Type Username Here
Not a new member
You think they can't wipe them out or don't want to wipe them out?
Being a military man I figured you would know the capabilities and weaponry our military has.
why do cac's keep saying "Nelson Mandela is a terrorist?"
- Thread starter Im Kemet Rocky & I like penis
- Start date
You think they can't wipe them out or don't want to wipe them out?
Being a military man I figured you would know the capabilities and weaponry our military has.
I'm not making any judgements, on anything. All i'm saying is lets not ignore, or distort the facts.how do you personally think apartheid should have been handled?
also, do you believe in responding to violence with non-violence like MLK?
godkiller
"We are the Fury"
Mandela was justified in everything he did. South African militants were justified in fighting for their freedom and autonomy from invader cacs; the same inalienable right to sovereignty the Japanese, the Israelis, the British and every other nation and people claim. The same right to self defense, self reign and sovereignty Americans claim and vow to defend to the last breath. The South African natives couldn't form a government or military because the invaders didn't allow it. Instead the South African resorted to guerilla warfare. In the end it is still warfare, and everything is permitted in total warfare.
he evil was and remains the invader cacs who conquered and tyrannized black South Africans. The cacs deserve, now and then, death for infringing on other's rights, which they would had received in any other continent of the world includin their own.
, which is what I think you are trying to insinuate. Both were terrorist and both were wrong.
If it is wrong to fight for your people and nation, and if every such fighter is a terrorist, then every nation and people who dare stand to invading forces are virtuous terrorists.
Mandela does not seek to hide his past, in his autobiography 'the long walk to Freedom' he casually admits 'signing off' the 1983 Church Street bombing carried out by the ANC and killing 19 innocent people whilst injuring another 200. Yet here you guys are, denying it...
In total war, casualties can and do happen. That is the nature of war and justfiiable as such.
T
Last edited:
True...
But I assumed........
They can't do it with out causing too much of a mess...
But
R U implying they do not want to win the war on terror , friend?They took him off the list because he spoke out against Zimbabwe, who were giving white farmers that
Why would that even matter in 2008 who spoke out against Zimbabwe and its not like he was even traveling then so he had no use for getting cleared to visit the US.
godkiller
"We are the Fury"
You made a judgment. You said there was no "right/good" in the apartheid conflict. That is a ridiculous and wrongheaded notion. Do you think there was "right/good" in the Nazi conflict?
Last edited:
I dont care tbh, there was no "right/good" side in their conflict, which is what I think you are trying to insinuate. Both were terrorist and both were wrong.
Mandela does not seek to hide his past, in his autobiography 'the long walk to Freedom' he casually admits 'signing off' the 1983 Church Street bombing carried out by the ANC and killing 19 innocent people whilst injuring another 200. Yet here you guys are, denying it...
Actually, he didn't. Have you read the autobiography? What he says is that he felt responsible for it because he founded the militant wing of the ANC in the early 60s. In 1983, he was in prison, with no contact whatsoever with the militants, and he had also abandoned his militant stance by then. Even if he had wanted to sign off on such an attack, he couldn't.
No offense, but the only people who repeat that info above are white folks who want to smear Mandela (incidentally, it's NEVER accompanied by any quote from the autobio itself,) and judging by your use of "casually admits," I have a feeling you're parroting some Right wing source written by just such a racist - I suggest you don't get your info about people like him from Libertarian and Conservative racists.
Last edited:
South Africa was at war and the Apartheid leaders had no moral ground to stand on. They only persisted because like many other regimes that proclaim to be anti-terrorist to be on the side of the West they played up some communist agenda to cover up their racist policies. They knew fully well that claiming to be anti-communist was the best way to get a sympathetic ear in the West. The groups labeled terrorists were often the ones fighting against colonialism with Soviet and or Chinese support and other groups that were directly supported by the West like UNITA in Angola and RENAMO in Mozambique carried out terrorist acts they would normally be referred to as rebels or even "freedom fighters"
Every single one of the founding fathers of America were terrorists too, but you never hear that even though they were....
In other words, cacs just cac-ing because Mandela was about black liberation....
In other words, cacs just cac-ing because Mandela was about black liberation....
Someone posted this great comment on Reddit:
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria..._nelson_mandela_so_revered_wasnt_he_a/c8kpk6p
TL;DR Arguably he wasn't a terrorist, not in the way the term is presently used. His only target was the physical machinery of the apartheid state. He caused no deaths himself and he did not intend to create general panic or fear. He handled himself in custody, trial, and incarceration in ways that enhanced his standing as a figure of reverence and respect. As a free man again, Mandela took a path that applied his new cachet to his original goals in forming MK (see the quoted paragraphs in edit 2 below). What MK later became is another matter.
umKhonto weSizwe (MK) had a stated goal not to cause casualties, not even among the functionaries of Verwoerd's government. It maintained that aim until after the Soweto Risings, and never lost the overall intent of minimizing death even when they did begin costing lives. It's also not as though the ANC had gone straight to armed action; in fact they waited nearly 50 years (over 50, if you go back to the Bloemfontein Convention) before exceeding "legal channels" and turning to armed action. It was not a decision made lightly or suddenly. Even after Sharpeville and the Republic/break with the Commonwealth, it had not been easy to convince people in the ANC, which is why the two organizations had to be completely independent of one another operationally.
That said, he was the brains behind organizing MK as a separate unit, and he was involved in the earliest wave of bombings (the 192 counts of "sabotage" that became 4 with an "intent to overthrow" - but zero counts of murder - that got him sent to Robben Island). But they were aimed clearly at the state's apparatus of control and violence, at times when they would be presumably vacant. That's very different from the AQ modus operandi. It's important to recognize that yes, it was certainly violent action, but it was amazingly circumspect compared to (say) the FLN and its retaliators among the Algerian colons. It built upon the work of the Defiance Campaign and the Congress of the People at Kliptown (1955), which government had answered with accusations of treason for daring to adopt a charter (the Freedom Charter) calling for inclusive equality and democracy.
"Terrorist" is thrown around today wish such whimsy that it's almost ceased to have its proper meaning. MK was not originally intended to be "terrorist." Their goal was not to sow terror among the population or even really people in government. Its intent was, rather, to cripple the apparatus of government control and bring Hendrik Verwoerd's government to the negotiating table. Poqo (the Pan-Africanist Congress's armed wing) and others, as well as the MK of the later era, did take up assassinations, abductions, and torture--but again indiscriminate or mass killing were always considered counterproductive to the ultimate goal of democratic reform and reconciliation. Sadly, in more recent eras some of the late-struggle underground figures have forgotten that, but at the time they remained generally committed.
Only structurally is there a comparison between Mandela/MK and OBL/Al-Qaeda; in terms of their acts, their goals, and their methods, they were/are virtually nothing alike. Mandela stated he was "prepared to die" in his rightly famous statement from the dock at his trial, but not in the name of bringing death to his enemies. Beyond that, the maxim that "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist" has a certain salience here. Mandela's revered because he came to violent action reluctantly, did not himself seek to kill others, and when captured and sent away he showed a grace and eloquence that bespoke the democratic aspirations of the 80-85% of SA without a voice--and they, along with democratically-minded (often youth) movements across the globe, saw his struggle as a just one. In prison, and after his release, he had fortitude as well as forgiveness, and was an inspirational figure to the ANC Youth League generation of the 1940s as well as a tough negotiator.
So the reverence comes from the suffering and grace he's seen to possess; he could have come out of Robben Island a very different way, and taken a very different direction, but opted for a more Gandhian kind of philosophy. Mandela's inner circle followed suit; I've met a number of people who were imprisoned with him, including two of his co-defendants at the Rivonia Trial, and they all toed the same line of forgiveness and peace. It didn't hurt that the more redistributionist elements of the Freedom Charter of 1955 got left out of the ANC-led Constitution, so the former privileged classes didn't have quite as much to fear as they'd been told.
[edit: I often point people to David Welsh's The Rise and Fall of Apartheid (2011) for the whole story, so I will point you there too. Few people know the inner workings of the era as well as Welsh does, or its moral ambiguities. He also writes about them vividly. No "side" was made up entirely of saints or sinners, but Mandela successfully burnished his credentials better than anyone besides possibly Desmond Mpilo Tutu.]
[edit 2: Getting the manuscript that became No Easy Walk out was no small part of this either--and there is a certain amount of status Mandela derived from what he was made into by others through the various "free Mandela" concerts, campaigns, posters, etc. that were rife when I was a kid. Mandela made it easy to champion him, but his boosters played an important role in shaping his image as saintly too. Also, I added a link to Mandela's "I Am Prepared to Die" statement from the dock in Rivonia, above; it is there where Mandela freely admits his involvement in the bombings and states emphatically that MK's goals and acts are not terrorist in intent:
But the violence which we chose to adopt was not terrorism. We who formed Umkhonto were all members of the African National Congress, and had behind us the ANC tradition of non-violence and negotiation as a means of solving political disputes.
It also contains the "money quotes" (in part 2) regarding the ultimate goals being inclusive:
Above all, we want equal political rights, because without them our disabilities will be permanent. I know this sounds revolutionary to the whites in this country, because the majority of voters will be Africans. This makes the white man fear democracy.
But this fear cannot be allowed to stand in the way of the only solution which will guarantee racial harmony and freedom for all. It is not true that the enfranchisement of all will result in racial domination. Political division, based on colour, is entirely artificial and, when it disappears, so will the domination of one colour group by another. The ANC has spent half a century fighting against racialism. When it triumphs it will not change that policy.
This then is what the ANC is fighting. Their struggle is a truly national one. It is a struggle of the African people, inspired by their own suffering and their own experience. It is a struggle for the right to live.
During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.]
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria..._nelson_mandela_so_revered_wasnt_he_a/c8kpk6p
TL;DR Arguably he wasn't a terrorist, not in the way the term is presently used. His only target was the physical machinery of the apartheid state. He caused no deaths himself and he did not intend to create general panic or fear. He handled himself in custody, trial, and incarceration in ways that enhanced his standing as a figure of reverence and respect. As a free man again, Mandela took a path that applied his new cachet to his original goals in forming MK (see the quoted paragraphs in edit 2 below). What MK later became is another matter.
umKhonto weSizwe (MK) had a stated goal not to cause casualties, not even among the functionaries of Verwoerd's government. It maintained that aim until after the Soweto Risings, and never lost the overall intent of minimizing death even when they did begin costing lives. It's also not as though the ANC had gone straight to armed action; in fact they waited nearly 50 years (over 50, if you go back to the Bloemfontein Convention) before exceeding "legal channels" and turning to armed action. It was not a decision made lightly or suddenly. Even after Sharpeville and the Republic/break with the Commonwealth, it had not been easy to convince people in the ANC, which is why the two organizations had to be completely independent of one another operationally.
That said, he was the brains behind organizing MK as a separate unit, and he was involved in the earliest wave of bombings (the 192 counts of "sabotage" that became 4 with an "intent to overthrow" - but zero counts of murder - that got him sent to Robben Island). But they were aimed clearly at the state's apparatus of control and violence, at times when they would be presumably vacant. That's very different from the AQ modus operandi. It's important to recognize that yes, it was certainly violent action, but it was amazingly circumspect compared to (say) the FLN and its retaliators among the Algerian colons. It built upon the work of the Defiance Campaign and the Congress of the People at Kliptown (1955), which government had answered with accusations of treason for daring to adopt a charter (the Freedom Charter) calling for inclusive equality and democracy.
"Terrorist" is thrown around today wish such whimsy that it's almost ceased to have its proper meaning. MK was not originally intended to be "terrorist." Their goal was not to sow terror among the population or even really people in government. Its intent was, rather, to cripple the apparatus of government control and bring Hendrik Verwoerd's government to the negotiating table. Poqo (the Pan-Africanist Congress's armed wing) and others, as well as the MK of the later era, did take up assassinations, abductions, and torture--but again indiscriminate or mass killing were always considered counterproductive to the ultimate goal of democratic reform and reconciliation. Sadly, in more recent eras some of the late-struggle underground figures have forgotten that, but at the time they remained generally committed.
Only structurally is there a comparison between Mandela/MK and OBL/Al-Qaeda; in terms of their acts, their goals, and their methods, they were/are virtually nothing alike. Mandela stated he was "prepared to die" in his rightly famous statement from the dock at his trial, but not in the name of bringing death to his enemies. Beyond that, the maxim that "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist" has a certain salience here. Mandela's revered because he came to violent action reluctantly, did not himself seek to kill others, and when captured and sent away he showed a grace and eloquence that bespoke the democratic aspirations of the 80-85% of SA without a voice--and they, along with democratically-minded (often youth) movements across the globe, saw his struggle as a just one. In prison, and after his release, he had fortitude as well as forgiveness, and was an inspirational figure to the ANC Youth League generation of the 1940s as well as a tough negotiator.
So the reverence comes from the suffering and grace he's seen to possess; he could have come out of Robben Island a very different way, and taken a very different direction, but opted for a more Gandhian kind of philosophy. Mandela's inner circle followed suit; I've met a number of people who were imprisoned with him, including two of his co-defendants at the Rivonia Trial, and they all toed the same line of forgiveness and peace. It didn't hurt that the more redistributionist elements of the Freedom Charter of 1955 got left out of the ANC-led Constitution, so the former privileged classes didn't have quite as much to fear as they'd been told.
[edit: I often point people to David Welsh's The Rise and Fall of Apartheid (2011) for the whole story, so I will point you there too. Few people know the inner workings of the era as well as Welsh does, or its moral ambiguities. He also writes about them vividly. No "side" was made up entirely of saints or sinners, but Mandela successfully burnished his credentials better than anyone besides possibly Desmond Mpilo Tutu.]
[edit 2: Getting the manuscript that became No Easy Walk out was no small part of this either--and there is a certain amount of status Mandela derived from what he was made into by others through the various "free Mandela" concerts, campaigns, posters, etc. that were rife when I was a kid. Mandela made it easy to champion him, but his boosters played an important role in shaping his image as saintly too. Also, I added a link to Mandela's "I Am Prepared to Die" statement from the dock in Rivonia, above; it is there where Mandela freely admits his involvement in the bombings and states emphatically that MK's goals and acts are not terrorist in intent:
But the violence which we chose to adopt was not terrorism. We who formed Umkhonto were all members of the African National Congress, and had behind us the ANC tradition of non-violence and negotiation as a means of solving political disputes.
It also contains the "money quotes" (in part 2) regarding the ultimate goals being inclusive:
Above all, we want equal political rights, because without them our disabilities will be permanent. I know this sounds revolutionary to the whites in this country, because the majority of voters will be Africans. This makes the white man fear democracy.
But this fear cannot be allowed to stand in the way of the only solution which will guarantee racial harmony and freedom for all. It is not true that the enfranchisement of all will result in racial domination. Political division, based on colour, is entirely artificial and, when it disappears, so will the domination of one colour group by another. The ANC has spent half a century fighting against racialism. When it triumphs it will not change that policy.
This then is what the ANC is fighting. Their struggle is a truly national one. It is a struggle of the African people, inspired by their own suffering and their own experience. It is a struggle for the right to live.
During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.]
Justified murder, is still murder, not sure what you are saying exactly?
If they call him a terrorist, and you say it was justified, that at best makes him a justified terrorist
Why cant he great with 'all thing considered', why must we throw unsavory parts of his story out the window? 