BNP leader Nick Griffin calls Mandela a "murdering old terrorist"


Blackleaf
#1
BNP leader Nick Griffin has called ailing Nelson Mandela a "murdering old terrorist" on Twitter.



He said: ‘Saint #nelsonmandela on last legs it seems.

‘Make sure to avoid BBC when the murdering old terrorist croaks. It’ll be nauseating.’

In another message Mr Griffin wrote: ‘Statesmen must be judged on results not rhetoric.

‘Before Mandela, South Africa was safe economic powerhouse. Now crime ridden basket case.’

Another tweet said: ‘No surprise #Mandela’s lungs are shot - all those burning tyres. Smoking necklaces very bad for the health.’


Read more: ¿Murdering old terrorist¿: BNP leader Nick Griffin¿s Twitter insult about ailing Nelson Mandela sparks fury | Mail Online
 
Machjo
#2
And in other news...
 
karrie
+1
#3
stroke induced dementia?
 
Colpy
+3
#4
Well, I don't believe Mandela murdered anyone. He blew up a transmission tower, if I remember correctly.

I do not quite grasp his sainthood either. Certainly a major factor in South African politics, but I would not join those so eager to kiss the hem of his robe.
 
Machjo
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

Well, I don't believe Mandela murdered anyone. He blew up a transmission tower, if I remember correctly.

I do not quite grasp his sainthood either. Certainly a major factor in South African politics, but I would not join those so eager to kiss the hem of his robe.

But going to the opposite extreme?
 
L Gilbert
+3
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

BNP leader Nick Griffin has called ailing Nelson Mandela a "murdering old terrorist" on Twitter.

In another message Mr Griffin wrote: ‘Statesmen must be judged on results not rhetoric.

And he's one to make that comment with a straight face? lmao

Quote:

‘Before Mandela, South Africa was safe economic powerhouse. Now crime ridden basket case.’

Yeah. Change produces a little chaos. Before Mandela: "1811 - 1812
The Fourth War of Dispossession between the AmaXhosa and colonists takes place under the command of Commissioner John Graham. In a brutal battle against the AmaXhosa, which includes the indiscriminate shooting of women and other civilians as well as destruction of crops, the AmaXhosa are driven from the Zuurveld. Women and children are killed although the colonial authorities knew that the AmaXhosa only attack men as men are regarded as soldiers while women are not. The AmaXhosa also never attacks male missionaries" - General South African History Timeline: 1800s | South African History Online
"1812
Cape Colony: The Apprentice Ordinance is promulgated which gives any white farmer the right to apprentice the children of his labourers for a period of ten years from the age of eight" - General South African History Timeline: 1800s | South African History Online
"1820
Approximately 5 000 British settlers from economically depressed regions of Britain arrive in Algoa Bay in the eastern Cape to increase the size of the white settler population. Upon arrival it is revealed to them that they are also required to act as a civilian defence force against the indigenous people on whose land they are settled. They are allocated land in the Zuurveld, next to the Fish River" and "The rise of the kingdom of the AmaZulu continues the already violent dispersal of neighbouring political entities competing with each other and with British and Boer colonisers for land and basic resources. This troubled period goes down in official South African history as either the Mfecane (IsiZulu) or Difaqane (SeSotho) which literally means "forced dispersal" or "forced migration" because the upheavals caused thousands of refugees. The AmaMfengu, for example, flee to the eastern Cape Colony, to the lands of the AmaXhosa. The fleeing political entities engage in armed skirmishes for land with kingdoms and chiefdoms which they encounter during their flight. This conflict continues for a number of years throughout the southern African region. Until the 1990s the view that the upheavals were caused solely by the alleged tyranny of Shaka's rise to power. This view has subsequently been challenged, with some historians disputing the existence of the Mfecane or Difaqane at all. Instead historians identify increasing pressure on the various communities that populated the region as colonisers move in and colonisers and indigenous people fight each other for the dwindling resources. This phenomenon is seen as a direct result of an increase in population and a quest for power"- General South African History Timeline: 1800s | South African History Online
etc. etc. etc. Of course, everything would have been a mess before the Dutch and Brits felt the urge to introduce their own brands of mess.
Read a little more of SA's history: South African History Online
Apartheid in South Africa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Cliffy
+5
#7  Top Rated Post
Mr Griffin comes off as a white supremest knuckle dragger. I can see why Blackleaf sees him as a hero.
 
Machjo
+2
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

Mr Griffin comes off as a white supremest knuckle dragger. I can see why Blackleaf sees him as a hero.

from I'd read before, Blackleaf considers him to be a far-right racist too, and does not support him, judging from other posts.

Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

Well, I don't believe Mandela murdered anyone. He blew up a transmission tower, if I remember correctly.

I do not quite grasp his sainthood either. Certainly a major factor in South African politics, but I would not join those so eager to kiss the hem of his robe.

He may have been wrong to use violence to end apartheid, but I'm willing to forgive him for that considering what he was fighting for. Still wrong, but I think we can understand the circumstances nonetheless.
 
Blackleaf
#9
Think what you like about Mr Griffin, but many would say he has a point regarding Mandela.

Here's what an Indian website says:

So revered is Nelson Mandela today that it is easy to forget that for decades he was considered a terrorist by many Western governments, and some of them are now his supporters.

The anti-apartheid hero was on a US terror watch list until 2008 and while still on Robben Island, Britain's late "Iron Lady" Margaret Thatcher described his African National Congress as a "typical terrorist organisation."

Nelson Mandela's journey from a terrorist to freedom icon
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

Think what you like about Mr Griffin, but many would say he has a point regarding Mandela.

Here's what an Indian website says:

So revered is Nelson Mandela today that it is easy to forget that for decades he was considered a terrorist by many Western governments, and some of them are now his supporters.

The anti-apartheid hero was on a US terror watch list until 2008 and while still on Robben Island, Britain's late "Iron Lady" Margaret Thatcher described his African National Congress as a "typical terrorist organisation."

Nelson Mandela's journey from a terrorist to freedom icon

Well, you and Mr. Griffin can take the day of his death to mourn the demise of apartheid.
 
Cliffy
+3
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

The anti-apartheid hero was on a US terror watch list until 2008 and while still on Robben Island, Britain's late "Iron Lady" Margaret Thatcher described his African National Congress as a "typical terrorist organisation."

Nelson Mandela's journey from a terrorist to freedom icon

To his people he was a freedom fighter, to his enemies he was a terrorist. Isn't that the usual way things go? It is a verbal dichotomy that has been around forever. He became a hero when he won. That could also be considered azz kissing.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

To his people he was a freedom fighter, to his enemies he was a terrorist. Isn't that the usual way things go? It is a verbal dichotomy that has been around forever. He became a hero when he won. That could also be considered azz kissing.

To Blackleaf, George Washington was a traitor and a terrorist.
 
karrie
+3
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

To his people he was a freedom fighter, to his enemies he was a terrorist. Isn't that the usual way things go? It is a verbal dichotomy that has been around forever. He became a hero when he won. That could also be considered azz kissing.

To my crazy way of thinking....

Terrorists are people who use violence to try to force their political agenda.
(environmental issues, religious adherence, which party governs)

Freedom fighters are people who use violence to try to force an inarguably human rights agenda that has failed in democratic routes.
(freeing slaves, ending apartheid)
 
WLDB
+1
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by karrie View Post

To my crazy way of thinking....

Terrorists are people who use violence to try to force their political agenda.
(environmental issues, religious adherence, which party governs)

Freedom fighters are people who use violence to try to force an inarguably human rights agenda that has failed in democratic routes.
(freeing slaves, ending apartheid)

Id say terrorism is a tactic rather than an ideology. Using fear to intimidate the other side and targeting non-combatants. People have done that both to advance a political agenda and a human rights agenda.
 
Cliffy
+2
#15
The Sandinista were considered terrorist because they were socialist and the Contras were considered freedom fighters because they supported the US exploitation of the El Salvadorian peoples and resources. That is the kind of dichotomy I'm talking about; the one you read about in the mass sheeple media.
 
Colpy
+2
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

from I'd read before, Blackleaf considers him to be a far-right racist too, and does not support him, judging from other posts.



He may have been wrong to use violence to end apartheid, but I'm willing to forgive him for that considering what he was fighting for. Still wrong, but I think we can understand the circumstances nonetheless.

Good Lord, who wouldn't use violence if repressed under a regime such as apartheid??

No, I was not denigrating Mr. Mandela at all......I think him an honourable man.

I just don't get the cult of personality that has risen around him.......
 
Machjo
+1
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

Good Lord, who wouldn't use violence if repressed under a regime such as apartheid??

No, I was not denigrating Mr. Mandela at all......I think him an honourable man.

I just don't get the cult of personality that has risen around him.......

So I misunderstood. Thanks for the clarification, and agreed.
 
L Gilbert
+1
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

Think what you like about Mr Griffin, but many would say he has a point regarding Mandela.

Here's what an Indian website says:

So revered is Nelson Mandela today that it is easy to forget that for decades he was considered a terrorist by many Western governments, and some of them are now his supporters.

The anti-apartheid hero was on a US terror watch list until 2008 and while still on Robben Island, Britain's late "Iron Lady" Margaret Thatcher described his African National Congress as a "typical terrorist organisation."

Nelson Mandela's journey from a terrorist to freedom icon

uhuh And why was he considered a terrorist? My guess would be that he was simply, actively trying to bring SA gov'ts to face the crap that they either promote or ignore and other gov'ts tend to dislike enemies of a state whether that state is despicable or not.
One of my favorite examples of this is Reagan and US interference in El Salvador. Another is the UK interference in Ethiopia (mid 1800s). There are dozens of such examples and they are not all for humanitarian reasons.

Quote: Originally Posted by karrie View Post

To my crazy way of thinking....

Terrorists are people who use violence to try to force their political agenda.
(environmental issues, religious adherence, which party governs)

Freedom fighters are people who use violence to try to force an inarguably human rights agenda that has failed in democratic routes.
(freeing slaves, ending apartheid)

Good way to put it.

Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

The Sandinista were considered terrorist because they were socialist and the Contras were considered freedom fighters because they supported the US exploitation of the El Salvadorian peoples and resources. That is the kind of dichotomy I'm talking about; the one you read about in the mass sheeple media.

Exactly one of my points.
 
WLDB
+1
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

Good Lord, who wouldn't use violence if repressed under a regime such as apartheid??



I just don't get the cult of personality that has risen around him.......

Agreed on the first point.

As for the personality thing, im not too sure. Ive never read much about him. Maybe its because he seems to be in a good mood all the time and didnt seem to hold a drudge after being released from prison. Most people who go through the things he has dont come out happy and willing to try and work with those who locked them up. When he dies I imagine that personality cult thing will only grow. That tends to happen with most popular leaders when they die.
 
Nuggler
+1
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by karrie View Post

stroke induced dementia?


The "eyes" have it.
 
karrie
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by WLDB View Post

Id say terrorism is a tactic rather than an ideology. Using fear to intimidate the other side and targeting non-combatants. People have done that both to advance a political agenda and a human rights agenda.

Ah, but we weren't discussing what terrorism is, we were discussing what a terrorist is.

For example, a scientific researcher is someone who engages in research, but does engaging in research, make you a scientific researcher? No. Pretty much every country that's ever fought in a war or engaged in a military action, has engaged in 'terrorism' (Hiroshima fits your description of terrorism nicely, no?). But that doesn't necessarily mean they are terrorists.
 
BaalsTears
#22
After Mandela is gone I think his conciliatory attitude toward South African whites will disappear from the African National Congress.
 
Blackleaf
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

To Blackleaf, George Washington was a traitor and a terrorist.


All the American "freedom fighters" were traitors. They were Britons fighting Britain. They sound like traitors to me.

And George Washington was also a terrible military leader. He couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery.

Quote: Originally Posted by karrie View Post

To my crazy way of thinking....

Terrorists are people who use violence to try to force their political agenda.
(environmental issues, religious adherence, which party governs)

Freedom fighters are people who use violence to try to force an inarguably human rights agenda that has failed in democratic routes.
(freeing slaves, ending apartheid)

It's hardly as cut and dry as that, is it?

Have you never heard the saying: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"?

A terrorist is only a terrorist and a freedom fighter is only a freedom fighter depending which side you're on.

Black South Africans may see Mandela as a freedom fighter but many Western countries - and those white farmers in South Africa who Mandela and his thugs murdered and terrorised - saw him as a terrorist.

It's the same with the Mau Mau. I see them as terrorist murderous thugs. The Mau Mau see themselves as freedom fighters.
Last edited by Blackleaf; Jun 13th, 2013 at 08:24 AM..
 
JLM
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

BNP leader Nick Griffin has called ailing Nelson Mandela a "murdering old terrorist" on Twitter.



He said: ‘Saint #nelsonmandela on last legs it seems.

‘Make sure to avoid BBC when the murdering old terrorist croaks. It’ll be nauseating.’

In another message Mr Griffin wrote: ‘Statesmen must be judged on results not rhetoric.

‘Before Mandela, South Africa was safe economic powerhouse. Now crime ridden basket case.’

Another tweet said: ‘No surprise #Mandela’s lungs are shot - all those burning tyres. Smoking necklaces very bad for the health.’


Read more: ¿Murdering old terrorist¿: BNP leader Nick Griffin¿s Twitter insult about ailing Nelson Mandela sparks fury | Mail Online

Kind of lends credence to the old saw....... "Believe 10% of what you see and nothing of what you hear"!

Quote: Originally Posted by karrie View Post

Ah, but we weren't discussing what terrorism is, we were discussing what a terrorist is.

For example, a scientific researcher is someone who engages in research, but does engaging in research, make you a scientific researcher? No. Pretty much every country that's ever fought in a war or engaged in a military action, has engaged in 'terrorism' (Hiroshima fits your description of terrorism nicely, no?). But that doesn't necessarily mean they are terrorists.

I believe a terrorist commits terrorism! -
 
Blackleaf
#25
If you look at the comments left by readers of the article on that Daily Mail page you will see quite a lot of them agreeing with Nick Griffin - ¿Murdering old terrorist¿: BNP leader Nick Griffin¿s Twitter insult about ailing Nelson Mandela sparks fury | Mail Online

A friend of mine from Cape Town said that things are worse there now in that country than they have ever been. She said there is so much violence. More than before.
- Sandy Brown , London
*******************************

Glad someone said it - and he is correct about the drivel the BBC will come out with.
- DG , Windsor
************************

Well he's not exactly wrong is he?
- Sarza314 , Kent, United Kingdom
***********************

Another truthful fact. Mandela was a terrorist no matter how much one rewrites history.
- Major Bill , Chesterfield
***********************

Griffin is quite right. Those who know the real history of Mandela, not the sanitized media version - will be in full agreement with him. Mandela was a convicted terrorist who was responsible for the deaths of innocent people, directly or indirectly. He was a pathetically-poor leader of S. Africa and many in that country will not shed a tear for him.
- Michael , Liverpool
**************************

It's easy to forget that FW de Klerk engineered the end of apartheid and won the Nobel Peace prize alongside Mandela for it.
- Rufus McDufus , London
**************************

He is right, Mandela was a terrorist. His wife was utterly revolting too.
- Piers England , Leicester, United Kingdom
************************

He is correct Mandela was a terrorist. He was sent to prison. Amazing what a few misguided pop stars and celebs can do.
- Barry , Chelmsford
**********************

I can't stand Nick Griffin or anything that he and his party stand for, but I have to admit that I think he's got a point here. Nelson Mandela may have been fighting for the right reasons but he went about it the wrong way. The ANC was a terrorist organisation and committed terrorist acts.
- barbie , Birmingham
**************************

Never could and never will understand the fuss about Mandela.
- ME , Wiltshire, United Kingdom
***************************

I can remember the Limpet mines on ships and the tyre necklaces etc. Younger people like to praise him when they know nothing about him
- nook , Barnsley
***********************

What Griffin says is 100% correct. The media shamefully portray Mandela as a hero and a statesman when in most peoples eyes he is no different to Martin McGuinness. Celebrating a death is wrong-it seems his death could be imminent-however I remember a few weeks ago the far Left mocking Lady Thatcher's death and I know several who will rejoice in communist Mandela's demise. Communism is evil and people need to stop having this romantic memory of it.
- Craig , Lancs
************************


Theres no escaping the facts, whereas,Mandela was not tried for murder personally so evidently theres no evidence to the contrary. However, he did lead the ANC's terror group who definitely carried out a lot of cold blooded murders. Nic Griffin is entitled to state his opinion, he is not wrong, and when 'uncle nelson' does die and the BBC are putting out their messages on his 'greatness' there will be a lot of people from the right age groups that will definitely switch off
- Normal-Bloke , Hull, United Kingdom








 
#juan
#26
Amazing how Mandela found time to be in prison for about 27 years as well......
 
JLM
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by #juan View Post

Amazing how Mandela found time to be in prison for about 27 years as well......

- I'm not sure that there was a choice!
 
Zipperfish
+1
#28
Well this thread is certainly overflowing with stupid. South Africa under apartheid was terrible. Saying "it was better then" is like the Alabama good ol' boys saying that "Our coloreds were happier when they were in chains."
 
WLDB
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by karrie View Post

Ah, but we weren't discussing what terrorism is, we were discussing what a terrorist is.

For example, a scientific researcher is someone who engages in research, but does engaging in research, make you a scientific researcher? No. Pretty much every country that's ever fought in a war or engaged in a military action, has engaged in 'terrorism' (Hiroshima fits your description of terrorism nicely, no?). But that doesn't necessarily mean they are terrorists.

Thats why I think the "war on terror" is ultimately futile as it is war on a tactic. You can wipe out Al Queda, the Taliban and however many other groups you want but there will always be someone somewhere doing it. Even the allies referred to their own attacks on cities as "terror bombings." Intentionally killing civilians or non-combatants to spread fear and demoralize the enemy is terrorism. If people use that tactic - then im fine with calling them terrorists. You can give some people or groups a nice semantic loophole out of the term but ultimately they both do the same thing.

Quote: Originally Posted by Zipperfish View Post

Well this thread is certainly overflowing with stupid. South Africa under apartheid was terrible. Saying "it was better then" is like the Alabama good ol' boys saying that "Our coloreds were happier when they were in chains."

It was better for the white racists. Now they have to share things and have competition. How sad for them.

Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post


I believe a terrorist commits terrorism! -

Ditto.
 
L Gilbert
+1
#30
Um, there's no worldwide consensus on the definition of "terrorism". Oxford dictionary's version says, "the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims".
Personally, I don't think acting against a gov't using violence is necessarily terrorism (but it depends upon the motive). Acting against a country's people in order to coerce their gov't is.
Mandela led bombing campaigns against gov't targets (like the SAAF), not civilian targets (even though civilians were killed). And for that reason he was labeled a terrorist by other gov'ts. His motive was the "dismantling the legacy of apartheid through tackling institutionalised racism, poverty and inequality, and fostering racial reconciliation." (Wikipedia) So obviously, his concerns were for the people of SA, not against them. Anyway, he served time for sabotage and conspiracy to overthrow the SA gov't, but he triggered the abolishment of apartheid.
Anyway terrorism is a bit more complex than just being a tactic, IMO.
Last edited by L Gilbert; Jun 13th, 2013 at 05:18 PM..