Nelson Mandela faced a stormy ride on the BBC's Question Time last
night when he defended the policy of his government for excluding and
even repatriating immigrants from Mozambique.

Immigrants were being targeted especially by black South Africans who
accused them of lowering the tone of the country, dealing in drugs and
even "going with our women".

An Orthodox Jew who pilloried Mandela about the Holocaust was told "I
didn't spend twenty-eight years in clink just to turn over the country
to foreigners so that beautiful young Xhosa girls could be defiled by
these alien invaders. This is cultural genocide. Of course, if you're
so concerned for their welfare, we can always arrange fo them to be
sent to Israel".

The electrified fence South Africa has built to keep out these poor,
oppressed blacks has been described as shameful by...by who in Britain
exactly?

http://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/nelson.html

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 01:29:08 -0700 (PDT), thedarkman
 wrote:

>The electrified fence South Africa has built to keep out these poor,
>oppressed blacks has been described as shameful by...by who in Britain
>exactly?

There are sufficient people here demanding that economic migrants
should be kept out of the UK to make it hypocritical of us to
criticise another country's government for doing exactly that.

-- 
Cynic

If Griffin is a Nazi, so in Mandela. Unlike Mandela though, Griffin is
not a convicted terrorist.

>
> There are sufficient people here demanding that economic migrants
> should be kept out of the UK to make it hypocritical of us to
> criticise another country's government for doing exactly that.
>
> --
> Cynic

thedarkman wrote:
>
> If Griffin is a Nazi, so in Mandela. Unlike Mandela though, Griffin is
> not a convicted terrorist.

http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=mandela+kill+whites&hl=en&emb=0&aq=f#

On 23 Oct, 13:45, thedarkman  wrote:
> If Griffin is a Nazi, so in Mandela. Unlike Mandela though, Griffin is
> not a convicted terrorist.

Yes, one wonders why Mandela just did not vote out the apartheid
government, rather than fight, doesn't one?

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 06:11:08 -0700 (PDT), Squashme
 wrote:

>> If Griffin is a Nazi, so in Mandela. Unlike Mandela though, Griffin is
>> not a convicted terrorist.

>Yes, one wonders why Mandela just did not vote out the apartheid
>government, rather than fight, doesn't one?

Presumably that is a sarcastic comment based upon the fact that the
blacks did not have the vote in South Africa so Mandella could not
have voted the government out of power.

But if the implication of your sarcasm is that it is OK to use force
if you feel that the method used to establish a government in your
country is wrong, I wonder if you would support a terrorist
organisation that seeks to gain power by force because they do not
agree with *our* democratic model?  Perhaps they feel they are being
unfairly disadvantaged because we have a party-political system, or do
not have proportional representation, or perhaps they feel that a true
democracy is one in which all voters need to pass some test that shows
that they understand the issues?

After all, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.  If Rhodesia's
government was so terribly wrong to disallow blacks from voting, and
having one-man one-vote really is a much, much better alternative that
justifies using terrorist tactics to achieve, surely after all these
many years of non-racist democratic rule we should easily be able to
see that the majority of Zimbabwe's citizens are a heck of a lot
better off under Robert Mugabe than they ever were under Ian Smith?
And Mozambique before that.  And Uganda before that, to name but two
other similar cases.  Not to mention the marvellous success story of
democratic post-Saddam Iraq, with all its estatically happy people
fully justifying all the bloodshed it took to achieve.

Of course, the reality is exactly the reverse, which would indicate
that the previous system was in fact *better* than the system they all
have now and that changing it was a terrible mistake.

There is no reason why a democratic process cannot be used to bring
change in a country even when it has a grossly unfair voting system.
There were plenty of whites in both Rhodesia and South Africa who were
strongly anti-racist.  Any one of them could have been funded to stand
for election, and there is no reason why the white electorate in
Rhodesia or South Africa could not have been persuaded that the system
was wrong and needed changing - after all, most American and British
whites were persuaded of that, so why not Rhodesian and South African
whites?  Had the change been carried out properly and gradually
instead of at the barrel of a gun, there is no reason why it should
have adversely affected the living standard of the average white in
those countries - quite the reverse - and so it would be wrong to
believe that democratic change would have required the whites to vote
against their own self-interest.

Besides which, the blacks in those countries had tremendous power even
without any representation in government.  They supplied the huge
majority of the labour force, and could have achieved the wanted
change piecemeal by simply making small demands at a time and
withdrawing their manpower until they achieved it.  Most had home
villages to return to that would have supported them while they were
unemployed.

So no, I do not agree with the implication of your comment that
Mandella either had a right to demand a change of his government, or
that the only method he had at his disposal to effect such a change
was via an AK47.

-- 
Cynic

On Oct 23, 10:29 am, thedarkman  wrote:
> Nelson Mandela faced a stormy ride on the BBC's Question Time last
> night when he defended the policy of his government for excluding and
> even repatriating immigrants from Mozambique.
>
> Immigrants were being targeted especially by black South Africans who
> accused them of lowering the tone of the country, dealing in drugs and
> even "going with our women".
>
> An Orthodox Jew who pilloried Mandela about the Holocaust was told "I
> didn't spend twenty-eight years in clink just to turn over the country
> to foreigners so that beautiful young Xhosa girls could be defiled by
> these alien invaders. This is cultural genocide. Of course, if you're
> so concerned for their welfare, we can always arrange fo them to be
> sent to Israel".
>
> The electrified fence South Africa has built to keep out these poor,
> oppressed blacks has been described as shameful by...by who in Britain
> exactly?
>
> http://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/nelson.html

"The electrified fence South Africa has built to keep out these poor,
oppressed blacks has been described as shameful by...by who in Britain
exactly?"
Probably a bunch of Mozambique illegals over here. :-)

On Oct 23, 2:45 pm, thedarkman  wrote:
> If Griffin is a Nazi, so in Mandela. Unlike Mandela though, Griffin is
> not a convicted terrorist.
>
>
>
> > There are sufficient people here demanding that economic migrants
> > should be kept out of the UK to make it hypocritical of us to
> > criticise another country's government for doing exactly that.
>
> > --
> > Cynic

Well said, Darkman. :-)

Squashme wrote:
> On 23 Oct, 13:45, thedarkman  wrote:
>> If Griffin is a Nazi, so in Mandela. Unlike Mandela though, Griffin is
>> not a convicted terrorist.
> 
> Yes, one wonders why Mandela just did not vote out the apartheid
> government, rather than fight, doesn't one?<<


It was also extremely fortunate for St Nelson that the indescribably 
evil white racists didn't put a petrol soaked tyre around his neck, and 
set it ablaze.

The white scum were always doing things like that, you know...... I can 
only ascribe St Nelson's deliverance to divine intervention.

On 23 Oct, 16:10, The gods have made us mad 
wrote:
> Squashmewrote:
> > On 23 Oct, 13:45, thedarkman  wrote:
> >> If Griffin is a Nazi, so in Mandela. Unlike Mandela though, Griffin is
> >> not a convicted terrorist.
>
> > Yes, one wonders why Mandela just did not vote out the apartheid
> > government, rather than fight, doesn't one?<<
>
> It was also extremely fortunate for St Nelson that the indescribably
> evil white racists didn't put a petrol soaked tyre around his neck, and
> set it ablaze.
>
> The white scum were always doing things like that, you know...... I can
> only ascribe St Nelson's deliverance to divine intervention.

Shame that the gods didn't look after Ruth First, Biko or Hani, and
the rest.

http://www.sahistory.org.za/pages/people/lives-of-courage/pages/wall/political%20assassinations_1974-1994.htm

On 23 Oct, 15:15, Cynic  wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 06:11:08 -0700 (PDT),Squashme
>
>  wrote:
> >> If Griffin is a Nazi, so in Mandela. Unlike Mandela though, Griffin is
> >> not a convicted terrorist.
> >Yes, one wonders why Mandela just did not vote out the apartheid
> >government, rather than fight, doesn't one?
>
> Presumably that is a sarcastic comment based upon the fact that the
> blacks did not have the vote in South Africa so Mandella could not
> have voted the government out of power.
>
> But if the implication of your sarcasm is that it is OK to use force
> if you feel that the method used to establish a government in your
> country is wrong, I wonder if you would support a terrorist
> organisation that seeks to gain power by force because they do not
> agree with *our* democratic model?  Perhaps they feel they are being
> unfairly disadvantaged because we have a party-political system, or do
> not have proportional representation, or perhaps they feel that a true
> democracy is one in which all voters need to pass some test that shows
> that they understand the issues?
>
> After all, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.  If Rhodesia's
> government was so terribly wrong to disallow blacks from voting, and
> having one-man one-vote really is a much, much better alternative that
> justifies using terrorist tactics to achieve, surely after all these
> many years of non-racist democratic rule we should easily be able to
> see that the majority of Zimbabwe's citizens are a heck of a lot
> better off under Robert Mugabe than they ever were under Ian Smith?
> And Mozambique before that.  And Uganda before that, to name but two
> other similar cases.  Not to mention the marvellous success story of
> democratic post-Saddam Iraq, with all its estatically happy people
> fully justifying all the bloodshed it took to achieve.
>
> Of course, the reality is exactly the reverse, which would indicate
> that the previous system was in fact *better* than the system they all
> have now and that changing it was a terrible mistake.
>
> There is no reason why a democratic process cannot be used to bring
> change in a country even when it has a grossly unfair voting system.
> There were plenty of whites in both Rhodesia and South Africa who were
> strongly anti-racist.  Any one of them could have been funded to stand
> for election, and there is no reason why the white electorate in
> Rhodesia or South Africa could not have been persuaded that the system
> was wrong and needed changing - after all, most American and British
> whites were persuaded of that, so why not Rhodesian and South African
> whites?  Had the change been carried out properly and gradually
> instead of at the barrel of a gun, there is no reason why it should
> have adversely affected the living standard of the average white in
> those countries - quite the reverse - and so it would be wrong to
> believe that democratic change would have required the whites to vote
> against their own self-interest.
>
> Besides which, the blacks in those countries had tremendous power even
> without any representation in government.  They supplied the huge
> majority of the labour force, and could have achieved the wanted
> change piecemeal by simply making small demands at a time and
> withdrawing their manpower until they achieved it.  Most had home
> villages to return to that would have supported them while they were
> unemployed.
>
> So no, I do not agree with the implication of your comment that
> Mandella either had a right to demand a change of his government, or
> that the only method he had at his disposal to effect such a change
> was via an AK47.
>

Yes, I cannot understand why the black South African majority did not
learn to emulate the pacifism and restraint of their white minority
masters.

"In 1959 a group of disenchanted ANC members formed the Pan Africanist
Congress (PAC), which organised a demonstration against pass books on
21 March 1960. One of those protests was held in the township of
Sharpeville, where 69 people were killed by police in the Sharpeville
massacre." (Wiki)

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 08:36:31 -0700 (PDT), Squashme
 wrote:

>> So no, I do not agree with the implication of your comment that
>> Mandella either had a right to demand a change of his government, or
>> that the only method he had at his disposal to effect such a change
>> was via an AK47.

>Yes, I cannot understand why the black South African majority did not
>learn to emulate the pacifism and restraint of their white minority
>masters.

There were many atrocities on *both* sides.  Two wrongs do not however
make a right.

Your cite is about a demonstration against having to carry pass books.
Should ID cards become mandatory in the UK, you may well find a
similar thing taking place in this country.

-- 
Cynic

Squashme wrote:
> On 23 Oct, 16:10, The gods have made us mad 
> wrote:
>> Squashmewrote:
>>> On 23 Oct, 13:45, thedarkman  wrote:
>>>> If Griffin is a Nazi, so in Mandela. Unlike Mandela though, Griffin is
>>>> not a convicted terrorist.
>>> Yes, one wonders why Mandela just did not vote out the apartheid
>>> government, rather than fight, doesn't one?<<
>> It was also extremely fortunate for St Nelson that the indescribably
>> evil white racists didn't put a petrol soaked tyre around his neck, and
>> set it ablaze.
>>
>> The white scum were always doing things like that, you know...... I can
>> only ascribe St Nelson's deliverance to divine intervention.
> 
> Shame that the gods didn't look after Ruth First, Biko or Hani, and
> the rest.
> 
> http://www.sahistory.org.za/pages/people/lives-of-courage/pages/wall/political%20assassinations_1974-1994.htm
> 

...and many others:

http://www.africa.fnst-freiheit.org/news/peoples-war-new-light-on-the-struggle-for-south-africa

-- 
Moving things in still pictures

"thedarkman"  wrote in message 
news:29421142-c6f5-487d-8f3f-a9bc88aa7a07@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> Nelson Mandela faced a stormy ride on the BBC's Question Time last
> night when he defended the policy of his government for excluding and
> even repatriating immigrants from Mozambique.
>

You must have watched a different question time to the one I saw as Mandela 
was noticeably absent (all the more noticeable given that Nick Griffin was 
present).

y ru still talking about nazis?
"thedarkman"  wrote in message 
news:29421142-c6f5-487d-8f3f-a9bc88aa7a07@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> Nelson Mandela faced a stormy ride on the BBC's Question Time last
> night when he defended the policy of his government for excluding and
> even repatriating immigrants from Mozambique.
>
> Immigrants were being targeted especially by black South Africans who
> accused them of lowering the tone of the country, dealing in drugs and
> even "going with our women".
>
> An Orthodox Jew who pilloried Mandela about the Holocaust was told "I
> didn't spend twenty-eight years in clink just to turn over the country
> to foreigners so that beautiful young Xhosa girls could be defiled by
> these alien invaders. This is cultural genocide. Of course, if you're
> so concerned for their welfare, we can always arrange fo them to be
> sent to Israel".
>
> The electrified fence South Africa has built to keep out these poor,
> oppressed blacks has been described as shameful by...by who in Britain
> exactly?
>
> http://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/nelson.html