a buddy's Facebook post:

Quote:Ok, now I know that I am an antagonistic ass, but really why the hell does anyone care that Mandela is worm food, I mean did you morn Osama Bin laden, because they were both terrorist. Did you decide to just take what the news and government schools spoon fed you as gospel and not look into all of the terrible stuff this murdering terrorist communist did in his life. Is it because he "won" the Nobel Peace Prize, because it really seems like you need to work hard for those, just look at Obama. Yes, the apartheid regime was a crime against humanity, but Mandela was a terrorist that was responsible for bombing pubic places, killing innocent people and he admitted to doing so, and then latter stated that if given the opportunity, he would do it all again. South Africa is a sh!t hole, was before him and has been after, with very few exceptions. Just because the Washington puppet or Hollywood cowards shed a tear, doesn't mean that you need too. Obama stated that "The US has lost a close friend...", funny Mandela was also a very close friends with all of the other world Communist leaders as well, just look up who was the main contributors to his 1990 campaign. My flag will be next to the truck on top of the pole, regardless of Berry's orders, Mandela did accomplish some good for his country, but it doesn't erase the bad and the fact that he was a terrorist, a murderer, and a communist. Stop being sheep, before its to late and you become the food of the wolves that you worship.

“We Communist Party members are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history ... the enemy must be wiped out from the face of the earth before a Communist world can be realized.”—Nelson Mandela

(12-06-2013 12:44 PM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  a buddy's Facebook post:

Quote:Ok, now I know that I am an antagonistic ass, but really why the hell does anyone care that Mandela is worm food, I mean did you morn Osama Bin laden, because they were both terrorist. Did you decide to just take what the news and government schools spoon fed you as gospel and not look into all of the terrible stuff this murdering terrorist communist did in his life. Is it because he "won" the Nobel Peace Prize, because it really seems like you need to work hard for those, just look at Obama. Yes, the apartheid regime was a crime against humanity, but Mandela was a terrorist that was responsible for bombing pubic places, killing innocent people and he admitted to doing so, and then latter stated that if given the opportunity, he would do it all again. South Africa is a sh!t hole, was before him and has been after, with very few exceptions. Just because the Washington puppet or Hollywood cowards shed a tear, doesn't mean that you need too. Obama stated that "The US has lost a close friend...", funny Mandela was also a very close friends with all of the other world Communist leaders as well, just look up who was the main contributors to his 1990 campaign. My flag will be next to the truck on top of the pole, regardless of Berry's orders, Mandela did accomplish some good for his country, but it doesn't erase the bad and the fact that he was a terrorist, a murderer, and a communist. Stop being sheep, before its to late and you become the food of the wolves that you worship.

“We Communist Party members are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history ... the enemy must be wiped out from the face of the earth before a Communist world can be realized.”—Nelson Mandela

"IN PLANNING the direction and form that MK would take, we considered four types of violent activities: sabotage, guerrilla warfare, terrorism, and open revolution. For a small and fledgling army, open revolution was inconceivable. Terrorism inevitably reflected poorly on those who used it, undermining any public support it might otherwise garner. Guerrilla warfare was a possibility, but since the ANC had been reluctant to embrace violence at all, it made sense to start with the form of violence that inflicted the least harm against individuals: sabotage.

Because it did not involve loss of life it offered the best hope for reconciliation among the races afterward. We did not want to start a blood feud between white and black. Animosity between Afrikaner and Englishman was still sharp fifty years after the Anglo-Boer War; what would race relations be like between white and black if we provoked a civil war? Sabotage had the added virtue of requiring the least manpower.

Our strategy was to make selective forays against military installations, power plants, telephone lines, and transportation links; targets that would not only hamper the military effectiveness of the state, but frighten National Party supporters, scare away foreign capital, and weaken the economy. This we hoped would bring the government to the bargaining table. Strict instructions were given to members of MK that we would countenance no loss of life. But if sabotage did not produce the results we wanted, we were prepared to move on to the next stage: guerrilla warfare and terrorism."

Source: Mandela's autobiography, "A Long Walk to Freedom"

Full text: http://archive.org/stream/LongWalkToFree...1_djvu.txt

(12-05-2013 08:10 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  This post is going to be deeply unpopular.

I think Nelson was a very good and very well meaning man. I also think that he was able to have a deep impact on those around him.

I don't think we can just ignore the fact that what he did devastated his nation, crippled the economy, destroyed the healthcare system, has resulted in inflamed racial tensions, saw a mass exodus of people, destabilized the judicial and political systems to the point that the nation is amongst the more corrupt halfway developed nations in the world, and that much of the nation was rendered almost without a government.

I don't think apartheid was right, certainly not, but I think it's wrong of us to pat ourselves on the back and celebrate the man's achievements, notice I didn't say not to celebrate the goodness of the man himself, which have crippled the country and will hinder it for decades, if not more. Change should have been brought about in a very different way.

A lot of folks think, "what a great man and what an achievement" while conveniently forgetting the state of affairs in the country. It's disingenuous and shows that we really don't give a crap about South Africa, or its people.

What HE did?

So Apartheid had nothing to do with it?

(12-05-2013 06:37 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Nelson Mandela accomplished a lot for his country and those accomplishments and his life should be celebrated RIP Nelson Mandela.


BUT!!!!!


Liberal Idiots show their ignorance, Brian Williams showing his ignorance called him Jesus Christ "We lost the Hope and Light of the World today" Christians refer to Christ as Light of the World so I take deep offense at Brian Williams statement.

10 post before attacking liberals, not bad.

(12-06-2013 11:29 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I have family in Equatorial Guinea and Gabone. EG is a dive but Gabon is much nicer than South Africa.

You're teaching me something new. I liked my time in Cape Town (not the whole country, I know). Is your family in Libreville? Gabon speaks french right?

(12-06-2013 09:16 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  Why am I seeing this in the news and Google and everywhere else? Why didn't obama give a half a sh*t enough to speak about the victims of all of these U/S natural disasters? He was on his toes freaking beating off to get on TV the instant he heard Mandela died...

Mourn the man if you must, but try to focus on your second choice of people over here in the nation you're supposed to be leading.

Wow 35 posts before trashing Obama.

(12-06-2013 12:49 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  "IN PLANNING the direction and form that MK would take, we considered four types of violent activities: sabotage, guerrilla warfare, terrorism, and open revolution. For a small and fledgling army, open revolution was inconceivable. Terrorism inevitably reflected poorly on those who used it, undermining any public support it might otherwise garner. Guerrilla warfare was a possibility, but since the ANC had been reluctant to embrace violence at all, it made sense to start with the form of violence that inflicted the least harm against individuals: sabotage.

Because it did not involve loss of life it offered the best hope for reconciliation among the races afterward. We did not want to start a blood feud between white and black. Animosity between Afrikaner and Englishman was still sharp fifty years after the Anglo-Boer War; what would race relations be like between white and black if we provoked a civil war? Sabotage had the added virtue of requiring the least manpower.

Our strategy was to make selective forays against military installations, power plants, telephone lines, and transportation links; targets that would not only hamper the military effectiveness of the state, but frighten National Party supporters, scare away foreign capital, and weaken the economy. This we hoped would bring the government to the bargaining table.

So, if I and my Tea Party friends take up arms and start murdering, burying people alive, and destroying infrastructure .. in Obama's, yours, and Mandela's eyes we are well within our God given rights? Good grief, man. Use your brain. Turn off the TV. If it's wrong for us, it was wrong for him.

Well hell. I wish Obama had just said that from the beginning.

So now revolution is akin to terrorism?

The founding fathers must be rolling over in their graves.

(12-06-2013 01:31 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 11:29 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I have family in Equatorial Guinea and Gabone. EG is a dive but Gabon is much nicer than South Africa.

You're teaching me something new. I liked my time in Cape Town (not the whole country, I know). Is your family in Libreville? Gabon speaks french right?

Yup. They are just outside of Libreville. Yea, they speak French for the most part. Libreville is probably the most complete sub Saharan African city. It's a nice place, clean, well ordered, and safe.

South Africa is just a comparitive mess.

(12-06-2013 01:52 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  So now revolution is akin to terrorism?

The founding fathers must be rolling over in their graves.

Well, I'm sure that quite a few Englishmen from that time may have used the term terrorism to define the colonials that hid behind trees and took shots at the English army.

I guess it's a matter of perspective and who ultimately won.

In Mandela's case - since his side ultimately won - he's not known as a terrorist.

(12-06-2013 02:23 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 01:52 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  So now revolution is akin to terrorism?

The founding fathers must be rolling over in their graves.

Well, I'm sure that quite a few Englishmen from that time may have used the term terrorism to define the colonials that hid behind trees and took shots at the English army.

I guess it's a matter of perspective and who ultimately won.

In Mandela's case - since his side ultimately won - he's not known as a terrorist.

Wait. I thought we were fighting the Germans?!?

Very confusing around here at times.

(12-06-2013 11:29 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I have family in Equatorial Guinea and Gabone. EG is a dive but Gabon is much nicer than South Africa.

You really think Omar Bongo runs a better country than South Africa?

Crebman Wrote:In Mandela's case - since his side ultimately won - he's not known as a terrorist.

Unless you look at the US terrorist list prior to 2008, which included Mandela.

(12-06-2013 02:23 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 01:52 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  So now revolution is akin to terrorism?

The founding fathers must be rolling over in their graves.

Well, I'm sure that quite a few Englishmen from that time may have used the term terrorism to define the colonials that hid behind trees and took shots at the English army.

I guess it's a matter of perspective and who ultimately won.

In Mandela's case - since his side ultimately won - he's not known as a terrorist.

Yep, one man's terrorist is anther's freedom fighter. It's all semantics.

"Yep, one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. It's all semantics."

This is exceptionally true, VA49er. Another example of a quote-unquote 'terrorist' is Hamid Karzai, Afghan tribal leader turned president who worked with the US government to overthrow the Afghan's Taliban government. We don't necessarily think of him as a terrorist in the way we think of a "real" terrorist - like Osama bin Laden or Khalid al-Mihdhar - and that is because he helped to bring about a needed change in his society. The question I see most often posed is "Do the ends justify the means?" and that is very applicable here. In both cases, I'd say yes, though some will argue and deny that.

(12-06-2013 06:25 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  "Yep, one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. It's all semantics."

This is exceptionally true, VA49er. Another example of a quote-unquote 'terrorist' is Hamid Karzai, Afghan tribal leader turned president who worked with the US government to overthrow the Afghan's Taliban government. We don't necessarily think of him as a terrorist in the way we think of a "real" terrorist - like Osama bin Laden or Khalid al-Mihdhar - and that is because he helped to bring about a needed change in his society. The question I see most often posed is "Do the ends justify the means?" and that is very applicable here. In both cases, I'd say yes, though some will argue and deny that.

Karzai is very corrupt. As soon as the U.S. is gone, he will let the Taliban go back to doing what they do.

I see the "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" sentiment mostly coming from the left, the same people with many historical blind spots and the relativists to whom there is no real truth. While it is indeed true that the victors will write the history, there ARE actual truths to be found. Those spouting that vacuous slogan above always seem to leave out some important facts and details when recounting events. Because usually, it is beneficial to their lies.

(12-06-2013 01:28 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(12-05-2013 06:37 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Nelson Mandela accomplished a lot for his country and those accomplishments and his life should be celebrated RIP Nelson Mandela.


BUT!!!!!


Liberal Idiots show their ignorance, Brian Williams showing his ignorance called him Jesus Christ "We lost the Hope and Light of the World today" Christians refer to Christ as Light of the World so I take deep offense at Brian Williams statement.

10 post before attacking liberals, not bad.

I'll try to make the top 5 next time.

(12-06-2013 02:26 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 11:29 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I have family in Equatorial Guinea and Gabone. EG is a dive but Gabon is much nicer than South Africa.

You really think Omar Bongo runs a better country than South Africa?

You obviously don't know what you're talking about; Omar is dead, and has been for a while.

Gabon is in dramatically better shape than South Africa.

(12-06-2013 06:35 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 06:25 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  "Yep, one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. It's all semantics."

This is exceptionally true, VA49er. Another example of a quote-unquote 'terrorist' is Hamid Karzai, Afghan tribal leader turned president who worked with the US government to overthrow the Afghan's Taliban government. We don't necessarily think of him as a terrorist in the way we think of a "real" terrorist - like Osama bin Laden or Khalid al-Mihdhar - and that is because he helped to bring about a needed change in his society. The question I see most often posed is "Do the ends justify the means?" and that is very applicable here. In both cases, I'd say yes, though some will argue and deny that.

Karzai is very corrupt. As soon as the U.S. is gone, he will let the Taliban go back to doing what they do.

I see the "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" sentiment mostly coming from the left, the same people with many historical blind spots and the relativists to whom there is no real truth. While it is indeed true that the victors will write the history, there ARE actual truths to be found. Those spouting that vacuous slogan above always seem to leave out some important facts and details when recounting events. Because usually, it is beneficial to their lies.

I think it's true in this situation. It's not like he was going against some benevolent force.

(12-06-2013 06:35 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 06:25 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  "Yep, one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. It's all semantics."

This is exceptionally true, VA49er. Another example of a quote-unquote 'terrorist' is Hamid Karzai, Afghan tribal leader turned president who worked with the US government to overthrow the Afghan's Taliban government. We don't necessarily think of him as a terrorist in the way we think of a "real" terrorist - like Osama bin Laden or Khalid al-Mihdhar - and that is because he helped to bring about a needed change in his society. The question I see most often posed is "Do the ends justify the means?" and that is very applicable here. In both cases, I'd say yes, though some will argue and deny that.

Karzai is very corrupt. As soon as the U.S. is gone, he will let the Taliban go back to doing what they do.

I see the "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" sentiment mostly coming from the left, the same people with many historical blind spots and the relativists to whom there is no real truth. While it is indeed true that the victors will write the history, there ARE actual truths to be found. Those spouting that vacuous slogan above always seem to leave out some important facts and details when recounting events. Because usually, it is beneficial to their lies.

I think it's true in this situation. It's not like he was going against some benevolent force. There are two sides to every conflict and we need to acknowledge the truths in both.