasn't in solitary confinement in the 80s, but don't let that stop you making things up you loon.

 

He was for long stretches. Now for the third time, answer my questions if you'd be so kind:

 

where is the "personally signed off" quote from Long Walk to Freedom? This is important because it's supposed to indicate that he was personally directing the bombing campaigns, and it is important because your pro-apartheid friends repeatedly hold it up as evidence of Mandela's culpability.

 

And please explain how Mandela, the most invisible man in South Africa, for long stretches in solitary confinement and for others monitored in minutest detail by prison guards, directed the campaign. Give evidence (not sourced from Stormfront) of how he did this.

 

What's the problem here? Why no answers? Is it that you're a closet racist or that you don't read books?

 

If you can't answer, perhaps one of your mini-mes can jump in, like the chef du submarine or the puerile ursine acolyte?

 

The far right has been desperate to tie Mandela to the bombing campaigns of the 80s and yet has produced not a shed of evidence that any such claim is true. The effect of falsely claiming that he did lead those campaigns, though, is depressingly effective when it's reproduced ad nauseum by the educationally challenged on here.

[Turkish]

He was for long stretches. Now for the third time, answer my questions if you'd be so kind:

 

where is the "personally signed off" quote from Long Walk to Freedom? This is important because it's supposed to indicate that he was personally directing the bombing campaigns, and it is important because your pro-apartheid friends repeatedly hold it up as evidence of Mandela's culpability.

 

And please explain how Mandela, the most invisible man in South Africa, for long stretches in solitary confinement and for others monitored in minutest detail by prison guards, directed the campaign. Give evidence (not sourced from Stormfront) of how he did this.

 

What's the problem here? Why no answers? Is it that you're a closet racist or that you don't read books?

 

If you can't answer, perhaps one of your mini-mes can jump in, like the chef du submarine or the puerile ursine acolyte?

 

The far right has been desperate to tie Mandela to the bombing campaigns of the 80s and yet has produced not a shed of evidence that any such claim is true. The effect of falsely claiming that he did lead those campaigns, though, is depressingly effective when it's reproduced ad nauseum by the educationally challenged on here.

 

So he wasn't all the time then like you made out.

 

Ive asked plenty of questions myself which no one has answered. I've not sneered at their views, called them names and been abusive. Why should I answer questions when no one has answered mine and I've been abused for my opinion.

 

Why did Mandela refuse to renounce violence in 1985 when he was offered this in exchange for release from prison? No one can answer this, the just keep trotting out the racist line, as I see you are again. As I've said, he's a great man and did a lot of good post 1994. But no one seems to want to talk about what happened before then.

Edited 8 December, 2013 by Turkish

[solentstars]

Great response from the crowd for the minutes tribute despite the numpty troll.

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Edited 8 December, 2013 by solentstars

[hypochondriac]

Got to say, he should be more divisive than he actually is.

 

Any death is sad, so RIP. However, the bloke was not all good. Some of his acts as parts of the ANC were deplorable, and are often glossed over in favour of what he did later in life, which was obviously good.

 

This basically.

[shurlock]

This basically.

 

Like the world is so simple that they can be neatly separated.

[Halo Stickman]

Things are not always black and white when it comes to race:

 

“I don’t go as so far as to think that the only good Indians are the dead Indians, but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn’t like to inquire too closely in the case of the tenth.”

 

– Theodore Roosevelt, USA President and Nobel Peace laureate

[aintforever]

Not at all pal. Just continue to claim killing innocent people is fine, like you did earlier.

 

It's never nice or desirable but sometimes violence and killing is necessary, just like it was for Churchill during WW2.

 

The only people to blame for the events in South Africa at that time is the racists in government.

[Batman]

It's never nice or desirable but sometimes violence and killing is necessary, just like it was for Churchill during WW2.

 

The only people to blame for the events in South Africa at that time is the racists in government.

 

and bin laden then.

and those who murdered lee rigby

and the UVF/IRA

and harold shipman?

[aintforever]

and bin laden then.

and those who murdered lee rigby

and the UVF/IRA

and harold shipman?

 

F*ck me, are you 12 years old or something?

 

Do you really need me to explain the difference between those guys and Winston Churchill?

[Batman]

F*ck me, are you 12 years old or something?

 

Do you really need me to explain the difference between those guys and Winston Churchill?

 

the fact you compare terrorist actions to churchill and WW2, suggest you may need some explaining going on

[aintforever]

the fact you compare terrorist actions to churchill and WW2, suggest you may need some explaining going on

 

Both were fighting for a good cause. One the evil of the nazis, one the evil of apartheid.

[Batman]

Both were fighting for a good cause. One the evil of the nazis, one the evil of apartheid.

 

so was bin laden, in the eyes of millions

[aintforever]

so was bin laden, in the eyes of millions

 

I disagree, I think he was murdering out of religious ideology. You are entitled to you opinion though.

[Ohio Saint]

... and right on cue "jamie" comes wading in to support his mate Turkish. Do you guys have some sort of alarm system ...

 

"Help . I am getting a kicking on the Saints Web. Come to my rescue!!"

 

We just need that great brain CB Fry to make an aopearance and then it will be confirmation that Turkish is getting a kicking.

 

I can't stand Turkish, and if he has noticed my posts at all, he will know that. However, he is right about the historical facts, and it is not racist to point to historical facts unless done so with a racist agenda.

 

As does Turkish, I also acknowledge Mandela as a great man, but must take on board what we know as fact about his history. Whitewashing the past is a very dangerous practice.

[Turkish]

It's never nice or desirable but sometimes violence and killing is necessary, just like it was for Churchill during WW2.

 

The only people to blame for the events in South Africa at that time is the racists in government.

 

You do know the ANC killed and tortured Black people as well, don't you numbnuts?

[Batman]

You do know the ANC killed and tortured Black people as well, don't you numbnuts?

 

it was all for a good cause

[aintforever]

it was all for a good cause

 

Absolutely. At least we agree on something at last.

[solentstars]

Those tablets not kicked in yet

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[Turkish]

it was all for a good cause

 

Quite mental logic. I incorrectly assumed he would already know this, then it occurred to me that he was banging on about it being a black man killing white people etc and desperate to use the racist card, he probably, as usual, doesn't have a clue what he is talking about.

[Turkish]

Those tablets not kicked in yet

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

 

10 out of 10

 

Obsessed