Africa

First topic message reminder :

The president of Africa,  Mr Jacob Zuma wants to take over White Farmers land without paying compensation !

Shades of Mugabe.

[Sky NEWS]

Jules wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:


I'm not going on about it either, I said it once. You're the one arguing about it.

Correct. And it was not YOU that I was referring to, when I said that. It's not all about you, Ragga. I did reply sharply, sorry about that.

"Arguing"?? How so? All I've done is reply to a couple of Thorin's posts plus one of yours, all of them addressed directly to me.  Yes, both of you 'approached' me, not the other way round, and I simply replied to both of you. Replying isn't the same as arguing. Surely it would have been rude to ignore people who were speaking to me.

I didn't say you were referring to me, I was just pointing out your hypocrisy.

nicko wrote:The president of Africa,  Mr Jacob Zuma wants to take over White Farmers land without paying compensation !

Shades of Mugabe.

[Sky NEWS]

I don't understand why anyone would have given nicko a red for posting up this news in op...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:

nicko wrote:The president of Africa,  Mr Jacob Zuma wants to take over White Farmers land without paying compensation !

Shades of Mugabe.

[Sky NEWS]

I don't understand why anyone would have given nicko a red for posting up this news in op...!?

They don't like anyone criticising someone who isn't white, or anyone criticising any country other than the UK.

Tommy Monk wrote:

nicko wrote:The president of Africa,  Mr Jacob Zuma wants to take over White Farmers land without paying compensation !

Shades of Mugabe.

[Sky NEWS]

I don't understand why anyone would have given nicko a red for posting up this news in op...!?

Let me see if I can help with your question. (Now, personally I have never awarded green or red marks to anyone, and I never will, let me make that clear, first of all. I'm simply not interested in that sort of thing).

Obviously I don't know who gave him the red mark, or why. But let me try and surmise why. Maybe the person did not like the fact that there was no proper link and the fact that OP vanished completely after posting, making no attempt whatsoever at debate. (It's known as post&run, not that I'm saying that is what happened here). Or maybe they did not like the ultra-vague title. I think those are more constructive reasons than some of the inane, idiotic reasons I've seen dribbled on here.
Happy to help.

Thorin wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


Nicko's ignorance is clear and indefensible, as is Ragg's'...



Re: the more intelligent discussions :

Contracts signed under duress can be contested in court...
Courts in Holland, Germany or the UK do not take precedence over South Africa..
Despite what many Euro-centric types may think.

If the S.A. government feels that Europe is dicking them around, what's to stop it nationalising all those farms and mines that gained land title under suspicious, criminal or fraudulent circumstances  ?

And then worry about compensation further down the track..
Then use the historical value of that land (as paid to the Zulus..) --  adjusted for inflation of course -- and start from there;  rather than current "improved" values..  And then lose another 30% to the lawyers...        

Again you are talking gibberish with no comprehension of the history of South Africa.
You seem to be under the delusion, it was under duress.

LEGAL SALE/PURCHASE
The sale of said land on July 25, 1846 were between King Masous (representative of the Zulu) as seller; and Commandant SJZR Burg (representative of the Dutch South African nation) as buyer and a copy of the agreement is filed in the Government Archives under file R117/46.
The original agreement is in Dutch and apart from King Masous, the following witnesses signed for the Zulu nation: Samkoela (chieftain), Makienkaan (chieftain), Mandalea (chieftain). As witnesses for the Dutch South African nation it was signed by WF Joubert, JC Steyn, JM de Beer (field cornets), L de Jager, J Lotter, H Breytenbach and PJ Coetzer.

From Ohrigstad to the north till the Olifantsrivier, then downwards to the Delagoa Bay line; to the south till the Crocodile River; to the west to Elandspruit till the 26 degrees line; east till where the Crocodile River joins the Komati River.


The sale was conducted at Kjakas Kraal, Umkumaas.

It states: (in Dutch) …ten dienste van de Hollandsche Zuid Afrikaansche Natie die thans binnen dat grond zyn en noch in vervolg door de wettige gezag onder hun ter inwooning zal gepermitteerd worden…

In English it states that the land is sold to those members of the Dutch South African nation and “those who in future will be permitted by their legal guardianship (not Government)…


PAYMENT FOR THE LAND
The receipt for the payment of the said land is filed in the Government Archives in 1846 and the copy was certified by State Secretary NJR Swart.

The receipt for the last payment in cattle was received in January 1856 and also included the Deed of Sale of July 21, 1855 to conclude the sale.

The receipt was issued by Maloenke (Zulu representative) at Tabankolea on February 5, 1860 and signed as witnesses by chieftains Sonagla, Jogo, Santlant, Omglagen, Malayde, Kaompeunis and Kampa. Commandant WF Joubert signed for the Dutch South African nation with FJ Joubert and H Joubert as witnesses.

Now considering the the Anglo-Zulu war was not fought until 1879, how do you claim it was under duress, when the Zulu's was an independent Kingdom?
Who also do you think sold guns to the Zulu's?

This is not about European courts, but international law on treaties.
This is binding in international law, not your made up leftist mythical law.


Now I have asked both you and Veya to post up evidence for your claims

To get the thread back on topic

deleted

Thorin wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


Nicko's ignorance is clear and indefensible, as is Ragg's'...



Re: the more intelligent discussions :

Contracts signed under duress can be contested in court...
Courts in Holland, Germany or the UK do not take precedence over South Africa..
Despite what many Euro-centric types may think.

If the S.A. government feels that Europe is dicking them around, what's to stop it nationalising all those farms and mines that gained land title under suspicious, criminal or fraudulent circumstances  ?

And then worry about compensation further down the track..
Then use the historical value of that land (as paid to the Zulus..) --  adjusted for inflation of course -- and start from there;  rather than current "improved" values..  And then lose another 30% to the lawyers...        

Again you are talking gibberish with no comprehension of the history of South Africa.
You seem to be under the delusion, it was under duress.

LEGAL SALE/PURCHASE
The sale of said land on July 25, 1846 were between King Masous (representative of the Zulu) as seller; and Commandant SJZR Burg (representative of the Dutch South African nation) as buyer and a copy of the agreement is filed in the Government Archives under file R117/46.
The original agreement is in Dutch and apart from King Masous, the following witnesses signed for the Zulu nation: Samkoela (chieftain), Makienkaan (chieftain), Mandalea (chieftain). As witnesses for the Dutch South African nation it was signed by WF Joubert, JC Steyn, JM de Beer (field cornets), L de Jager, J Lotter, H Breytenbach and PJ Coetzer.

From Ohrigstad to the north till the Olifantsrivier, then downwards to the Delagoa Bay line; to the south till the Crocodile River; to the west to Elandspruit till the 26 degrees line; east till where the Crocodile River joins the Komati River.


The sale was conducted at Kjakas Kraal, Umkumaas.

It states: (in Dutch) …ten dienste van de Hollandsche Zuid Afrikaansche Natie die thans binnen dat grond zyn en noch in vervolg door de wettige gezag onder hun ter inwooning zal gepermitteerd worden…

In English it states that the land is sold to those members of the Dutch South African nation and “those who in future will be permitted by their legal guardianship (not Government)…


PAYMENT FOR THE LAND
The receipt for the payment of the said land is filed in the Government Archives in 1846 and the copy was certified by State Secretary NJR Swart.

The receipt for the last payment in cattle was received in January 1856 and also included the Deed of Sale of July 21, 1855 to conclude the sale.

The receipt was issued by Maloenke (Zulu representative) at Tabankolea on February 5, 1860 and signed as witnesses by chieftains Sonagla, Jogo, Santlant, Omglagen, Malayde, Kaompeunis and Kampa. Commandant WF Joubert signed for the Dutch South African nation with FJ Joubert and H Joubert as witnesses.

Now considering the the Anglo-Zulu war was not fought until 1879, how do you claim it was under duress, when the Zulu's was an independent Kingdom?
Who also do you think sold guns to the Zulu's?

This is not about European courts, but international law on treaties.
This is binding in international law, not your made up leftist mythical law.


Now I have asked both you and Veya to post up evidence for your claims

To get the thread back on topic

Raggamuffin wrote:

Jules wrote:

Correct. And it was not YOU that I was referring to, when I said that. It's not all about you, Ragga. I did reply sharply, sorry about that.

"Arguing"?? How so? All I've done is reply to a couple of Thorin's posts plus one of yours, all of them addressed directly to me.  Yes, both of you 'approached' me, not the other way round, and I simply replied to both of you. Replying isn't the same as arguing. Surely it would have been rude to ignore people who were speaking to me.

I didn't say you were referring to me, I was just pointing out your hypocrisy.

So why the hell did you come to my post and deny something you knew full well you were not being accused of? Is this your way of admitting you were being DELIBERATELY disruptive?

You can wave words like ''hypocrisy'' around as much as you like. Fill your jackboots. What I do mind is you trying to pass off a one off suggestion I made ages ago, as a chronic habit.

You say I wipe fevered brows of the lefties? At least I have the grace and decency to WAIT until they have spoken before I speak. YOU just jump in before your cronies have even had time to reply to posts made to them. You treat them all as if they are completely incapable of speaking for themselves. You are the most prolific ventriloquist dummy on forums, Raggamuffin.

Thorin wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


Nicko's ignorance is clear and indefensible, as is Ragg's'...



Re: the more intelligent discussions :

Contracts signed under duress can be contested in court...
Courts in Holland, Germany or the UK do not take precedence over South Africa..
Despite what many Euro-centric types may think.

If the S.A. government feels that Europe is dicking them around, what's to stop it nationalising all those farms and mines that gained land title under suspicious, criminal or fraudulent circumstances  ?

And then worry about compensation further down the track..
Then use the historical value of that land (as paid to the Zulus..) --  adjusted for inflation of course -- and start from there;  rather than current "improved" values..  And then lose another 30% to the lawyers...        

Again you are talking gibberish with no comprehension of the history of South Africa.
You seem to be under the delusion, it was under duress.

LEGAL SALE/PURCHASE
The sale of said land on July 25, 1846 were between King Masous (representative of the Zulu) as seller; and Commandant SJZR Burg (representative of the Dutch South African nation) as buyer and a copy of the agreement is filed in the Government Archives under file R117/46.
The original agreement is in Dutch and apart from King Masous, the following witnesses signed for the Zulu nation: Samkoela (chieftain), Makienkaan (chieftain), Mandalea (chieftain). As witnesses for the Dutch South African nation it was signed by WF Joubert, JC Steyn, JM de Beer (field cornets), L de Jager, J Lotter, H Breytenbach and PJ Coetzer.

From Ohrigstad to the north till the Olifantsrivier, then downwards to the Delagoa Bay line; to the south till the Crocodile River; to the west to Elandspruit till the 26 degrees line; east till where the Crocodile River joins the Komati River.


The sale was conducted at Kjakas Kraal, Umkumaas.

It states: (in Dutch) …ten dienste van de Hollandsche Zuid Afrikaansche Natie die thans binnen dat grond zyn en noch in vervolg door de wettige gezag onder hun ter inwooning zal gepermitteerd worden…

In English it states that the land is sold to those members of the Dutch South African nation and “those who in future will be permitted by their legal guardianship (not Government)…


PAYMENT FOR THE LAND
The receipt for the payment of the said land is filed in the Government Archives in 1846 and the copy was certified by State Secretary NJR Swart.

The receipt for the last payment in cattle was received in January 1856 and also included the Deed of Sale of July 21, 1855 to conclude the sale.

The receipt was issued by Maloenke (Zulu representative) at Tabankolea on February 5, 1860 and signed as witnesses by chieftains Sonagla, Jogo, Santlant, Omglagen, Malayde, Kaompeunis and Kampa. Commandant WF Joubert signed for the Dutch South African nation with FJ Joubert and H Joubert as witnesses.

Now considering the the Anglo-Zulu war was not fought until 1879, how do you claim it was under duress, when the Zulu's was an independent Kingdom?
Who also do you think sold guns to the Zulu's?

This is not about European courts, but international law on treaties.
This is binding in international law, not your made up leftist mythical law.


Now I have asked both you and Veya to post up evidence for your claims

To get the thread back on topic

Jules wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:


I didn't say you were referring to me, I was just pointing out your hypocrisy.

So why the hell did you come to my post and deny something you knew full well you were not being accused of? Is this your way of admitting you were being DELIBERATELY disruptive?

You can wave words like ''hypocrisy'' around as much as you like. Fill your jackboots. What I do mind is you trying to pass off a one off suggestion I made ages ago, as a chronic habit.

You say I wipe fevered brows of the lefties? At least I have the grace and decency to WAIT until they have spoken before I speak. YOU just jump in before your cronies have even had time to reply to posts made to them. You treat them all as if they are completely incapable of speaking for themselves. You are the most prolific ventriloquist dummy on forums, Raggamuffin.

I think you were being disruptive by having a go at nicko - which you're still doing by the way. I replied to you because you said this:

Better to let threads flow and let people decide for themselves what they want to contribute, rather than you trying to micro-manage everything in sight.

You criticised someone for doing what you do yourself.

When you say I jump in, you mean that I say what I think. We're not all like you - just saying what you want others to hear in order to get brownie points.

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think you were being disruptive by having a go at nicko - which you're still doing by the way. I replied to you because you said this:

I am NOT having 'a go' at anyone, you bloody idiotic pig.  All I am doing is passing comment and that is something that YOU do all day, so why shouldn't I?

Why do you feel the need to jump in and speak up for everyone, before they even speak for themselves, are you their guardian? What an insult to the people on whose behalf you act as their mouthpiece, as if you feel they are too dumb to speak for themselves.  

My comments about the OP were perfectly reasonable, and in no way OTT,  there is no one here who is a fragile china doll who  will crumble just because they are criticised in the mildest possible way.

I never, ever go near you  or speak to you Ragga, it is always YOU  who keeps jumping at me, and flying off the handle at me. Can you not just ignore me?? I normally find it dead easy to completely ignore you.  Perhaps you can afford me the same courtesy  I prefer to chat with light hearted people on here, not depressive menopausal wierdos. . If you are unable to keep the hell away from me, don't go squealing to the mods when I say something back.


''I want brownie points??'' Is that the best you can do? And anyway, why is it is any of your business what I want?  Grow the hell up and stop running around loking for a row. If  you are lonely, go look for hobbies and interests instead of making a nuissance of yourself with people who don't want to know you. If you are bored or lonely that is not my fault, so peel your ass off my back.

Tommy Monk wrote:

nicko wrote:The president of Africa,  Mr Jacob Zuma wants to take over White Farmers land without paying compensation !

Shades of Mugabe.

[Sky NEWS]

I don't understand why anyone would have given nicko a red for posting up this news in op...!?

I didn't do it but

The president of Africa
Plus the title 'Africa' like what the fuck how is that a title just mention the name of the continent the country is in??
how fucking stupid
and for a man that gets all sensitive about his little piss ant Island

I feel like Changing every thread about Britain and retitling it 'Europe'

@thorin

THE OP there you go backed up in full
Your idea of law is being Ignored because NO, IT IS NOT BINDING !!!
end of story
Stop reading your Propaganda fairytales tales as if they are true

"his little piss ant island" what a jealous geranium you are, a little man with an enormous ego and a chip on his shoulder to match !
Your a fucking joke.

Jules wrote:I never, ever go near you  or speak to you Ragga, it is always YOU  who keeps jumping at me, and flying off the handle at me. Can you not just ignore me?? I normally find it dead easy to completely ignore you.  Perhaps you can afford me the same courtesy  I prefer to chat with light hearted people on here, not depressive menopausal wierdos. . If you are unable to keep the hell away from me, don't go squealing to the mods when I say something back.


''I want brownie points??'' Is that the best you can do? And anyway, why is it is any of your business what I want?  Grow the hell up and stop running around loking for a row. If  you are lonely, go look for hobbies and interests instead of making a nuissance of yourself with people who don't want to know you. If you are bored or lonely that is not my fault, so peel your ass off my back.

That's more like the old Canny.

veya_victaous wrote:@thorin

THE OP there you go backed up in full
Your idea of law is being Ignored because NO, IT IS NOT BINDING !!!
end of story  
Stop reading your Propaganda fairytales tales as if they are true      

Really, because you say so?
Nope that is not good enough.
4 times I have asked for your evidence with one incorrect answer claiming them changing the law.
You don't understand international law. You make some piss poor earlier crap about European law, which it had nothing to do with
This was a signed treaty by two nations and is binding in international law. You attempt to undo one, and then all treaties are under between nations. This is the limit of your ability to understand anything
They cannot dispute the treaty between these nations. .
I won't stop showing how utterly wrong you are when you make piss poor claims you cannot back up


And also I see you lefties are picking on Nicko over something pedantic.
This matters more to you than the threat of South Africa creeping into a racial war.

So are sales of land not actually binding in South Africa then? Taking land off someone who bought it and giving it to some other random person is legal?

Strange kind of system.

Raggamuffin wrote:So are sales of land not actually binding in South Africa then? Taking land off someone who bought it and giving it to some other random person is legal?

Strange kind of system.

Indeed illegal Rags is what it would be an even more if those who vote in this system to illegally take land and do so by a majority vote of one racial group would be Apartheid again, but with whites as the victims this time.

Jules wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think you were being disruptive by having a go at nicko - which you're still doing by the way. I replied to you because you said this:

I am NOT having 'a go' at anyone, you bloody idiotic pig.  All I am doing is passing comment and that is something that YOU do all day, so why shouldn't I?

Why do you feel the need to jump in and speak up for everyone, before they even speak for themselves, are you their guardian? What an insult to the people on whose behalf you act as their mouthpiece, as if you feel they are too dumb to speak for themselves.  

My comments about the OP were perfectly reasonable, and in no way OTT,  there is no one here who is a fragile china doll who  will crumble just because they are criticised in the mildest possible way.

I always stick up for people who I think are being picked on - you should know that. Didge has also commented on the issue but at least you can't call him a "depressive menopausal weirdo". I guess that would be a sexist comment if you did.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:So are sales of land not actually binding in South Africa then? Taking land off someone who bought it and giving it to some other random person is legal?

Strange kind of system.

Indeed illegal Rags is what it would be an even more if those who vote in this system to illegally take land and do so by a majority vote of one racial group would be Apartheid again, but with whites as the victims this time.

I agree with you. I don't understand why some people are defending this.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Indeed illegal Rags is what it would be an even more if those who vote in this system to illegally take land and do so by a majority vote of one racial group would be Apartheid again, but with whites as the victims this time.

I agree with you. I don't understand why some people are defending this.

Neither can I Rags.
I certainly am all for land reform and in this requires compensation, but where there has been legal sale purchases, then they have no right to take those lands.
But to have the usual suspects try and defend land just being robbed off farmers, shows where the real racism lies within.
Those who are self-loathing.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I agree with you. I don't understand why some people are defending this.

Neither can I Rags.
I certainly am all for land reform and in this requires compensation.
But to have the usual suspects try and defend land just being robbed off farmers, shows where the real racism lies within.
Those who are self-loathing.

What a load of total shite...

Two "old world" troglodytes defending old world "finders'keepers" thuggery, on the part of old world (i.e. Dutch, German, French and English) invaders who had occupied lands forcibly over a couple of centuries, before any "legal" purchases or treaties took place..

Whereas the indigenous natives in the southern parts of the African continent had been there for over 100,000 years.

Easy to see who the real 'regressives' are around here, with their ongoing ostrich-like posturings..
Still not prepared to face up to the crimes that made those Western European countries the expansionist (i.e. thieving..) economic powers of the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries..  

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Neither can I Rags.
I certainly am all for land reform and in this requires compensation.
But to have the usual suspects try and defend land just being robbed off farmers, shows where the real racism lies within.
Those who are self-loathing.

What a load of total shite...

Two "old world" troglodytes defending old world "finders'keepers" thuggery, on the part of old world (i.e. Dutch, German, French and English) invaders who had occupied lands forcibly over a couple of centuries, before any "legal" purchases or treaties took place..

Whereas the indigenous natives in the southern parts of the African continent had been there for over 100,000 years.

Easy to see who the real 'regressives' are around here, with their ongoing ostrich-like posturings..
Still not prepared to face up to the crimes that made those Western European countries the expansionist (i.e. thieving..) economic powers of the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries..  

I think it's pretty regressive to keep banging on about the past like you do. What about the present? These white people didn't steal any land, but you want to punish them just for being white. That's racist and ignorant.

If you own any property, perhaps you should give it away to some random person who happens to be a different colour to you.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Neither can I Rags.
I certainly am all for land reform and in this requires compensation.
But to have the usual suspects try and defend land just being robbed off farmers, shows where the real racism lies within.
Those who are self-loathing.

What a load of total shite...

Two "old world" troglodytes defending old world "finders'keepers" thuggery, on the part of old world (i.e. Dutch, German, French and English) invaders who had occupied lands forcibly over a couple of centuries, before any "legal" purchases or treaties took place..

Whereas the indigenous natives in the southern parts of the African continent had been there for over 100,000 years.

Easy to see who the real 'regressives' are around here, with their ongoing ostrich-like posturings..
Still not prepared to face up to the crimes that made those Western European countries the expansionist (i.e. thieving..) economic powers of the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries..  

Ahhh, I see the forum potty mouth is in full swing.

So now the legal purchase of land between two nations is now thuggery to you?

LEGAL SALE/PURCHASE
The sale of said land on July 25, 1846 were between King Masous (representative of the Zulu) as seller; and Commandant SJZR Burg (representative of the Dutch South African nation) as buyer and a copy of the agreement is filed in the Government Archives under file R117/46.
The original agreement is in Dutch and apart from King Masous, the following witnesses signed for the Zulu nation: Samkoela (chieftain), Makienkaan (chieftain), Mandalea (chieftain). As witnesses for the Dutch South African nation it was signed by WF Joubert, JC Steyn, JM de Beer (field cornets), L de Jager, J Lotter, H Breytenbach and PJ Coetzer.

From Ohrigstad to the north till the Olifantsrivier, then downwards to the Delagoa Bay line; to the south till the Crocodile River; to the west to Elandspruit till the 26 degrees line; east till where the Crocodile River joins the Komati River.


The sale was conducted at Kjakas Kraal, Umkumaas.

It states: (in Dutch) …ten dienste van de Hollandsche Zuid Afrikaansche Natie die thans binnen dat grond zyn en noch in vervolg door de wettige gezag onder hun ter inwooning zal gepermitteerd worden…

In English it states that the land is sold to those members of the Dutch South African nation and “those who in future will be permitted by their legal guardianship (not Government)…


PAYMENT FOR THE LAND
The receipt for the payment of the said land is filed in the Government Archives in 1846 and the copy was certified by State Secretary NJR Swart.

The receipt for the last payment in cattle was received in January 1856 and also included the Deed of Sale of July 21, 1855 to conclude the sale.

The receipt was issued by Maloenke (Zulu representative) at Tabankolea on February 5, 1860 and signed as witnesses by chieftains Sonagla, Jogo, Santlant, Omglagen, Malayde, Kaompeunis and Kampa. Commandant WF Joubert signed for the Dutch South African nation with FJ Joubert and H Joubert as witnesses.

Now considering the the Anglo-Zulu war was not fought until 1879, how do you claim it was under duress, when the Zulu's was an independent Kingdom?
Who also do you think sold guns to the Zulu's?

This is not about European courts, but international law on treaties.
This is binding in international law, not your made up leftist mythical law.

So wolf backs the racist view to discriminate against whites

A true regressive

Its wrong to discriminate against Blacks to Wolf, but acceptable when it comes to white's

Oh and for the record, most of the Nguni people migrated to South Africa in the 1400's, only a few centuries before the Boers. They migrated from Central and East Africa. Then of course one of the Nguni tribes, the Zulu's then conquered most of the area under Shaka. Displacing many of the African tribes who had been living their for centuries. Hardly a claim to being indigenous to Southern Africa.

You see how again the regressive's on here just invent history to suit their racist agenda.

Jules wrote:I never, ever go near you  or speak to you Ragga, it is always YOU  who keeps jumping at me, and flying off the handle at me. Can you not just ignore me?? I normally find it dead easy to completely ignore you.  Perhaps you can afford me the same courtesy  I prefer to chat with light hearted people on here, not depressive menopausal wierdos. . If you are unable to keep the hell away from me, don't go squealing to the mods when I say something back.


''I want brownie points??'' Is that the best you can do? And anyway, why is it is any of your business what I want?  Grow the hell up and stop running around loking for a row. If  you are lonely, go look for hobbies and interests instead of making a nuissance of yourself with people who don't want to know you. If you are bored or lonely that is not my fault, so peel your ass off my back.

Rags may irritate you and I have no idea what your history is, but you were far more insulting and personal towards her, than she was to you.

That speaks heaps about you.
Oh, and to make remarks like that on International Women's Day.....tut tut.

eddie wrote:

Jules wrote:I never, ever go near you  or speak to you Ragga, it is always YOU  who keeps jumping at me, and flying off the handle at me. Can you not just ignore me?? I normally find it dead easy to completely ignore you.  Perhaps you can afford me the same courtesy  I prefer to chat with light hearted people on here, not depressive menopausal wierdos. . If you are unable to keep the hell away from me, don't go squealing to the mods when I say something back.


''I want brownie points??'' Is that the best you can do? And anyway, why is it is any of your business what I want?  Grow the hell up and stop running around loking for a row. If  you are lonely, go look for hobbies and interests instead of making a nuissance of yourself with people who don't want to know you. If you are bored or lonely that is not my fault, so peel your ass off my back.

Rags may irritate you and I have no idea what your history is, but you were far more insulting and personal towards her, than she was to you.

That speaks heaps about you.
Oh, and to make remarks like that on International Women's Day.....tut tut.  

Thank you eddie.

nicko wrote:"his little piss ant island"  what a jealous geranium you are,   a little man with an enormous ego and a chip on his shoulder to match !  
Your a fucking joke.

As always comes right on the whistle
You are pathetic and cant take a joke you brain dead dog.
You had no issue insulting an entire continent but when I Suggest that you live on one of the piss ant European islands you get upset.

I am more man than you cause I think,
murdering babies on command doesn't make you man, it makes you scum.
the sooner Humanity evolves past the scum brained dogs like you the better.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I agree with you. I don't understand why some people are defending this.

Neither can I Rags.
I certainly am all for land reform and in this requires compensation.
But to have the usual suspects try and defend land just being robbed off farmers, shows where the real racism lies within.
Those who are self-loathing.

What a load of total shite...

Two "old world" troglodytes defending old world "finders'keepers" thuggery, on the part of old world (i.e. Dutch, German, French and English) invaders who had occupied lands forcibly over a couple of centuries, before any "legal" purchases or treaties took place..

Whereas the indigenous natives in the southern parts of the African continent had been there for over 100,000 years.

Easy to see who the real 'regressives' are around here, with their ongoing ostrich-like posturings..
Still not prepared to face up to the crimes that made those Western European countries the expansionist (i.e. thieving..) economic powers of the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries..  

the worse thing is they way they Complain about getting migrants now and STILL refuse to pay or even acknowledge the debt THEY owe for the resources they stole.
Pathetic People like Raggs and Nicko Make me hope that there is an ethnic take over of Europe, Couldn't be any worse than the uncivil barbarian minded dickheads like them.

Thorin wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:@thorin

THE OP there you go backed up in full
Your idea of law is being Ignored because NO, IT IS NOT BINDING !!!
end of story  
Stop reading your Propaganda fairytales tales as if they are true      

Really, because you say so?
Nope that is not good enough.
4 times I have asked for your evidence with one incorrect answer claiming them changing the law.
You don't understand international law. You make some piss poor earlier crap about European law, which it had nothing to do with
This was a signed treaty by two nations and is binding in international law. You attempt to undo one, and then all treaties are under between nations. This is the limit of your ability to understand anything
They cannot dispute the treaty between these nations. .
I won't stop showing how utterly wrong you are when you make piss poor claims you cannot back up


And also I see you lefties are picking on Nicko over something pedantic.
This matters more to you than the threat of South Africa creeping into a racial war.

Your International law IS NOT RECOGNISED since it was just made up by Europeans !!!!

LOOK AT SA IGNORING IT
LOOK at NK Ignoring it
LOOK at CHINA ignoring it
LOOK at BRAZIL ignoring it
LOOK at the middle east, South America and ever increasing amount of Asia IGNORING IT.

The World has moved Away from you European enforced 'international laws'. Because they exist to prop up your economies and justify themselves through YOUR propaganda. Until Nations like the UK, Openly recognize them selves as Unwanted vllianous invaders that raped and pillaged the world your 'history' is just propaganda.

veya_victaous wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Really, because you say so?
Nope that is not good enough.
4 times I have asked for your evidence with one incorrect answer claiming them changing the law.
You don't understand international law. You make some piss poor earlier crap about European law, which it had nothing to do with
This was a signed treaty by two nations and is binding in international law. You attempt to undo one, and then all treaties are under between nations. This is the limit of your ability to understand anything
They cannot dispute the treaty between these nations. .
I won't stop showing how utterly wrong you are when you make piss poor claims you cannot back up


And also I see you lefties are picking on Nicko over something pedantic.
This matters more to you than the threat of South Africa creeping into a racial war.

Your International law IS NOT RECOGNISED since it was just made up by Europeans !!!!

LOOK AT SA IGNORING IT
LOOK at NK Ignoring it
LOOK at CHINA ignoring it
LOOK at BRAZIL ignoring it
LOOK at the middle east, South America and ever increasing amount of Asia IGNORING IT.

The World has moved Away from you European enforced 'international laws'.  Because they exist to prop up your economies and justify themselves through YOUR propaganda. Until Nations like the UK, Openly recognize them selves as Unwanted vllianous invaders that raped and pillaged the world your 'history' is just propaganda.

Really yet more unfounded claims not backed again by any evidence.
So your view is that South Africa should ignore International law, which is not European, so that they can commit racism and rob people of their farms illegally.

Again you have no comprehension or a clue what you are talking about or an understanding of international law.

International might give you a clue its not European, but International.

So again how many counters are you going to make with zero evidence to back your claims?


South Africa is signed up to International law and recognizes International Law.

South Africa's Obligations under International Human Rights Law.

All persons in South Africa share a certain set of basic human rights under international law, regardless of their immigration status. Refugees have, in addition, rights based on international refugee law and the principle that persons should not be returned to a country where they fear persecution on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, or which they were compelled to leave owing to external aggression, occupation, foreign domination or events seriously disturbing public order. The following section first sets out the international law relating to the rights of all persons in South Africa, and then describes the particular entitlements of refugees.


https://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports98/sareport/App1a.htm

Now if South Africa wants wants to break International law, then it could well then face sanctions for its nation, being as it does not have the clout of Russia or China, it would face repercussions. Russia already suffers sanctions, which might have escaped your attention. China could also very soon be facing sanctions too. 

So not only would South Africa send itself down the road to a racial war, but face economic sanctions or end up in the international criminal court.

So yes International Law is recognised and as per usual, you are talking gibberish

They would have to change their own constitution in order to grab land without compensation. That's always a bit of a dodgy path.

veya_victaous wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


What a load of total shite...

Two "old world" troglodytes defending old world "finders'keepers" thuggery, on the part of old world (i.e. Dutch, German, French and English) invaders who had occupied lands forcibly over a couple of centuries, before any "legal" purchases or treaties took place..

Whereas the indigenous natives in the southern parts of the African continent had been there for over 100,000 years.

Easy to see who the real 'regressives' are around here, with their ongoing ostrich-like posturings..
Still not prepared to face up to the crimes that made those Western European countries the expansionist (i.e. thieving..) economic powers of the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries..  

the worse thing is they way they Complain about getting migrants now and STILL refuse to pay or even acknowledge the debt THEY owe for the resources they stole.
Pathetic People like Raggs and Nicko Make me hope that there is an ethnic take over of Europe, Couldn't be any worse than the uncivil barbarian minded dickheads like them.

Says the person who approves of taking away people's livelihoods and homes just because they're white. I know you're a fan of ethnic cleansing, but it's really not the way forward.

Veya and Wolfie, both a couple of ignorant clowns who think they know everything but really know fuck all. all they can do is insult us Brits day after day. They live in a country whose government put immigrants in concentration camps on remote islands, whose ancesters commited rape and used little British children as slaves.
Moslums are rioting all over the country, but this pair of geranium put their heads in the sand and criticise every other country but their own. VERA, your no better than any one else although you and Wolfie, make out you know every thing about us you know only what you read in your crap newspapers !yor country is going down the pan while ours is on the way up. So do one, you pair of big headed cretins

nicko wrote:Veya and Wolfie,   both a couple of ignorant clowns who think they know everything but really know fuck all.   all they can do is insult us Brits day after day.  They live in a country whose government put immigrants in concentration camps on remote islands,  whose ancesters commited rape and used little British children as slaves.
Moslums are rioting all over the country,  but this pair of geranium put their heads in the sand and criticise every other country but their own. VERA, your no better than any one else although you and Wolfie, make out you know every thing about us you know only what you read in your crap newspapers !yor country is going down the pan while ours is on the way up.   So do one, you pair of big headed cretins

So nicko, now you know how Muslims feel about you.

veya_victaous wrote:

nicko wrote:"his little piss ant island"  what a jealous geranium you are,   a little man with an enormous ego and a chip on his shoulder to match !  
Your a fucking joke.

As always comes right on the whistle
You are pathetic and cant take a joke you brain dead dog.
You had no issue insulting an entire continent but when I Suggest that you live on one of the piss ant European islands you get upset.

I am more man than you cause I think,
murdering babies on command doesn't make you man, it makes you scum.
the sooner Humanity evolves past the scum brained dogs like you the better.

What a nasty post. Still, Wolfman liked it.

IT's not a joke and you know it, you ment every word. I can't help your massive inferiority complex that you have, because you aren't English. I feel sorry for you actually, why don't you apply for a visa?
You can come to my country, you could even bring your arse licking friend Wolfie. You could see what a REAL country's like instead of the arsehole of the world that you live in. Best of luck.

It seems that Zuma was in favour of a willing buyer-willing seller approach, which does seem to indicate that he acknowledged that the white farmers had a legal right to the land.

However, he got fed up with waiting, and he got fed up with white people not wanting to sell their land, so then there was a suggestion that the land could be grabbed without their consent, and they should be paid compensation. Now he's changed his tune yet again, and he wants to grab the land without paying compensation.

I don't think this is about who stole what, or who used to own the land a million years ago. He wants black people to own the land, and he doesn't consider that white people have any land ownership rights there, even if they're citizens, just because they're white.

How are they going to establish who used to own the land all those years ago anyway? They're not going to, he just wants black people to own it, and I doubt that he cares which black people. No doubt he thinks it will make him more popular with the majority, but if the economy is ruined as a result of a land grab, I don't think he'll survive.

eddie wrote:

Jules wrote:
I never, ever go near you  or speak to you Ragga, it is always YOU  who keeps jumping at me, and flying off the handle at me. Can you not just ignore me?? I normally find it dead easy to completely ignore you.  Perhaps you can afford me the same courtesy  I prefer to chat with light hearted people on here, not depressive menopausal wierdos. . If you are unable to keep the hell away from me, don't go squealing to the mods when I say something back.

''I want brownie points??'' Is that the best you can do? And anyway, why is it is any of your business what I want?  Grow the hell up and stop running around loking for a row. If  you are lonely, go look for hobbies and interests instead of making a nuissance of yourself with people who don't want to know you. If you are bored or lonely that is not my fault, so peel your ass off my back.

Rags may irritate you and I have no idea what your history is, but you were far more insulting and personal towards her, than she was to you.

That speaks heaps about you.
Oh, and to make remarks like that on International Women's Day.....tut tut.  

Bullshit, eddie...

No-one has ever been more insulting towards Raggamuffin, than she's been towards them..

That would be humanly impossible, as Ragg's is naturally insulting towards anyone who doesn't support her fascist, racist and just plain mean inclinations.

It's the 'nature of the beast'..

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

eddie wrote:
Rags may irritate you and I have no idea what your history is, but you were far more insulting and personal towards her, than she was to you.

That speaks heaps about you.
Oh, and to make remarks like that on International Women's Day.....tut tut.  

Bullshit, eddie...

No-one has ever been more insulting towards Raggamuffin, than she's been towards them..

That would be humanly impossible, as Ragg's is naturally insulting towards anyone who doesn't support her fascist, racist and just plain mean inclinations.

It's the 'nature of the beast'..

Put a sock in it and wind your scrawny racist neck in.

Think we will have to ignore him Raggs, he's not of this World.
He's stuck in his own self-important little shell.

nicko wrote:Think we will have to ignore him Raggs,    he's not of this World.
He's stuck in his own self-important little shell.

Very wise advice, Nicko.

I understand that it is mating season down there and the natives can become somewhat restless - revolting, even - at this time of the year.

Sadly, however, we are no longer allowed to dispatch a gunboat to calm the situation.