Nelson Mandela ,freedom fighter or terrorist

Originally Posted by Kymmy

Since when has Jo'burgs main train station not been a civilian target?

I thought that was done by the African Resistance Movement? It's not one of the bombings that they tried Mandela under certainly as they could only charge him with sabotage.

Originally Posted by Hugh

I suppose you could say the same about the Americans in the 18th Century, the Indian revolutionaries in the 20th Century, the French Resistance during WW2, the State of Israel, the Bangladesh War in the 70s, El Salvador in the 80s, etc., etc.....

and?? the IRA have a good reason for war seeing as their country has been occupied for hundreds of years. The Afgan Taliban are living in an occupied country. Saddam was defending a country he still run at the start of the second war its all about perspective. I have no doubt in my mind that Mandela was responsible where by deed or order of the death of civilians that to me makes him a terrorist

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Since Mandela and the ANC are synonymous, dwell on this from an article in the New York Times from 1988:



Linky

It only takes a quick Google to find any number of attacks by the ANC on civilian targets, before, during and after Mandela's prison sojourn.

Yes but the ANC and Mandela are not synonymous. That's why his release and the way he tired, and mostly succeeded, in stopping the ANC from it's military campaign is one the reasons he is lauded.

Again though what do you think the ANC should have done after they were banned and forcefully stopped from protesting?

Originally Posted by Damien

Yes but the ANC and Mandela are not synonymous. That's why his release and the way he tired, and mostly succeeded, in stopping the ANC from it's military campaign is one the reasons he is lauded.

Again though what do you think the ANC should have done after they were banned and forcefully stopped from protesting?

he was head of the armed wing of the ANC.

Well Apartheid was the governing body they run the country rightly or wrongly is irrelevant. Any and all armed assaults on it were acts of terrorism.

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

. Syria is a fine example in todays world of what armed opposition results in.

And a fine example of how things would most likely have turned out had Mandela not held them back

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

There corrected it for you.

In most people's opinion. It's why he won the nobel peace prize, is admired around the world, and will have a massive state funeral later this month. It's credited it him by De Klerk who was the head of the Government at the time.

Nothing justifies terrorism and the slaughter of innocents. The ANC may have been banned in SA but were fully active in the surrounding states training up terrorists. Successful change comes from getting the rest of the nations to turn up pressure on regimes to change. Violence just makes the rogue governments retrench even more firmly. Syria is a fine example in todays world of what armed opposition results in.

The rest of the world wasn't coming to help. People were being killed and their protests were getting banned and you condemn them for fighting back, you accuse Mandela, whose turn to violence didn't go as far as to call for civilians targets, of being a terrorist. How could they ratchet up pressure when they were a banned group? How they could fight back if they are not allowed to use violence? What were the black population of South Africa to do when their protests were met with violence, they weren't allowed to vote or speak out?

Yet somehow it is they who are the bad guy....

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by martyh

It's also interesting to note that during the same period the UK government where also building the foundations for Apartheid in SA.

Good point sir, and by "bizarre coincidence" look who was heavily involved in the drafting of the inauguration speech delivered on the day the Act was put into effect.

[Kymmy]

Originally Posted by Damien

I thought that was done by the African Resistance Movement? It's not one of the bombings that they tried Mandela under certainly as they could only charge him with sabotage.

Yep.. my mistake as I was mainly going from memory...

One thing though to note is that Mandela has admitted to still being in a position on control of the MK whilst in prison which includes the time of the church st and Durban mall bombings. Although he was never charged with civilian bombings it doesn't mean that he wasn't guilty of being involved with later campaigns which killed many innocent people.

I think the rest of the world remembers Mandela's bombing campaign but judge it to have been acceptable in the context of the time in the same way no one really calls the French Resistance terrorists. I think if a people are being systematically oppressed, denied the right to vote, and even killed then it's hard to condemn them for taking up armed resistance in retaliation, especially in the case of Mandela who didn't target civilians. Finally I would point out, again, that his true legacy was after he was released from jail when he reigned in the ANC, helped broker the final peace deal with the underacknowledged F. W. de Klerk, became the first black President of South Africa, and didn't seek retribution or revenge on the white minority who had oppressed him for so long because he forgive them that.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Good point sir, and by "bizarre coincidence" look who was heavily involved in the drafting of the inauguration speech delivered on the day the Act was put into effect.

Now that i didn't know ,and i believe Smuts had the same attitude towards blacks that Churchill had towards Indians .

Originally Posted by Damien

I think the rest of the world remembers Mandela's bombing campaign but judge it to have been acceptable in the context of the time in the same way no one really calls the French Resistance terrorists.

the main difference is the Nazi's were an occupying force not the regular leaders of the country

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

the main difference is the Nazi's were an occupying force not the regular leaders of the country

Does it matter if the people oppressing you are from abroad or at home? Same thing as far as you're concerned surely. If you were being denied the right to vote, you were on the wrong end of such brutal inequality, and when you spoke out you were banned? Others even killed? What would you do?

Hugh's previous post contained this table:

Originally Posted by Damien

Does it matter if the people oppressing you are from abroad or at home? Same thing as far as you're concerned surely. If you were being denied the right to vote, you were on the wrong end of such brutal inequality, and when you spoke out you were banned? Others even killed? What would you do?

Hugh's previous post contained this table:

I would be a terrorist but I would not pretend not to be one

[Kymmy]

Regarding the last table please remember as I've stated a few times in this thread that not everything was black and white especially in terms of class and skin color.

[spreadsheet]

it brings up some interesting philosophical arguments over killings - e.g. whether killings are correct when sanctioned by 'the state' or just dreamed up by the individual

it reminded me of this book


I used to carry it about with me as I hitch-hiked around west Australia and up into south east Asia wearing a checked shirt and smoking a corn cob pipe - you'd find me loafing about on a fence post somewhere waiting for a ride to god knows where and pretending I was all deep and knew what I was doing (Christ what a ****** )



I only actually read it a couple of years ago - I just used to think it was a cool and trendy prop