South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
If the "Muti" statement is true, then the accused have admitted liability surely? This was premeditated intent ?
No no, don't make that mistake. They didn't intend to get violent. They took it just in case the white pig policemen decided to be racially biased and shoot them. It was purely for self defence...
No no, don't make that mistake. They didn't intend to get violent. They took it just in case the white pig policemen decided to be racially biased and shoot them. It was purely for self defence...
Would be funny ... if there werent +80% black Policemen![]()
They said it was to protect against the police. Not the white pig police men. It was a stupid thing requiem said and you find it funny.LOL true.
They said it was to protect against the police. Not the white pig police men. It was a stupid thing requiem said and you find it funny.
One woman who held a placard with that message explained that she meant to send a message to Malema that the boer (white men) have killed their husbands.
Could be the muti used changes only what people see and not what actually happens. So from your example the battle of Blood river is called a battle where as they are calling this a massacre. So the muti did work just not in the way intended. The bottle must have been mislabeled.This same muti was used in 1830 something when the Voortrekkers shot 3000 Zulus. Didn't work then and didn't work now. Maybe its time they ask Adcock Ingram to make their muti.