NationStates Jolt Archive

I am wondering if posting truth in general can make me deleted. I dont want to pass by that method so I will post it here. If you feel it is appropriate, then move it to general. If not, just delete THE THREAD (NOT ME).

Thank you.

This is no isolated case - these gruesome muti murders are part and parcel of African culture... Read and be sick...

'Muti man was alive during horror mutilation'

May 22 2003 at 10:32AM



Traditional healer Jim Kgokong Shego had his genitals, his belly button and anus cut out for muti while he was still alive.

A rock was then tied around his waist and he was thrown into a mine shaft filled with water.

This was the evidence in the Pretoria High Court trial on Wednesday of four fellow traditional healers.

Traditional healers Jeremiah Africa Madonsela, 50, Elias Magabane, 55, April Mahlangu, 43, and Simon Leeu Ndala, 52, all pleaded not guilty to murdering Shego at Mountainview in KwaMhlanga, Mpumalanga, on June 7, 2000.

'Madonsela took the knife and cut out the man's testicles'
John Msiza, who helped pin down Shego's legs while Madonsela allegedly removed his body parts, testified against the four accused in return for indemnity on Wednesday.

Msiza was an apprentice traditional healer and an assistant of Shego. Msiza said the four accused abducted him at gunpoint on the day of the murder.

They apparently took him to the home of Shego where the latter was shot in the leg and taken to an open veld.

"Madonsela took out a knife and he ordered us to pin Shego's legs wide open." Msiza said two of them held open his legs while two more pinned his shoulders to the ground.

"Madonsela took the knife and cut out the man's testicles. He then cut around his navel and took it out. He also cut around his anus and took that tissue out," Msiza testified.

'Witch doctors' used human flesh for their muti
He said Shego cried and asked them whether they were killing him.

After the human flesh was placed in a plastic bag, Madonsela ordered them to tie a rock around the man's waist.

Shego, who was still breathing, was thrown into a mine shaft filled with water.

Asked by the state what the motive for the killing was, Msiza said it was because Shego's herbal practice did much better than that of his rivals. Shego could "cure Aids" and he saw about 40 patients a day.

He also told the court that "witch doctors" used human flesh for their muti. The flesh had to be removed while the victim was still alive else it would not work, Msiza said.

Traditional healer Jim Kgokong Shego

As somewhat of an expert on languages, may I just say that obstruent clusters with mixed voicing(ie. kg) are very rare in languages and I have to wonder if this is fake.

There are many forms of 'truth'. Your truth may not be mine. I can think of several 'truths' that I could post and would lead to flaming.

It is fake, or at least less than reputable. I can't think of any respectable news company that would print such visually graphic material, nevermind use the phrase "whitch doctor" in any kind of serious manner, unless quoting someone.

I also have trouble beliving that a legitimate news source would quote testimony, especially testimony that graphic. Paraphrase, yes, but not quote. Additionally, when you're writing, you must consider your audience. I doubt a journalist would use the term "muti" so many times in an article and fail to explain what it is. It's just bad journalism, and bad storytelling.

Lastly... notice how no newspaper or company name is given, no author or source cited?

So I guess it's no?

Well if you want to risk a warning as you thread degenerates into flaming then feel free to try it.

For the reasons mentioned above, I would not if I were you though.

Peace, Truth, and Justice,
Luke

Well the name 'Kgokong' gives 107 results on Google, so that looks pretty possible.

The story appears to come from here:
http://www.itechnology.co.za/index.php?click_id=13&art_id=vn20030522103218223C777434&set_id=1

However, I personally fail to see any point in merely reproducing the article without your own comment. Surely you must have some input to make?

As far as extreme content goes - there is a thing called paraphrasing or 'using your own words'. It may be wise to do so when posting borderline material.

Edit: edited because I gave the wrong source for the article.

As far as extreme content goes - there is a thing called paraphrasing or 'using your own words'. It may be wise to do so when posting borderline material.

Not necessarily. I've posted detailed accounts of people getting vivisected, and seen account of people getting raped and such. Granted, those were IC. But as long as you have a disclaimer, the Mods don't care if it's a graphic description.

[quote="Compis Mentis"]Well the name 'Kgokong' gives 107 results on Google, so that looks pretty possible.

The story appears to come from here:
http://www.itechnology.co.za/index.php?click_id=13&art_id=vn20030522103218223C777434&set_id=1

Thank you. I clicked on that link and it is obviously a legitimate site. There were many other stories too. This one seems to have been posted because it highlights 'black savagery'. However, it's already well known that uneducated africans believe many old ways are still relevent. The general fear of AIDS in Africa leads many ignorants to carry out disgusting crimes. What is never mentioned is the huge programme being carried out attempting to educate Africans about the real facts. There's no excuse for that kind of barbaric cruelty but it has to be seen in context.

Well the name 'Kgokong' gives 107 results on Google, so that looks pretty possible.

The story appears to come from here:
http://www.itechnology.co.za/index.php?click_id=13&art_id=vn20030522103218223C777434&set_id=1

Thank you. I clicked on that link and it is obviously a legitimate site

Google is your friend, but remember just because a story appears elsewhere, doesn't necessarilly mean that it is entirely true...

Google is your friend, but remember just because a story appears elsewhere, doesn't necessarilly mean that it is entirely true...

Google Fascists?
From IndyMedia
10-13-3

Google-Watch.org - a site looking into the worry implications of
Google's near monopoly of web search engines.
Take a look at this...

<http://google-watch.org/>

1. Google's immortal cookie:
Google was the first search engine to use a cookie that expires in 2038. This was at a time when federal websites were prohibited from using persistent cookies altogether. Now it's years later, and immortal cookies are commonplace among search engines; Google set the standard because no one bothered to challenge them. This cookie places a unique ID number on your hard disk. Anytime you land on a Google page, you get a Google cookie if you don't already have one. If you have one, they read and record your unique ID number.

2. Google records everything they can:
For all searches they record the cookie ID, your Internet IP address, the time and date, your search terms, and your browser configuration. Increasingly, Google is customizing results based on your IP number. This is referred to in the industry as "IP delivery based on geolocation."

3. Google retains all data indefinitely:
Google has no data retention policies. There is evidence that they are able to easily access all the user information they collect and save.

4. Google won't say why they need this data:
Inquiries to Google about their privacy policies are ignored. When the New York Times (2002-11-2 asked Sergey Brin about whether Google ever gets subpoenaed for this information, he had no comment.

5. Google hires spooks:
Matt Cutts, a key Google engineer, used to work for the National Security Agency. Google wants to hire more people with security clearances, so that they can peddle their corporate assets to the spooks in Washington.

6. Google's toolbar is spyware:
With the advanced features enabled, Google's free toolbar for Explorer phones home with every page you surf, and yes, it reads your cookie too. Their privacy policy confesses this, but that's only because Alexa lost a class-action lawsuit when their toolbar did the same thing, and their privacy policy failed to explain this. Worse yet, Google's toolbar updates to new versions quietly, and without asking. This means that if you have the toolbar installed, Google essentially has complete access to your hard disk every time you connect to Google (which is many times a day). Most software vendors, and even Microsoft, ask if you'd like an updated version. But not Google. Any software that updates automatically presents a massive security risk.

7. Google's cache copy is illegal:
Judging from Ninth Circuit precedent on the application of U.S. copyright laws to the Internet, Google's cache copy appears to be illegal. The only way a webmaster can avoid having his site cached on Google is to put a "noarchive" meta in the header of every page on his site. Surfers like the cache, but webmasters don't. Many webmasters have deleted questionable material from their sites, only to discover later that the problem pages live merrily on in Google's cache. The cache copy should be "opt-in" for webmasters, not "opt-out."

8. Google is not your friend:
Young, stupid script kiddies and many bloggers still think Google is "way kool," so by now Google enjoys a 75 percent monopoly for all external referrals to most websites. No webmaster can avoid seeking Google's approval these days, assuming he wants to increase traffic to his site. If he tries to take advantage of some of the known weaknesses in Google's semi-secret algorithms, he may find himself penalized by Google, and his traffic disappears. There are no detailed, published standards issued by Google, and there is no appeal process for penalized sites. Google is completely unaccountable. Most of the time they don't even answer email from webmasters.

9. Google is a privacy time bomb:
With 200 million searches per day, most from outside the U.S., Google amounts to a privacy disaster waiting to happen. Those newly-commissioned data-mining bureaucrats in Washington can only dream about the sort of slick efficiency that Google has already achieved.

http://google-watch.org

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/10/278746.html

Yes, sorry, I did intend to type 'google is your friend' in quotes to signify that I was using it as a catch-phrase rather than a ringing endorsement. I have encountered the information above before. I don't actually believe that impersonal corporate entities can be friends...

This is not the forum to discuss the pros and cons of Google. Keep it on topic.