Well he was friends with these men.
And jailed for forming a group bent on overthrowing the government.
http://www.payvand.com/news/13/dec/1048.html
And not taken off the U.S. terrorist watch list until 2008.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/1...n_4394392.html
Well dispite all this feeling of remorse for the man I consider him a worthless piece of sh#t.
this cuntbag is getting to me.
Well if that c#untbag is me great.Originally Posted by superallah
But that's Castro in the first picture. He's the man who said and I imagine you're too young to remember.
''Sure my Amigo Russkie pals. Let's put bombas atomica rockets in Cuba. We can send those Yankees to H#ll.''
yes, you are the cuntbag.
Yes and alive today thanks to JFK.
''Bomb Cuba and start the beginning of the end General LeMay. No thanks but I'll need your resignation sir.''
Last edited by son of lockman; 12-09-2013 at 10:49 AM.
No superallah you don't know what terror is.
Digging a bomb shelter in your backyard. With really no hope of survival knowing Chicago's within range and surely on the hit list.
Walking a 100 miles in 100 degree weather and your only hope is living on what you've been taught and trained to do.
Or being 10,000 miles from home and holding a friend in your arms. Entrenched in his blood with him calling for his mother or praying to God. The hopelessness of watching him die.
Perhaps terror to you is getting no reception on your IPad I would guess.
Does this sound like an act that the Father of Africa and great peacemaker would have been involved in? Of course it doesnt because the media likes to cover up the negative things a "great" person does:
Necklacing is the practice of summary execution and torture carried out by forcing a rubber tire, filled with petrol, around a victim's chest and arms, and setting it on fire. The victim may take up to 20 minutes to die, suffering severe burns in the process.
In South Africa
The practice became a common method of lynching among black South Africans during disturbances in South Africa in the 1980s and '90s. The first recorded instance took place in Uitenhage on 23 March 1985 when black African National Congress (ANC) supporters killed a black councillor who was accused of being a white collaborator.
Necklacing "sentences" were sometimes handed down against alleged criminals by "people's courts" established in black townships as a means of enforcing their own judicial system. Necklacing was also used by the black community to punish members of the black community who were perceived as collaborators with the apartheid government. These included black policemen, town councilors and others, as well as their relatives and associates. The practice was often carried out in the name of the ANC, although the ANC executive body condemned it. In 1986 Winnie Mandela, then-wife of the imprisoned Nelson Mandela, made a statement that was widely seen as an implicit endorsement of necklacing, which at the time caused the ANC to distance itself from her, although she later took on a number of official positions within the ANC.The number of deaths per month in South Africa related to political unrest as a whole from 1992 through 1995 ranged from 54 to 605 and averaged 244. These figures are inclusive of massacres as well as deaths not attributed to necklacing.
ok.
I'm sorry, where does it say anything about Nelson Mandela having anything to do with this? It says his wife made a "statement", while he was in jail...lol. And where is the link to this credible news source?Does this sound like an act that the Father of Africa and great peacemaker would have been involved in? Of course it doesnt because the media likes to cover up the negative things a "great" person does:
Necklacing is the practice of summary execution and torture carried out by forcing a rubber tire, filled with petrol, around a victim's chest and arms, and setting it on fire. The victim may take up to 20 minutes to die, suffering severe burns in the process.
In South Africa
The practice became a common method of lynching among black South Africans during disturbances in South Africa in the 1980s and '90s. The first recorded instance took place in Uitenhage on 23 March 1985 when black African National Congress (ANC) supporters killed a black councillor who was accused of being a white collaborator.
Necklacing "sentences" were sometimes handed down against alleged criminals by "people's courts" established in black townships as a means of enforcing their own judicial system. Necklacing was also used by the black community to punish members of the black community who were perceived as collaborators with the apartheid government. These included black policemen, town councilors and others, as well as their relatives and associates. The practice was often carried out in the name of the ANC, although the ANC executive body condemned it. In 1986 Winnie Mandela, then-wife of the imprisoned Nelson Mandela, made a statement that was widely seen as an implicit endorsement of necklacing, which at the time caused the ANC to distance itself from her, although she later took on a number of official positions within the ANC.The number of deaths per month in South Africa related to political unrest as a whole from 1992 through 1995 ranged from 54 to 605 and averaged 244. These figures are inclusive of massacres as well as deaths not attributed to necklacing.
"During the Rivonia trial, it had emerged that he advocated cutting off the noses of blacks viewed as traitors or white collaborators"I'm sorry, where does it say anything about Nelson Mandela having anything to do with this? It says his wife made a "statement", while he was in jail...lol. And where is the link to this credible news source?Does this sound like an act that the Father of Africa and great peacemaker would have been involved in? Of course it doesnt because the media likes to cover up the negative things a "great" person does:
Necklacing is the practice of summary execution and torture carried out by forcing a rubber tire, filled with petrol, around a victim's chest and arms, and setting it on fire. The victim may take up to 20 minutes to die, suffering severe burns in the process.
In South Africa
The practice became a common method of lynching among black South Africans during disturbances in South Africa in the 1980s and '90s. The first recorded instance took place in Uitenhage on 23 March 1985 when black African National Congress (ANC) supporters killed a black councillor who was accused of being a white collaborator.
Necklacing "sentences" were sometimes handed down against alleged criminals by "people's courts" established in black townships as a means of enforcing their own judicial system. Necklacing was also used by the black community to punish members of the black community who were perceived as collaborators with the apartheid government. These included black policemen, town councilors and others, as well as their relatives and associates. The practice was often carried out in the name of the ANC, although the ANC executive body condemned it. In 1986 Winnie Mandela, then-wife of the imprisoned Nelson Mandela, made a statement that was widely seen as an implicit endorsement of necklacing, which at the time caused the ANC to distance itself from her, although she later took on a number of official positions within the ANC.The number of deaths per month in South Africa related to political unrest as a whole from 1992 through 1995 ranged from 54 to 605 and averaged 244. These figures are inclusive of massacres as well as deaths not attributed to necklacing.
"Though Mandela cannot be held directly responsible for some of the ANC’s more egregious crimes—notably, the torture and execution of dissendent members in training camps in Angola during the 1980s—he was certainly aware of (and responsible for promulgating) the organization’s attitudes."
http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2011/05/nelson-mandela-flawed-saint/
I would personally prefer that my black saints follow MLKJ as opposed to Mandela:
“At the end of the day… violence was the only weapon that would destroy apartheid.” ~ Nelson Mandela, 1959
“As you press on for justice, be sure to move with dignity and discipline, using only the weapon of love. Let no man pull you so low as to hate him. Always avoid violence. If you succumb to the temptation of using violence in your struggle, unborn generations will be the recipients of a long and desolate night of bitterness, and your chief legacy to the future will be an endless reign of meaningless chaos.” ~ Martin Luther King, Jr., 1956
So has it really taken this many posts to say 'it all depends on how you look at it'?
When we decided in the last quarter of the 1700's to tell the King to go fuck himself, we in today's language, would have been called 'terrorists'. Anyone throwing the Kings tea into Boston Harbor would have been called a terrorist. Instead of necklacing, we tarred and feathered politicians, pretty sure that would get you thrown into Guantanamo these days. Same goes for the Civil War, which I think this mans plight may have more resembled, except he didn't have a sitting President on his side.
The Victor always writes the history. If his bid would have failed, or if the Dutch would have just killed him in prison, this guy would just be another 'terrorist'.
Surely you can see the difference between unnecessary abhorrent inhumane cruelty vs trying to overthrow the government? If you want to kill someone just put a gun to their head. Is it really necessary to cut off someones nose or to burn them to death? And he was essentially ok with this treatment against people who simply supported apartheid. Whatever side you were on, you shouldnt have to worry about being burned alive! This wasnt done as a public spectacle to the upper echelon of the regime, this was done to thousands of regular supports.
I just re-thought my entire stance though. I think i could stand by and watch Barry being necklaced.
Nelson Mandela and the Language of Terrorism
Nelson Mandela is being remembered across the world (and political spectrum) for his heroic, life-long battle against apartheid and injustice in South Africa. But with all the accolades being thrown around, it’s easy to forget that the U.S., in particular, hasn’t always had such a friendly relationship with Mandela -- and that in fact, as late as 2008, the Nobel Prize winner and former president was still on the U.S. terrorism watch list.
The sticking point was, in Mandela’s case, ideological. In the mid-'80s, as activists in South Africa and around the world began to agitate in earnest for Mandela’s release, the Reagan administration still saw communism as one of its primary enemies -- and defeating communism as one of its foremost foreign policy goals. That complicated the administration’s take on South Africa.
The apartheid regime, it turns out, had supported the U.S. during the Cold War and had worked closely with both the Reagan and Nixon administrations to limit Soviet influence in the region, as Sam Kleiner chronicled in Foreign Policy last July.
Meanwhile, the African National Congress, which Mandela chaired, was peppered with members of the South African Communist Party. Even worse in the eyes of the Reagan Administration was the ANC’s apparent friendliness toward Moscow: The ANC’s secretary general, Alfred Nzo, bore greetings to the Soviet communist party congress in 1986. That was enough to inspire Reagan to accuse the ANC of encouraging communism in a 1986 policy speech, and to rule that South Africa had no obligation to negotiate with a group bent on “creating a communist state.”
The Reagan administration wasn’t alone in this fear, either -- Margaret Thatcher’s conservative regime in Britain shared Reagan’s “constructive engagement,” anti-sanctions views regarding South Africa. (It probably helped that the U.K., like the U.S., was a major South African trade partner.) Years later, former Canadian prime minister Brian Mulroney would write a memoir that detailed his attempts to persuade Thatcher and Reagan to take action in South Africa. All attempts, sometimes famously, failed:
When we spoke on the telephone the night before I left for London, however, it became clear that Ronald Reagan saw the whole South African issue strictly in East-West Cold War terms. Over the years, he and Margaret continually raised with me their fears that Nelson Mandela and other anti-apartheid leaders were communists. My answer was always the same. 'How can you or anyone else know that?' I'd ask again and again. 'He's been in prison for 20 years and nobody knows that, for the simple reason no one has talked to him -- including you.'
Tragically for South Africa, the cloud of communism prevented the U.S. from acting for several years. While the Reagan administration’s official goal was to end apartheid, and while it consistently called for South Africa to free Mandela, the U.S. dragged its feet on the crucial issue of economic sanctions. When a United Nations resolution came up that criticized apartheid, both the U.S. and Britain pushed through amendments to weaken it.
The Reagan administration also followed South Africa’s lead on characterizing the ANC, naming it a terrorist group in the 1970s and forcing Mandela to get special State Department clearance to enter the U.S. in 2008. (“It's frankly a rather embarrassing matter,” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said at the time.)
Eventually, of course, the U.S. did pass economic sanctions, which are widely credited for helping topple -- at least in part -- the apartheid regime. Mandela went on to praise Reagan (as well as President Bush and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev) for his role in ending apartheid.
But it was Mandela’s outspoken wife, Winnie, who probably best expressed the frayed relationship between the two world leaders -- and, for a time in the ‘80s, between the anti-apartheid movement and the United States. In 1986, after Winnie’s home was firebombed and burned down, the Reagan administration offered her $10,000 to rebuild it. She refused.
"This why our people are angry at the Reagan and Thatcher administrations in particular,” Winnie Mandela said. “[They] continue to condone the activities of the South African government. If they had any feeling for the downtrodden and oppressed majority of our country they would end their policy of gentle persuasion. It appears their interests in this country far outweighs their so-called abhorrence of apartheid."
The Church, now the Catholic Church, burned the fuck out of heretics. Hell, we still burn people alive every time we cluster bomb a group of arabs.. err.. heretics. Shit don't change, just the delivery system. Napalm sticks to kids, son.Surely you can see the difference between unnecessary abhorrent inhumane cruelty vs trying to overthrow the government? If you want to kill someone just put a gun to their head. Is it really necessary to cut off someones nose or to burn them to death? And he was essentially ok with this treatment against people who simply supported apartheid. Whatever side you were on, you shouldnt have to worry about being burned alive! This wasnt done as a public spectacle to the upper echelon of the regime, this was done to thousands of regular supports.
I just re-thought my entire stance though. I think i could stand by and watch Barry being necklaced.
Arabs are people? You've never dealt with them then.
Ghandi got the British out of India without resorting to terrorism
here is a nice photo-op with another buddy, lol short little arab mofo's
One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.
I don't really care about Mandella one way or the other but he is no more of a terrorist than Ronald Regan or Maggie Thatcher, whatever way you choose to look at it.
Arabs are people? You've never dealt with them then.
Almost fell for your shtick again until this. Well played again Sunni.
Last edited by Brittney Griner's Clit; 12-09-2013 at 04:07 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote