Nelson Mandela: A mass murderer and terrorist

Yes, Mandela used violence early on his career. So?

America was born of Violent revolution, of course. The American colonists were far less justified in violent revolution than Mandela was.

It's easy to contrast Mandela to Gandhi, but in doing so, one reveals their ignorance of the situation.

Quite simply, the British authorities in charge of India had enough respect for human rights that they didn't murder Gandhi just for speaking out. His passive resistance only worked because the British authorities were NOT ruthless.

Under the apartheid regime in South Africa, even speaking out against the system could get you killed. (A prime example being Steven Biko, who in 1977 was arrested and imprisoned, then tortured for hours before being beaten to death by the police). Had a government like that been in charge of India, Gandhi would have gotten a bullet in his head the moment he first opened his mouth. In an environment like that, non-violent resistance is NOT possible, and is actually counterproductive. Non-violent resistance will get you murdered before you ever get your message out.

Furthermore, Mandela had actually warned the government that many anti-apartheid activists were going to escalate the violence, and he tried to channel the violence only to government targets, trying to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible. That a few occurred is unfortunate, but unavoidable.

(See, I actually LEARNED about the nuances and the difference faced by the two men. I did my research before I opened my mouth. You might want to try that some time.)

I might even go so far as to say that the civilian casualties could be considered justified. They were, after all, people complacent with and benefiting from a system that was built open the oppression and subjugation of others. While the civilians may not have directly taken part in the oppression, they did so indirectly by supporting it, and they did nothing to stop it.

Which, under some thought, would make them valid targets. The French Resistance in WWII didn't just kill Nazi occupiers, after all, but collaborators, and those who enabled said regime to exist, including the families of the Nazi occupiers. They were all legitimate targets because of it. Why would the French Resistance be different than Mandela?

 

That's about it I think.

 

Should those three girls that were kept as slaves by that fucker that kept 'em for 10 years should have killed him? I say yes.

 

Ok. Here's something a little more recent...an example of someone else who used the same method as Mandela to change their situation when they felt wrongly subjugated. Care to justify these actions?



If not, why is it any different?

 

As do I. But if they started killing random people on the street that would be a different story.

Apples and oranges.

 

Nobody is contrasting Mandela and Gandhi. I brought Gandhi up as a joke...that apparently nobody but Asmo got. Does nobody like Robin Williams here, or what?

 

Why are Islamists any different?

 

There was someone on my Facebook feed who did just that. He put NM in the same category as Ghandi and Dr King. It seems to be the general sentiment today.

 

I think this is an argument about 'do the ends justify the means'
Some think they never do. Others think if the end is important enough, then the means is worth it.

 

Now you're talkin' homicidal religious maniacs who were not slaves as opposed to those that are/were. No comparison.

 

What irks me is that people justify the means in this case, or outright ignore it. But condemn others who do/have done the same thing.

I'm not saying that you do, or anyone else specifically.

 

I find thier motives to be vastly different than other terrorists. I'm not sure that they have any sympathy for thier victims. The actual 'goal' of thier terrorism reads more like genocide than fighting for rights.

 

Kind of like the two comparisons you made, huh?

Although I think mine is a little more accurate than yours, maybe not much more....but a little.

 

I think you're right when it comes to the leaders, but not the boots on the ground that actually commit the violent acts. I think that a lot of them do it because they feel that their way of life is being threatened, and their sons and daughters are being murdered.

 

The fact that LetLovinTakeHold has to resort to such ridiculous false equivalencies shows not only his lack of intelligence and missing understanding of nuance, but that he has no argument.

 

We got to page six before people started calling each other stupid. This might be a record for political threads!! Someone bake a cake.

 

I partially made that comparison to point out the false equivalences already being made by someone else. And also because I thought it to be a slightly more accurate comparrison. Which it is.

 

Some British sympathizers in Boston were tarred and feathered, which is a torture method that causes severe burns and sometimes death. At that time, all Americans were officially British citizens.

 

No, it isn't. One is committing acts of violence to send a message, the other is committing acts of violence to gain freedom from an oppressive system, one in which you are essentially a slave. There is no comparison.

And when you get right down to it, the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter depends on which side wins. America's founding fathers were terrorists in the eyes of the King of England, and would have gone down as such according to history had they not won.

 

Perfect summation, Kitty.