We're waiting for the Gerry Adams one to go up in Belfast.

Being an "ex" terrorist has quite a bid of kudos these days.

Whats black and slides up and down Nelsons Column?

Winnie Mandela.

I'll get me coat.

 

I,m not so sure about this statue being put in Parliament Square, maybe outside The African Embassy would be more apt.

Ron.

Which African embassy? After all there are at least 30 + countries in the African continent.

 

Which African embassy? After all there are at least 30 + countries in the African continent.

Take your pick, his regime probably touched most of them.

Ron.

 

Take your pick, his regime probably touched most of them.

Ron.

And exactly what regime would that be then? Or are you just one of those smart arse clowns, trying to make a statement - but actually haven't got a frigging clue what the hell you are talking about?

 

Coming from a South African who lived through the Mandela years the man is simply an outstanding human being.
This whole statue thing just reeks of a sickening crass attempt by livingstone et al to score points with the readership of the Gaurdian, who seem to use the name Nelson Mandela as just another fashionable gimmick to pin to their "look at me, aren't I such a wonder full humanitarian philanthropist!" wall.

 

And exactly what regime would that be then? Or are you just one of those smart arse clowns, trying to make a statement - but actually haven't got a frigging clue what the hell you are talking about?

I havent got a clue?
You sound to me more like one of those clowns you earlier mentioned.
Here are some things you might like to know about Mandela.

For anyone who deifies Mandela - this might open your eyes.

http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~springbk/enemy.html

This article alone should , at least , raise some questions :

"1) Concerning Mandela's jail sentence. The crimes he committed were shamelessly criminal, and included no heroic acts. In fact, it is still a mystery why Percy Yutar (the then state attorney) did not file for murder, but manslaughter instead. Based on the facts it is commonly agreed by legal scholars that Mandela would have been hanged if Yutar filed for murder. You can easily get access to the case and you will find facts that the media, for whatever reason, prefer to ignore. 2) They often show Mandela's cell on Robben Island. That is not where he spent most of his time. He later lived in a house under so-called "arrest". It was comfortable if not luxurious, and most people work every day of their lives for the privilege to live in something not nearly as good as that. Why do they never show photographs of that? 3) What is really mind-boggling is the fact that while he was in the "house jail" he had free access, on account of the S.A. tax-payers, to telephone, fax and other communicating facilities to organize the ANC. That is why he was still the leader when he was "released". 4) You already know of the terrible deeds he ordered for his own people who disappointed him. He has many murders of his own on his hands. 5) He was supposedly in "jail" for 20 or more years. One would expect that he had a negligible income in that time. Yet when he and his wife were divorced about 4 years after his "release" he had to pay her millions in settlement. Where did these millions come from? Who else could earn millions in 4 years from a salaried job after taxes? Obviously something is seriously wrong. You find out where all that money came from and you will discover a lot about Mandela that the press never report. 6) Once he left "jail" (the house the government provided) he moved into a very luxurious home in one of the richest suburbs of Johannesburg. However, he kept a little four-room house in Soweto and pretended to live there. That is where he would interview reporters and where photographs were taken. What a liar and bigot. I cannot believe that the press did not know this. It simply played along to sell this falsehood of a hero and martyr. These are six leads that anyone from S.A. should be able to confirm easily with documentary proof. Mandela is a murderer and a liar. He only lived in "poverty" when it suited him. Just ask where he is presently living. There are very few Whites or other people that can, after a lifetime of working, afford the house he is living in now. Nonetheless, for some reason, I have no reason why, the media are ignoring all of this and misrepresent the actual situation. "

- Report sent by South African historical expert living in the United States.

Ron.

 

Aparthied such a pretty word .Perhaps it should be brought back.
London has all sorts of statues "bomber Harris" , Bodica, Mr Mandela sounds quite tame in comparison.
Regards John.

 

I havent got a clue?
You sound to me more like one of those clowns you earlier mentioned.
Here are some things you might like to know about Mandela.

For anyone who deifies Mandela - this might open your eyes.

http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~springbk/enemy.html

This article alone should , at least , raise some questions :

"1) Concerning Mandela's jail sentence. The crimes he committed were shamelessly criminal, and included no heroic acts. In fact, it is still a mystery why Percy Yutar (the then state attorney) did not file for murder, but manslaughter instead. Based on the facts it is commonly agreed by legal scholars that Mandela would have been hanged if Yutar filed for murder. You can easily get access to the case and you will find facts that the media, for whatever reason, prefer to ignore. 2) They often show Mandela's cell on Robben Island. That is not where he spent most of his time. He later lived in a house under so-called "arrest". It was comfortable if not luxurious, and most people work every day of their lives for the privilege to live in something not nearly as good as that. Why do they never show photographs of that? 3) What is really mind-boggling is the fact that while he was in the "house jail" he had free access, on account of the S.A. tax-payers, to telephone, fax and other communicating facilities to organize the ANC. That is why he was still the leader when he was "released". 4) You already know of the terrible deeds he ordered for his own people who disappointed him. He has many murders of his own on his hands. 5) He was supposedly in "jail" for 20 or more years. One would expect that he had a negligible income in that time. Yet when he and his wife were divorced about 4 years after his "release" he had to pay her millions in settlement. Where did these millions come from? Who else could earn millions in 4 years from a salaried job after taxes? Obviously something is seriously wrong. You find out where all that money came from and you will discover a lot about Mandela that the press never report. 6) Once he left "jail" (the house the government provided) he moved into a very luxurious home in one of the richest suburbs of Johannesburg. However, he kept a little four-room house in Soweto and pretended to live there. That is where he would interview reporters and where photographs were taken. What a liar and bigot. I cannot believe that the press did not know this. It simply played along to sell this falsehood of a hero and martyr. These are six leads that anyone from S.A. should be able to confirm easily with documentary proof. Mandela is a murderer and a liar. He only lived in "poverty" when it suited him. Just ask where he is presently living. There are very few Whites or other people that can, after a lifetime of working, afford the house he is living in now. Nonetheless, for some reason, I have no reason why, the media are ignoring all of this and misrepresent the actual situation. "

- Report sent by South African historical expert living in the United States.

Ron.

Can I make a "Wild guess" that the so called ex-South African Historian now lives in the deep south of America? Perhaps he feels comfortable there. There are those who believe David Irvine is a respectable Historian for Pete's sake.

Yes, to the State Mandela was a terrorist, as were the French resistance and any who oppose the ruling regime by force. Whether they are right or wrong depends on your view of the regime - I take it you though apartheid a damn fine idea and better if we had no nig-nogs in England too?

I'm proud to have a statue of him in a prominent place in London. I'm embarrassed small minded people exist in our country still!

PS. That site you got your link from is just short of a White Supremacist site! A couple of link jumps and you are deep in **** territory - is this the sort of site you are comfortable promoting?

 

Can I make a "Wild guess" that the so called ex-South African Historian now lives in the deep south of America? Perhaps he feels comfortable there. There are those who believe David Irvine is a respectable Historian for Pete's sake.

Yes, to the State Mandela was a terrorist, as were the French resistance and any who oppose the ruling regime by force. Whether they are right or wrong depends on your view of the regime - I take it you though apartheid a damn fine idea and better if we had no nig-nogs in England too?

I'm proud to have a statue of him in a prominent place in London. I'm embarrassed small minded people exist in our country still!

PS. That site you got your link from is just short of a White Supremacist site! A couple of link jumps and you are deep in **** territory - is this the sort of site you are comfortable promoting?

I,m not comfortable promoting any sort of terrorism.
But to place Mandela in the same place as the likes of Churchill is an utter disgrace.

Ron.

 

I havent got a clue?
You sound to me more like one of those clowns you earlier mentioned.
Here are some things you might like to know about Mandela.

But to place Mandela in the same place as the likes of Churchill is an utter disgrace.

Ron.

 

I,m not comfortable promoting any sort of terrorism.
But to place Mandela in the same place as the likes of Churchill is an utter disgrace.

Ron.

"Entertain conjecture of a national leader, in the midst of a ferocious war, plotting to drop tens of thousands of anthrax "superbombs" on the civilian population of his enemy. At his order, his generals draw up a detailed plan for a chemical attack on six major cities: they estimate that millions will die immediately "by inhalation," with millions more succumbing later through skin absorption of the poisons.

In the end, the leader is thwarted by objections from his aides and allies. To assuage his frustration, he launches another pet idea: "Operation Thunderclap," a massive conventional bombing raid on the enemy's capital, also aimed at civilians, designed to "castrate" the enemy population. In a single night, allied forces kill 25,000 people, almost all of them from the city's working class and poorest districts.

Emboldened, he presses for yet another feast of fire and death. He gets it: a bombing raid on a non-military target, a cultural center, a city glutted with refugees, slave laborers and prisoners of war -- his own soldiers and those of his allies. The raid kills 35,000 people or more; no one knows for sure, because the city is completely pulverized -- and is bombed again immediately afterward, with special high explosives, in an attempt to kill any survivors hiding in the ruins.

A portrait of Saddam Hussein, at the height of the murderous Iran-Iraq war? No, it's Winston Churchill,"

OR

"Churchill was instrumental in establishing the illegal starvation blockade of Germany. The blockade depended on scattering mines, and classified as contraband food for civilians. But, throughout his career, international law and the conventions created to limit the horrors of war meant nothing to Churchill. One of the consequences of the hunger blockade was that, while it killed 750,000 German civilians by hunger and malnutrition, the youth who survived went on to become the most fanatical Nazis."

OR

"According to the official history of the Royal Air Force: "The destruction of Germany was by then on a scale which might have appalled Attila or Genghis Khan." Dresden was filled with masses of helpless refugees running for their lives ahead of the advancing Red Army. The war was practically over, but for three days and nights, from February 13 to 15, 1945, British bombs pounded Dresden, killing as many as 135,000 people or more in three days. After the massacre, Churchill attempted to disclaim responsibility; even casually saying "I thought the Americans did it."

The terror bombing of Germany and the killing of civilians continued as late as the middle of April, 1945. It only stopped, as Bomber Harris noted, because there were essentially no more targets left to be bombed in Germany.

In order to kill a maximum number of Germans, Winston Churchill dismissed politics or policy as a 'secondary consideration,' and on at least two occasions said that there were "no lengths of violence to which we would not go" in order to achieve his objective. In fact he said this publicly in a speech given on September 31, 1943, and again in the House of Commons, on February 27, 1945, when unbelievable lengths of violence had already taken place. If Hitler had uttered this phrase, we would all cite it as more evidence of his barbarism. Yet, when Churchill utters it, his apologists palm it off as the resoluteness required of a great statesman, rather than describing it as an urge for mass, indiscriminate murder."

All the above is History written with a particular slant, all of it is true - the emphasis is what gives it the weight the Authors want. Churchill was a man with much more innocent blood on his hands than most terrorists. Yet is his way was still a great man - but deeply flawed.

I think he is lucky we lrt him remain next to Mandela, but remain he should.

 

"Entertain conjecture of a national leader, in the midst of a ferocious war, plotting to drop tens of thousands of anthrax "superbombs" on the civilian population of his enemy. At his order, his generals draw up a detailed plan for a chemical attack on six major cities: they estimate that millions will die immediately "by inhalation," with millions more succumbing later through skin absorption of the poisons.

In the end, the leader is thwarted by objections from his aides and allies. To assuage his frustration, he launches another pet idea: "Operation Thunderclap," a massive conventional bombing raid on the enemy's capital, also aimed at civilians, designed to "castrate" the enemy population. In a single night, allied forces kill 25,000 people, almost all of them from the city's working class and poorest districts.

Emboldened, he presses for yet another feast of fire and death. He gets it: a bombing raid on a non-military target, a cultural center, a city glutted with refugees, slave laborers and prisoners of war -- his own soldiers and those of his allies. The raid kills 35,000 people or more; no one knows for sure, because the city is completely pulverized -- and is bombed again immediately afterward, with special high explosives, in an attempt to kill any survivors hiding in the ruins.

A portrait of Saddam Hussein, at the height of the murderous Iran-Iraq war? No, it's Winston Churchill,"

OR

"Churchill was instrumental in establishing the illegal starvation blockade of Germany. The blockade depended on scattering mines, and classified as contraband food for civilians. But, throughout his career, international law and the conventions created to limit the horrors of war meant nothing to Churchill. One of the consequences of the hunger blockade was that, while it killed 750,000 German civilians by hunger and malnutrition, the youth who survived went on to become the most fanatical Nazis."

OR

"According to the official history of the Royal Air Force: "The destruction of Germany was by then on a scale which might have appalled Attila or Genghis Khan." Dresden was filled with masses of helpless refugees running for their lives ahead of the advancing Red Army. The war was practically over, but for three days and nights, from February 13 to 15, 1945, British bombs pounded Dresden, killing as many as 135,000 people or more in three days. After the massacre, Churchill attempted to disclaim responsibility; even casually saying "I thought the Americans did it."

The terror bombing of Germany and the killing of civilians continued as late as the middle of April, 1945. It only stopped, as Bomber Harris noted, because there were essentially no more targets left to be bombed in Germany.

In order to kill a maximum number of Germans, Winston Churchill dismissed politics or policy as a 'secondary consideration,' and on at least two occasions said that there were "no lengths of violence to which we would not go" in order to achieve his objective. In fact he said this publicly in a speech given on September 31, 1943, and again in the House of Commons, on February 27, 1945, when unbelievable lengths of violence had already taken place. If Hitler had uttered this phrase, we would all cite it as more evidence of his barbarism. Yet, when Churchill utters it, his apologists palm it off as the resoluteness required of a great statesman, rather than describing it as an urge for mass, indiscriminate murder."

All the above is History written with a particular slant, all of it is true - the emphasis is what gives it the weight the Authors want. Churchill was a man with much more innocent blood on his hands than most terrorists. Yet is his way was still a great man - but deeply flawed.

I think he is lucky we lrt him remain next to Mandela, but remain he should.

This is just one of the many acts Mandela sanctioned.

The Church Street bombing was a 1983 attack by the Umkhonto we Sizwe in the South African capital Pretoria, killing 19 and wounded more than 200. The bombing was one of the biggest attacks committed by the ANC during its armed struggle against apartheid.

The attack consisted of a car bomb set off outside the Nedbank Square building on Church Street at 4:30pm on a Friday. The bomb was set to go off at the height of rush hour, those killed and wounded included civilians, women and children.

In his book he admits to signing off on this attack.

No matter what colour you paint it, Mandela is a murderer.

Ron.

 

This is just one of the many acts Mandela sanctioned.

The Church Street bombing was a 1983 attack by the Umkhonto we Sizwe in the South African capital Pretoria, killing 19 and wounded more than 200. The bombing was one of the biggest attacks committed by the ANC during its armed struggle against apartheid.

The attack consisted of a car bomb set off outside the Nedbank Square building on Church Street at 4:30pm on a Friday. The bomb was set to go off at the height of rush hour, those killed and wounded included civilians, women and children.

In his book he admits to signing off on this attack.

No matter what colour you paint it, Mandela is a murderer.

Ron.

One man's terrorist another man's freedom fighter.

You may not have noticed but my argument was not in defence of Mandela particularly, though I do have a lot of time for the man, but in pointing out that Churchill, your paragon of virtue was in fact a far more monstrous slaughterer of the undefended.

No matter what colour you paint it, Mandela is a murderer.

Ron.

I can't help but think you like to paint it black. I think colour is very important to you - disturbingly so.

 

I can't help but think you like to paint it black. I think colour is very important to you - disturbingly so.

Well said!

 

One man's terrorist another man's freedom fighter.

You may not have noticed but my argument was not in defence of Mandela particularly, though I do have a lot of time for the man, but in pointing out that Churchill, your paragon of virtue was in fact a far more monstrous slaughterer of the undefended.

I can't help but think you like to paint it black. I think colour is very important to you - disturbingly so.

How did I know that racism would be your next move.

You have been predictable since your first reply.

No need to reply.

I,ve said my piece on how I feel about Mandela, but you always get your sort replying to posts such as these.

Ron.

 

Comparing Churchill to Mandela is crass. We would probably be speaking German if it were not for the resolve of men like Churchill! When other spineless politicians talked of capitulation he was resolute.
The notion that the German population would go unpunished after inflicting such devastation on the world is laughable. You reap what you sow!

 

Comparing Churchill to Mandela is crass. We would probably be speaking German if it were not for the resolve of men like Churchill! When other spineless politicians talked of capitulation he was resolute.
The notion that the German population would go unpunished after inflicting such devastation on the world is laughable. You reap what you sow!

Are you implying that Mandela should have "punished" the white South Africans?

 

err........No?

 

geordiedownsouth - 10/08 - 'I think that being politically correct is a sign of weakness, being afraid to speak your mind. In this country,freedom of speech is only allowed if it fits the political agenda of the day. Any white british that critisizes any race or religion is deemed a racist, yet any other race or religion can stand on any street corner and defy the queen,government or religion and is deemed an ethnic minority that is allowed to speak their mind.Wake up britain, we are rapidly being taken over.'

or

geordidownsouth - 'We invaded Iraq to rid their country of a dictator that was killing everyone that didnt believe in his beliefs. The iraqi's should appreciate that, but they are arabs, they are a race of people that have little or no compassion for human or animal.I suppose every Iraqi could and will claim alligience to any country that offers assylum. I feel sorry for the people of Britain that are on council waiting lists, they will no doubt be knocked further down the waiting list to accommodate the influx of iraqi's.'

or

geordiedownsouth - 'They cant be treated that badly or they would have been arriving here claiming they are in fear of their lives in their own country. Or does that excuse only apply to europeans'

or

geordiedownsouth -'The best intelligence in the world wont stop terrorism,it can go a long way to controlling it. The best way to stop these muslims is to ridicule them. If you catch them, humiliate them, bring back capital punishment and let the world see the punishment carried out. Take the carcass out to sea and let the fish feed on it'

Bit of an unplesant feel to all of this geordiedownsouth. Not quite sure you're up to speed with johnny foreigner and all his merry chums, don't think I'll bother with felix farm for a while.

 

deleted..seemed amusing at the time...

 

- 10/08 - 'I think that being politically correct is a sign of weakness, being afraid to speak your mind. In this country,freedom of speech is only allowed if it fits the political agenda of the day. Any white british that critisizes any race or religion is deemed a racist, yet any other race or religion can stand on any street corner and defy the queen,government or religion and is deemed an ethnic minority that is allowed to speak their mind.Wake up britain, we are rapidly being taken over.'

or

- 'We invaded Iraq to rid their country of a dictator that was killing everyone that didnt believe in his beliefs. The iraqi's should appreciate that, but they are arabs, they are a race of people that have little or no compassion for human or animal.I suppose every Iraqi could and will claim alligience to any country that offers assylum. I feel sorry for the people of Britain that are on council waiting lists, they will no doubt be knocked further down the waiting list to accommodate the influx of iraqi's.'

or

- 'They cant be treated that badly or they would have been arriving here claiming they are in fear of their lives in their own country. Or does that excuse only apply to europeans'

or

-'The best intelligence in the world wont stop terrorism,it can go a long way to controlling it. The best way to stop these muslims is to ridicule them. If you catch them, humiliate them, bring back capital punishment and let the world see the punishment carried out. Take the carcass out to sea and let the fish feed on it'

Hmmmm, if it looks like a racist, smells like a racist and writes like a racist. Then I guess its a racist.

 

Wasn't this about the same time as ....

"
In the end, the leader is thwarted by objections from his aides and allies. To assuage his frustration, he launches another pet idea: "Operation Thunderclap," a massive conventional bombing raid on the enemy's capital, also aimed at civilians, designed to "c portrait of Saddam Hussein, at the height of the murderous Iran-Iraq war? No, it's Winston Churchill,"astrate" the enemy population. In a single night, allied forces kill 25,000 people, almost all of them from the city's working class and poorest districts.

A

OR

"Churchill was instrumental in establishing the illegal starvation blockade of Germany. The blockade depended on scattering mines, and classified as contraband food for civilians. But, throughout his career, international law and the conventions created to limit the horrors of war meant nothing to Churchill. One of the consequences of the hunger blockade was that, while it killed 750,000 German civilians by hunger and malnutrition, the youth who survived went on to become the most fanatical Nazis."

OR

"According to the official history of the Royal Air Force: "The destruction of Germany was by then on a scale which might have appalled Attila or Genghis Khan." Dresden was filled with masses of helpless refugees running for their lives ahead of the advancing Red Army. The war was practically over, but for three days and nights, from February 13 to 15, 1945, British bombs pounded Dresden, killing as many as 135,000 people or more in three days. After the massacre, Churchill attempted to disclaim responsibility; even casually saying "I thought the Americans did it."

etc., etc., ....

All the above is History written with a particular slant, all of it is true - the emphasis is what gives it the weight the Authors want. Churchill was a man with much more innocent blood on his hands than most terrorists. Yet is his way was still a great man - but deeply flawed.

I think he is lucky we lrt him remain next to Mandela, but remain he should.

V2 launching bases -
During 1943-4 Allied bombing targeted the V-weapon bases, and the railways that supplied them - achieving vital delays. By the time V2 rockets were ready to fire (September 1944), the Allies had captured the still unfinished bases in north France. So the Germans set up mobile launchers in Holland, and managed to fire over 1,000 V2's in a last-ditch attack against London, with a success rate as high as 50%. Continental targets included Lille, Arras, Cambrai, and Brussels. Paris was by this time out of range.

 

One man's terrorist another man's freedom fighter.

You may not have noticed but my argument was not in defence of Mandela particularly, though I do have a lot of time for the man, but in pointing out that Churchill, your paragon of virtue was in fact a far more monstrous slaughterer of the undefended.

I can't help but think you like to paint it black. I think colour is very important to you - disturbingly so.

You do come out with the most utter nonsense. You'll be saying that Churchill started the war next. You have no idea what Great Britain was up against. You probably would not exist if Churchill hadn't been in the right place at the right time. It is impossible to be a monstrous slaughterer of the undefended when involved in all out total war with the price of failure being the end of everything for the men, women and children of Great Britain. The enemy was the entire German people. The more of them that could be killed the harder it was for Germany to keep fighting the war. This was nothing new at the time. All wars since the American Civil War have been brought to a conclusion by deliberately killing members the civilian population. Who do you think keeps the armed forces going? It is the civilian population.

Air Marshall Arthur Harris was right when he said, "In spite of all that happened at Hamburg, bombing proved a comparatively humane method. For one thing, it saved the youth of this country and of our allies from being mown down by the military as it was in the war of 1914-1918."

You should get on your knees and thank Heaven or Providence that for your sake and the sake of everyone else in the free world that men like Churchill and Harris were there, knew what job needed doing and were prepared to do it.

richard

 

You can imagine them "lovin im" in the middle of nowhere (middle England) but what has that ever had to do with real life.

"In 1910, Churchill was promoted to Home Secretary, where he was to prove somewhat controversial. A famous photograph from the time shows the impetuous Churchill at the scene of the January 1911 Siege of Sidney Street, peering around a corner to view a gun battle between cornered anarchists and Scots Guards. His role attracted much criticism. The building under siege caught fire and Churchill supported the decision to deny the fire brigade access, forcing the criminals to choose surrender or death. Arthur Balfour asked, "He [Churchill] and a photographer were both risking valuable lives. I understand what the photographer was doing but what was the Right Honourable gentleman doing?"

1910 also saw Churchill using troops to deal with a dispute at the Cambrian Colliery mine in Tonypandy. Troops were deployed to protect the mines and to avoid riots when thirteen strikers were tried for minor offences, an action that broke the tradition of not involving the military in civil affairs and led to lingering dislike for Churchill in Wales."

My sisters and I also think that he advocated using chemical warfare in Iraq. No doubt the mindless bozos on here will like that. He was lucky to live when he did. These days he would have been locked away or been President of the USA.

Cometh the moment cometh the man but apart from the anal perspective of Bakewell which really has no relevance to anything at all, he was a disgusting pig by anybody's standards.

He is not welcome here in Cwm Filthy. Most men are but even us Welsh tarts have our standards. A disgusting pig of a man.

 

Oh dear..........