Nelson Mandela: A mass murderer and terrorist

You can't compare the USA and the old S.African regime of Apartheid, which was one of the most vicious and oppressive in the world. In effect it was slavery. In the US the slaves were freed only after a bloody civil war.
The blacks in S.Africa had to fight their own war, and I think terrorist tactics were the only ones open to them, unpalatable as that may be.

And yes, the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is decided by who wins.
But I think in the eyes of the world the cause of liberation in S.Africa was just, as was the War of Independence in the US.
I don't think that's so with Islamic terrorism.

 

I didn't say it was an accurate comparrison. I said it was more accurate.

Terrorism is terrorism no matter which side wins or which side is wrong or right. Killing innocent men women and children is never ok. I don't care how bad you've got it.

 

Location matters too. Islamic terrorists are not fighting within the boundaries of their own countries. South Africans were fighting for control of their own country, and Americans in the Revolutionary War did not cross the ocean and invade the historic lands of Great Britain. When you cross a national border, it changes everything.

So...you think the worst political situations in the world should be allowed to continue, unless changing them is easy and painless?

 

That's an understandable viewpoint, but again, it could be argued that there WERE no real innocents in a situation like South Africa under Apartheid.

While the average citizen may not have directly committed the atrocities that occurred, they benefited from them, and they did nothing to stop them. They supported a system that saw the black majority oppressed and subjugated, not to mentioned imprisoned, tortured and killed for merely speaking out, a system that could not have endured had it not been for the support of the civilian population. So, it could be argued that they were just as valid of targets as the government itself.

Fighting against a repressive regime is never easy or pretty, and there will always be casualties. Mandela and his allies were trying to gain their freedom, and violence was the only means available to them at the time. The alternatives would have been to lie down and do nothing, allowing the abuse to continue. Evil flourishes when good men do nothing, after all. As distasteful as it may be, what choice did they have? Either harm no one, and consequently remain as slaves in all but name, or take action to gain their freedom, and result in some deaths along the way. If you were in the same situation, which would prefer? Live in terror that you could be harmed or killed at any moment, or take action to secure your freedom and safety, in spite of the cost.

The deaths caused by South African government vastly outnumber those caused by the individuals fighting for their freedom, something that is often ignored by those criticizing the use of unfortunate but necessary violence by the resistance in S. Africa.

 

Did I say that? Of course not.

Do you think it was easy and painless for Dr. King and his peaceful followers?

 

I don't give a fuck how bad Mandella or anyone else had it. Their target should have been on the mother fuckers that put them in that situation.

I cannot fucking believe how many people want to justify the killing of RANDOM INNOCENT people.

Would I have killed if I were in his position? Probably. But you better believe I wouldn't be fucking coward and target defenseless civilians. I would target those responsible.

Yes, I said it. Cowardly acts of terrorism.

 

They were not fighting against slavery, which had been decided in a conflict resulting in the deaths of more than 600,000 people. Civil rights were (and are) important, but not as big of an issue as legal human slavery.

Sometimes, resolving huge issues requires massive suffering. War is a very messy business. Trying to prevent them is a worthy goal, but not always possible. Treat people like animals long enough, and they will start acting like animals.

Do we need to rehash the story of Neville Chamberlain?

 

Again, false equivalency. As bad as segregation was in America, it paled in comparison to South Africa. The United States government had enough respect for human rights that peaceful resistance was possible.

It wasn't in S. Africa. Again, Steve Biko tried much the same as Dr King. He preached non-violent resistance against the apartheid regime. He was arrested, tortured and beaten to death as a result. He was arrested under a Terrorism act that was so broadly written, it defined terrorism as merely opposing the system that existed. It was a system in which those that spoke out were disappeared without trial as 'terrorists'. At least 80 other people died in custody under the same act'. Merely speaking out against Apartheid could get you killed, especially if you were black. That was the situation Mandela and others found themselves in.

Had Dr King been active in South Africa, he would have been killed before anything came of his campaign. The U.S. allowed Dr King to speak out because we value human rights. South Africa did not.

 

I was under the impression that (legal) slavery in south africa in the 1830s.

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the apartheid more like the civil rights issues King faced than actual slavery? I'm not finding anything that links Mandela or the apartheid to slavery.

 

Mandela wasn't fighting against slavery either. The blacks in South Africa were not slaves under the apartheid system.

 

There is no link. Karen's claims are not supported by historical fact. Some of the worst atrocities in South Africa were committed by black South Africans in the run up to those first elections, as well as after them in the so called "democratic" South Africa.

 

So those children had it coming? We've heard filth like this from other sectors before. ....

 

Quite simply yes, I would do whatever it takes to secure my freedom and the freedom of my people, and if you’re black and you don’t support us, then you’re against us

hotwater

 

It was closer to slavery that segregation. Blacks were not even considered CITIZENS of South Africa at one point under the system, unlike in America. The black citizens were at the bottom of the totem pole in the system, and were denied any form of self-determination. They could not even live or own land in 'white' areas of the country, and were forcibly relocated to black-only slums and ghettos, among other things. The only difference between apartheid and slavery is that blacks in apartheid were not actually property legally. Other than that, there really wasn't much difference.

 

It was somewhere in between. South African apartheid doesn't match up perfectly with anything that happened in the US. One big difference is that black South Africans didn't have a constitutional right to free speech or peaceful assembly in the past. States of the American South didn't always respect those rights, but federal courts often sided against them. This all contributed to a more peaceful outcome in our civil rights movement.

In the grand scheme of world history, if you compare the degree of change within South Africa to the body count, it was an unusually peaceful transition. Mandela deserves credit for his role in leading it.

Our constitution originally counted them as three fifths of a person. Bullshit.

 

No, it wasn't closer at all. Any basic understanding of South African law at the time would show this

 

I understand all that. I'm not criticizing the fact that he took arms. I'm criticizing him for the people he took arms against. He had every right to attack the people Responsible For his suffring. But attacking civilians as a way to get to the government is Cowardly and unjustifiable.

 

Of course, you're going to count the white children as more valuable and important than the black ones, even in an African country with a black majority.

 

Ill lighten it up a bit..

read the tube comments btw..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vUDmFjWgVo"]Dire Straits - Brothers in Arms Mandela Live 1988 - YouTube

 

Not at all, Karen. Stop putting words in my mouth. I'm just pointing out the lunacy of what she said; that none of the victim's of the terrorist attacks carried out by MK were innocent.