NYC names HS after mandela. Man who bombed school buses!!!

[Mad_Cabbie]

[

Your heading says Mandela bombed school buses, but do you have any idea how many schools and school children, in multiple countries, our own US drones and fighter jets, have bombed?
At the present moment, the US is supporting Syrian rebels, who are blowing up soldiers and innocent civilians with roadside bombs, car bombs and suicide bombs, and we are proud to call them 'freedom fighters'?

I know that. Obama is a mass-murdering terrorist too. Our last 4 presidents have been like that.

You're full of it. You and your shitty OP.

What a crock - no one calling you out on your bullshit either.

Our last 4 presidents were murders?

What's your point? You just hate everything without any rhyme or reason?

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

When Conservatives Branded Nelson Mandela A Terrorist

With the passing of President Nelson Mandela—arguably the most transformative world figure of the last century—our nation’s airwaves are awash in soaring and well deserved testimonials from all sides of the American political spectrum. While the memorials are both heartwarming and sad, the loss of Mandela has also resulted in a great many conversations providing important historical perspective and context via the media coverage—perspective that helps us more fully understand and appreciate just how remarkable and inspirational were the accomplishments of Nelson Mandela.

Indeed, so critical is Mandela to modern world history, each and every one of the living American presidents are planning to travel to South Africa next week to participate in a memorial service honoring the man who is considered the father of the South African nation.

However, there is one retired Vice-President of the United States that will likely not be attending any memorials for this great hero of humanity—either in South Africa or right here at home.

It was Dick Cheney who, while serving as Wyoming’s Republican congressman back in 1986, found it simply beyond his capacity to distinguish between a freedom fighter committed to ending South Africa’s brutal system of apartheid—one of the most evil political systems ever to scar the planet—and a terrorist.

You see, in the mind of Dick Cheney, Nelson Mandela, and those whom he led in the African National Congress, were, indeed, terrorists.

In 1986, the United States Congress, finally coming to grips with the evil that was apartheid, succeeded in passing a bi-partisan bill calling for tough sanctions to be imposed on South Africa and its white leaders until such time as the African nation brought their apartheid laws to an end and freed political prisoners like Nelson Mandela.

While there was no shortage of Congressional Republicans who voted in support of the bill, Congressman Dick Cheney was not one of them. To Cheney, a vote to sanction South Africa for continuing generations of brutal rule would be to cast his support in favor of a terrorist organization who sought to bring an end to the despicable status quo in that country.

When the bill sent over to the White House by Congress was vetoed by then President Ronald Reagan who—along with his ultra-conservative friend, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher— believed Mandela’s ANC group to be a terrorist organization, Congress successfully overrode Reagan’s veto and made the legislation the law of the land.

That law was one of the most moral and ethical things our Congress has ever done and it only happened because Congressional Republicans were willing to stand up to a Republican President and support what was simply the right thing to do. People like Indiana’s GOP Senator Richard Lugar and Kansas GOP Congresswoman Nancy Kasselbaum heroically defied Ronald Reagan and, for the first time, Congress overrode the desires of the Reagan White House on a matter of foreign policy.

Yet, not only did Dick Cheney vote against the measure on the first go-round, he also voted to uphold the President’s veto when the matter came back to Congress.

It’s more than clear that Cheney was very much on the wrong side of history. If you question that, take a look at the parade of both Republican and Democratic leaders from days gone by who are paying tribute to Mr. Mandela today.

Still, people make mistakes and, over time, these errors in judgment can form the basis of a more well-rounded and well-informed perspective that allows people to get it right when similar issues appear somewhere down the road. Certainly, Dick Cheney must have come to see that his vote had been misguided and that his efforts in support the ghastly, malevolent system that was apartheid was a true blot on his legislative record, yes?

Not so much.

As recently as the year 2000, while campaigning as the nominee of the Republican Party to become our Vice President, Cheney showed up on ABC’s “This Week” program to defend his vote, stating that “the ANC was then viewed as a terrorist organization.” As a result, said Cheney, “ I don’t have any problems at all with the vote I cast 20 years ago.”

When Conservatives Branded Nelson Mandela A Terrorist - Forbes

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ju-uYVBRrg]Apartheid Documentary - YouTube[/ame]

I guess the founding fathers were terrorist too?

 

[Sallow]

3 Things You Didn?t (Want To) Know About Nelson Mandela - The Backbencher

Eyeah..

This is a little like blaming Ghandi for the several million people that died as a result of India's independence.

You could do it?

And you'd be laughed at..

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

This is the most seriously demented thread of the year - do some of you clowns have any idea about apartheid?

 

[R.C. Christian]

Good lord, another Mandela apologist circle jerk.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Good lord, another Mandela apologist circle jerk.

Circle jerk?

Mandela apologist?????

Get your head out of your ass. Seriously - stick to uncle Omar and Aunt Zeiti. You don't have a clue.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

According to Nelson Mandela, all of the founding members of the MK, including himself, were also members of the ANC. In his famous "I am prepared to die" speech, Mandela outlined the motivations which led to the formation of the MK:[3]
MK (umkhonto WeSizwe) Symbol.jpg

"At the beginning of June 1961, after a long and anxious assessment of the South African situation, I, and some colleagues, came to the conclusion that as violence in this country was inevitable, it would be unrealistic and wrong for African leaders to continue preaching peace and non-violence at a time when the government met our peaceful demands with force.

This conclusion was not easily arrived at. It was only when all else had failed, when all channels of peaceful protest had been barred to us, that the decision was made to embark on violent forms of political struggle, and to form Umkhonto we Sizwe. We did so not because we desired such a course, but solely because the government had left us with no other choice. In the Manifesto of Umkhonto published on 16 December 1961, which is exhibit AD, we said:

'The time comes in the life of any nation when there remain only two choices – submit or fight. That time has now come to South Africa. We shall not submit and we have no choice but to hit back by all means in our power in defence of our people, our future, and our freedom.'
Firstly, we believed that as a result of Government policy, violence by the African people had become inevitable, and that unless responsible leadership was given to canalise and control the feelings of our people, there would be outbreaks of terrorism which would produce an intensity of bitterness and hostility between the various races of this country which is not produced even by war. Secondly, we felt that without violence there would be no way open to the African people to succeed in their struggle against the principle of white supremacy. All lawful modes of expressing opposition to this principle had been closed by legislation, and we were placed in a position in which we had either to accept a permanent state of inferiority, or take over the Government. We chose to defy the law. We first broke the law in a way which avoided any recourse to violence; when this form was legislated against, and then the Government resorted to a show of force to crush opposition to its policies, only then did we decide to answer with violence."

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

You're full of it. You and your shitty OP.

What a crock - no one calling you out on your bullshit either.

Our last 4 presidents were murders?

Of course they're murderers, you idiot. They all bombed civilians in countries that never did anything to us.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

[

You're full of it. You and your shitty OP.

What a crock - no one calling you out on your bullshit either.

Our last 4 presidents were murders?

Of course they're murderers, you idiot. They all bombed civilians in countries that never did anything to us.

They never did anything, huh?



So, Iraq DIDN'T invade Kuwait?

Afghanistan DIDN'T refuse to hand over Bin Laden???? Clinton?? Guess Serbia hadn't "done anything?"

 

[ShootSpeeders]

When Conservatives Branded Nelson Mandela A Terrorist

With the passing of President Nelson Mandela—arguably the most transformative world figure of the last century—our nation’s airwaves are awash in soaring and well deserved testimonials from all sides of the American political spectrum. While the memorials are both heartwarming and sad, the loss of Mandela has also resulted in a great many conversations providing important historical perspective and context via the media coverage—perspective that helps us more fully understand and appreciate just how remarkable and inspirational were the accomplishments of Nelson Mandela.

Indeed, so critical is Mandela to modern world history, each and every one of the living American presidents are planning to travel to South Africa next week to participate in a memorial service honoring the man who is considered the father of the South African nation.

However, there is one retired Vice-President of the United States that will likely not be attending any memorials for this great hero of humanity—either in South Africa or right here at home.

It was Dick Cheney who, while serving as Wyoming’s Republican congressman back in 1986, found it simply beyond his capacity to distinguish between a freedom fighter committed to ending South Africa’s brutal system of apartheid—one of the most evil political systems ever to scar the planet—and a terrorist.

You see, in the mind of Dick Cheney, Nelson Mandela, and those whom he led in the African National Congress, were, indeed, terrorists.

In 1986, the United States Congress, finally coming to grips with the evil that was apartheid, succeeded in passing a bi-partisan bill calling for tough sanctions to be imposed on South Africa and its white leaders until such time as the African nation brought their apartheid laws to an end and freed political prisoners like Nelson Mandela.

While there was no shortage of Congressional Republicans who voted in support of the bill, Congressman Dick Cheney was not one of them. To Cheney, a vote to sanction South Africa for continuing generations of brutal rule would be to cast his support in favor of a terrorist organization who sought to bring an end to the despicable status quo in that country.

When the bill sent over to the White House by Congress was vetoed by then President Ronald Reagan who—along with his ultra-conservative friend, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher— believed Mandela’s ANC group to be a terrorist organization, Congress successfully overrode Reagan’s veto and made the legislation the law of the land.

That law was one of the most moral and ethical things our Congress has ever done and it only happened because Congressional Republicans were willing to stand up to a Republican President and support what was simply the right thing to do. People like Indiana’s GOP Senator Richard Lugar and Kansas GOP Congresswoman Nancy Kasselbaum heroically defied Ronald Reagan and, for the first time, Congress overrode the desires of the Reagan White House on a matter of foreign policy.

Yet, not only did Dick Cheney vote against the measure on the first go-round, he also voted to uphold the President’s veto when the matter came back to Congress.

It’s more than clear that Cheney was very much on the wrong side of history. If you question that, take a look at the parade of both Republican and Democratic leaders from days gone by who are paying tribute to Mr. Mandela today.

Still, people make mistakes and, over time, these errors in judgment can form the basis of a more well-rounded and well-informed perspective that allows people to get it right when similar issues appear somewhere down the road. Certainly, Dick Cheney must have come to see that his vote had been misguided and that his efforts in support the ghastly, malevolent system that was apartheid was a true blot on his legislative record, yes?

Not so much.

As recently as the year 2000, while campaigning as the nominee of the Republican Party to become our Vice President, Cheney showed up on ABC’s “This Week” program to defend his vote, stating that “the ANC was then viewed as a terrorist organization.” As a result, said Cheney, “ I don’t have any problems at all with the vote I cast 20 years ago.”

When Conservatives Branded Nelson Mandela A Terrorist - Forbes

Are you saying mandela was NOT a terrorist. Of course he was. He set off bombs and blew up buildings and killed civilians. Maybe you want to say his terrorism was justified but he was still a terrorist. think

 

[ShootSpeeders]

This is the most seriously demented thread of the year - do some of you clowns have any idea about apartheid?

Apartheid is what still exists in RSA. It used to be anti-black but now it's anti-white. Also know as affirmative action.

 

[Asclepias]

When Conservatives Branded Nelson Mandela A Terrorist

With the passing of President Nelson Mandela—arguably the most transformative world figure of the last century—our nation’s airwaves are awash in soaring and well deserved testimonials from all sides of the American political spectrum. While the memorials are both heartwarming and sad, the loss of Mandela has also resulted in a great many conversations providing important historical perspective and context via the media coverage—perspective that helps us more fully understand and appreciate just how remarkable and inspirational were the accomplishments of Nelson Mandela.

Indeed, so critical is Mandela to modern world history, each and every one of the living American presidents are planning to travel to South Africa next week to participate in a memorial service honoring the man who is considered the father of the South African nation.

However, there is one retired Vice-President of the United States that will likely not be attending any memorials for this great hero of humanity—either in South Africa or right here at home.

It was Dick Cheney who, while serving as Wyoming’s Republican congressman back in 1986, found it simply beyond his capacity to distinguish between a freedom fighter committed to ending South Africa’s brutal system of apartheid—one of the most evil political systems ever to scar the planet—and a terrorist.

You see, in the mind of Dick Cheney, Nelson Mandela, and those whom he led in the African National Congress, were, indeed, terrorists.

In 1986, the United States Congress, finally coming to grips with the evil that was apartheid, succeeded in passing a bi-partisan bill calling for tough sanctions to be imposed on South Africa and its white leaders until such time as the African nation brought their apartheid laws to an end and freed political prisoners like Nelson Mandela.

While there was no shortage of Congressional Republicans who voted in support of the bill, Congressman Dick Cheney was not one of them. To Cheney, a vote to sanction South Africa for continuing generations of brutal rule would be to cast his support in favor of a terrorist organization who sought to bring an end to the despicable status quo in that country.

When the bill sent over to the White House by Congress was vetoed by then President Ronald Reagan who—along with his ultra-conservative friend, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher— believed Mandela’s ANC group to be a terrorist organization, Congress successfully overrode Reagan’s veto and made the legislation the law of the land.

That law was one of the most moral and ethical things our Congress has ever done and it only happened because Congressional Republicans were willing to stand up to a Republican President and support what was simply the right thing to do. People like Indiana’s GOP Senator Richard Lugar and Kansas GOP Congresswoman Nancy Kasselbaum heroically defied Ronald Reagan and, for the first time, Congress overrode the desires of the Reagan White House on a matter of foreign policy.

Yet, not only did Dick Cheney vote against the measure on the first go-round, he also voted to uphold the President’s veto when the matter came back to Congress.

It’s more than clear that Cheney was very much on the wrong side of history. If you question that, take a look at the parade of both Republican and Democratic leaders from days gone by who are paying tribute to Mr. Mandela today.

Still, people make mistakes and, over time, these errors in judgment can form the basis of a more well-rounded and well-informed perspective that allows people to get it right when similar issues appear somewhere down the road. Certainly, Dick Cheney must have come to see that his vote had been misguided and that his efforts in support the ghastly, malevolent system that was apartheid was a true blot on his legislative record, yes?

Not so much.

As recently as the year 2000, while campaigning as the nominee of the Republican Party to become our Vice President, Cheney showed up on ABC’s “This Week” program to defend his vote, stating that “the ANC was then viewed as a terrorist organization.” As a result, said Cheney, “ I don’t have any problems at all with the vote I cast 20 years ago.”

When Conservatives Branded Nelson Mandela A Terrorist - Forbes

Are you saying mandela was NOT a terrorist. Of course he was. He set off bombs and blew up buildings and killed civilians. Maybe you want to say his terrorism was justified but he was still a terrorist. think

Depends on your point of view. Whites should have never been there in the first place. He was a freedom fighter not a terrorist.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Of course they're murderers, you idiot. They all bombed civilians in countries that never did anything to us.

They never did anything, huh?

OK loonybird. Let's start with iraq, invaded and bombed to hell by American over the last 20 years. What did they ever do to us.?

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Of course they're murderers, you idiot. They all bombed civilians in countries that never did anything to us.

They never did anything, huh?

OK loonybird. Let's start with iraq, invaded and bombed to hell by American over the last 20 years. What did they ever do to us.?

They invaded Kuwait, a nation we had ties too.

Don't really feel like going there. Did you wish to discuss apartheid?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Are you saying mandela was NOT a terrorist. Of course he was. He set off bombs and blew up buildings and killed civilians. Maybe you want to say his terrorism was justified but he was still a terrorist. think

Depends on your point of view. Whites should have never been there in the first place. He was a freedom fighter not a terrorist.

If history is any guide, whites were there first!!! They settled the region when practically no one lived there and they built it into by far the most advanced country in africa. Then 20 years ago the blacks took what the whites built. That's not freedom fighting, it's stealing.

BTW - bombing schoolkids is never justified. You must be truly sick to think otherwise.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

OK loonybird. Let's start with iraq, invaded and bombed to hell by American over the last 20 years. What did they ever do to us.?

They invaded Kuwait, a nation we had ties too.

Ties to? HAHAHA. We bought oil from the dictatorship called kuwait. Is that all it takes to justify killing millions of civilians? Get help please.

 

[Asclepias]

Are you saying mandela was NOT a terrorist. Of course he was. He set off bombs and blew up buildings and killed civilians. Maybe you want to say his terrorism was justified but he was still a terrorist. think

Depends on your point of view. Whites should have never been there in the first place. He was a freedom fighter not a terrorist.

If history is any guide, whites were there first!!! They settled the region when practically no one lived there and they built it into by far the most advanced country in africa. Then 20 years ago the blacks took what the whites built. That's not freedom fighting, it's stealing.

BTW - bombing schoolkids is never justified. You must be truly sick to think otherwise.

I dont know what history you are talking about because white people did not even exist when Blacks inhabited south Africa. Practically doesn't cut it in my book. Thats like me taking over your house and furnishing it and claiming its mine.

I'm glad that the real Africans took back their land. If whites had not invaded no white school children would have been killed. Pretty sure more than 10x that number of black children died as a result of white colonization. Stop whining and realize Africa is not for white people. They should have the decency to at least ask if they can come and live there instead of just claiming shit. Mandela is the man. Thats why everyone in the world recognizes and praises him. Thats why American children will attend American schools with his name on them.

 

[freedombecki]

Of course they're murderers, you idiot. They all bombed civilians in countries that never did anything to us.

They never did anything, huh?

OK loonybird. Let's start with iraq, invaded and bombed to hell by American over the last 20 years. What did they ever do to us.?

They tried to assassinate an American President, for one thing.
Edit: Oh, and I forgot one thing.
Saddam paid homicide bomber families $25,000 for killing a Jew.
And he paid Homicide bomber families $50,000 for killing an American.
While he spent billions on war machinery, he let undesirable children in Iraq starve on purpose, then blamed America for the blockade causing starvation and a dearth of medicine for the children whose parents he hated.
You ought to have read Madeline Allbright's State Department Notes on the War Crimes of Saddam Hussein. That'd wipe any doubt out of your mind as to the atrocities coming from Iraq. I did read them, and his war crimes were basically unspeakable their horror was so great, and he put two monsters in charge of his mischief whose names were Uday and Qusay.

 

[Black_Man1]

People should start naming their children Mandela!!!