Nelson Mandela

capt_slog

No disrespect to the chap, but the news coverage went over the top. It became a seemingly endless parade of people who had met him and their anecdotes. The final straw (for me) was the East Midlands regional news and "how the death of NM will affect Mrs Blogs who has a stamp with his picture on it" type story.

In the meantime there was some real news going on, eg the storm on the east coast which was relegated to a few minutes.

Mikey23

@b... An interesting piece. No saint indeed. I think he said as much himself, merely that he did his best. I think he was in the right place at the right time when a figurehead was needed. A great man but with faults and imperfections. And he never won X factor

the playing mantis

Rick Chasey wrote:

carrock wrote:

This is the think most people overlook. He admitted to acts of terrorism, and however benign in his later years, however noble the cause, he presided over the terrorist wing of the ANC who committed many atrocities, before his undoubted charisma led him to become a leading political figure.

He was offered freedom by PW Botha years earlier but refused to renounce terrorism.....so yes, an admirable man in some ways but don't gloss over his past

Untill 2001 terrorism was a little less exteme.

I believe he was a demo expert and blew stuff like power lines up.

Not killing people.

His leadership post prison also helped save many lives.

It wasn't really terrorism in the sense it provoked terror. He was helping irritate an apartheid government and focussed on the military who voilated his community on a daily basis.

geez. :roll:

try telling that to anyone impacted by the atrocities of the IRA. terrorism is terrorism at whatever level.

unbelievable comment.

the playing mantis

mrfpb wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mobile/iplayer/episode/b03k66qp/Newswatch_06_12_2013

According to the BBC Director of News, the coverage us justified because Mandela was "the most significant statesman of the last hundred years". I think that's open to debate!

undoubtedly he did well for equality and the freedom of his people from a despicable regime (although the current situation is a worry, and long term who knows where its going), but greatest statesmen?

he did masses for a minor country, and the regime was ultimately brought down by the isolation of south africa in sporting and economic terms, so that statement is a bit ott. top 10 yes, but greatest no.

RDW

Minor country? Yeah, just 50 million people, 90% disenfranchised, ruled by a (nuclear-armed) elite using a brutal system of racial control that outraged civil rights worldwide. Hardly worth bothering about, really.

ballysmate

Mikey23 wrote:

@b... An interesting piece. No saint indeed. I think he said as much himself, merely that he did his best. I think he was in the right place at the right time when a figurehead was needed. A great man but with faults and imperfections. And he never won X factor

Can't believe he didn't win X factor. He apparently had a dreadful singing voice and couldn't carry a tune in a bucket. Should have romped it.

Mikey23

Tragic really... Got to the semis. His poor choice of 'Ernie the fastest milkman in the west' really messed up his chances...

rolf_f

Great news - Mandela lives... Or at least I assume he does. I mean, the news was all Mandela again this morning. If he's dead still, then really there can't be anything newsworthy more to say that hasn't been said over most of the previous week so I can only logically assume that he has come back to life again.

BillyMansell

Just switched over to the TV coverage of his memorial and it's truly vomit inducing.

Self-important figures from around the world turning up in black and looking all mournful surrounded by bodyguards just strolling in whilst black South Africans, who are colourful and celebrating his life, are few as most are stuck outside the ground waiting to gain entry.

The journalists don't know what mood they should adopt - happy, sad, happy, sad... it's just not British!

Omar Little

the playing mantis wrote:

geez. :roll:

try telling that to anyone impacted by the atrocities of the IRA. terrorism is terrorism at whatever level.

unbelievable comment.

Its not though.

Fighting against an authoritarian state which uses violence against its own citizens (a majority of which they treat as sub humans who do not have the same rights as others in the country) is different to that of targetting civilians in a democratic country where there are peaceful avenues to pursue ones goals.

In any case even assuming MK were terrorists - the amount of people the South African security forces, pro-apartheid paramilitary groups and agents of the state killed during the Apartheid era vastly outweighs the number that MK killed. Are these killings somehow justified because it was the state doing it and not "terrorists"?

mamba80

Omar Little wrote:

Its not though.

Fighting against an authoritarian state which uses violence against its own citizens (a majority of which they treat as sub humans who do not have the same rights as others in the country) is different to that of targetting civilians in a democratic country where there are peaceful avenues to pursue ones goals.

In any case even assuming MK were terrorists - the amount of people the South African security forces, pro-apartheid paramilitary groups and agents of the state killed during the Apartheid era vastly outweighs the number that MK killed. Are these killings somehow justified because it was the state doing it and not "terrorists"?

jeez I ve read some bollox on here (and prob written some) but you are deluded.

Omar Little

mamba80 wrote:

Omar Little wrote:

Its not though.

Fighting against an authoritarian state which uses violence against its own citizens (a majority of which they treat as sub humans who do not have the same rights as others in the country) is different to that of targetting civilians in a democratic country where there are peaceful avenues to pursue ones goals.

In any case even assuming MK were terrorists - the amount of people the South African security forces, pro-apartheid paramilitary groups and agents of the state killed during the Apartheid era vastly outweighs the number that MK killed. Are these killings somehow justified because it was the state doing it and not "terrorists"?

jeez I ve read some bollox on here (and prob written some) but you are deluded.

In what way am I deluded? At least back up a statement like that with a reason why i am deluded!

secretsam

Anyway, the old fella's at peace now, one assumes? Can we move on please?

Southgate

I didn't know Mandela personally, but my father did in 1960 or 1961 when, as a young white man, he was sent to the countryside by the ANC to organise rural workers. He describes Mandela as a having a commanding presence and huge authority.

Only when all peaceful means of opposition were exhausted and it became clear that the apartheid regime was never going to negotiate or allow democracy, did the Mandela and the ANC embark on armed struggle and form MK, the military wing. The actual terrorists in South Africa were those who enslaved a population, and casually used brutality, torture and murder as their preferred means of remaining in power.

I personally know / knew people who were tortured with electricity to their genitals, an old lady whose fingers were crushed and broken to pieces because she did not crack under interrogation, a man who was left in a wheelchair after the regime planted a bomb under his car. I know one of the Rivonia trialists who spent 22 years in an apartheid jail. Like his co-accused Nelson Mandela, he is not bitter and carries himself with great dignity.

A regime that massacres hundreds of unarmed school children in the streets has no legitimacy, and an enslaved population has the right to rise up against their oppressors without being denounced as terrorists. MK were freedom fighters and heroes. I salute them, and so do the vast majority of South Africans.

cornerblock

mamba80 wrote:

jeez I ve read some bollox on here (and prob written some)

Well at least we can all agree on the last bit.

the playing mantis

Little wrote:

the playing mantis wrote:

geez. :roll:

try telling that to anyone impacted by the atrocities of the IRA. terrorism is terrorism at whatever level.

unbelievable comment.

Its not though.

Fighting against an authoritarian state which uses violence against its own citizens (a majority of which they treat as sub humans who do not have the same rights as others in the country) is different to that of targetting civilians in a democratic country where there are peaceful avenues to pursue ones goals.

In any case even assuming MK were terrorists - the amount of people the South African security forces, pro-apartheid paramilitary groups and agents of the state killed during the Apartheid era vastly outweighs the number that MK killed. Are these killings somehow justified because it was the state doing it and not "terrorists"?

U have chosen to read something not written. Where have I justified the apartheid regime? I'm picking up on the ridiculous statement about pre 2001 terrorism.i

mamba80

the argument given by some to defend MK is the same as any Muslim fundamentalist uses to defend bombings or 9/11 or Mugabe uses to justify his barbaric regime.
The SA state didn't start negotiating with Mandela cause of MK, they did because they feared chaos and wanted to preserve their way of life (which by an large they have) eco and other sanctions forced their hand, they had nowhere else to go!
I'm guessing that the many many ppl MK blew up, injured and shot, summary executions and torture at their own camps, will also be saluting MK as will their families - all justified because the SADF was worse
and no Omar, killings by the state are no more justified than any other killing, which is what you appear to be suggesting? you need to take an interest the TRC hearings.

MattC59

daviesee

R.I.P. Nelson Mandela.

Please rest in peace.

The media can give up now. We have got the message.

Please.

Southgate

mamba80 wrote:

the argument given by some to defend MK is the same as any Muslim fundamentalist uses to defend bombings or 9/11 or Mugabe uses to justify his barbaric regime.
The SA state didn't start negotiating with Mandela cause of MK, they did because they feared chaos and wanted to preserve their way of life (which by an large they have) eco and other sanctions forced their hand, they had nowhere else to go!
I'm guessing that the many many ppl MK blew up, injured and shot, summary executions and torture at their own camps, will also be saluting MK as will their families - all justified because the SADF was worse
and no Omar, killings by the state are no more justified than any other killing, which is what you appear to be suggesting? you need to take an interest the TRC hearings.

The ANC had made the country ungovernable and successfully isolated it through mass action and military action. Sanctions weren't a gift from the Western powers.

Is it just black people who have no right to take up arms to free their country from their oppressors, or is this a principle of yours? Do you, say, also equate the French Resistance to the the Nazis? You're entitled to your view, however naive it may be, but I think most people can see the difference between the ANC and the French Resistance on the one hand, and al Qaeda on the other.

bucks

The BBC make me sick.

All this love for Mandela and the ANC but they still villify the Palestinian resistence.

Where is the coverage and calls from the media for Ahmad Sa'adat, the leader of the secular PFLP who is currently banged up in the some Israeli hell hole in Jericho without being charged, to be realsed. He is the Palestinians equilvilant of Mandela.
Is blacks fighting oppression a more worthwhile struggle than Arabs doing the same.

does my head in.

secretsam

MattC59 wrote:

PML

socrates

Apartheid was wrong and there can be no excuse for it. However Nelson Mandela formed the military wing of the ANC and they planted bombs which killed many innocent people. To say that it was justified because they were "fighting fire with fire" is a nonsense. these bombs were placed at so called soft targets, in other word banks and shopping precincts where ordinary people going about their business were killed. Is that the work of a statesman to be honoured throughout the world. Maybe, just maybe we should look at his life as a whole and not just the pas few years.

bucks

socrates wrote:

Apartheid was wrong and there can be no excuse for it. However Nelson Mandela formed the military wing of the ANC and they planted bombs which killed many innocent people. To say that it was justified because they were "fighting fire with fire" is a nonsense. these bombs were placed at so called soft targets, in other word banks and shopping precincts where ordinary people going about their business were killed. Is that the work of a statesman to be honoured throughout the world. Maybe, just maybe we should look at his life as a whole and not just the pas few years.

Resistance is not terrorism

daviesee

bucks wrote:

Resistance is not terrorism

The only difference between resistance and terrorism is viewpoint.
And the victors history books.

Southgate

Perhaps those who condemn the ANC for taking up armed struggle would care to explain exactly how they would have fought a dictatorship that declared 90% of the population to be second class citizens unworthy of the vote, which had outlawed the ANC and banned all peaceful protest, which was systematically torturing and murdering democracy activists, and which was gunning down children in the streets.

In Mandela's own words:

"At the beginning of June 1961, after a long and anxious assessment of the South African situation, I, and some colleagues, came to the conclusion that as violence in this country was inevitable, it would be unrealistic and wrong for African leaders to continue preaching peace and non-violence at a time when the government met our peaceful demands with force.

This conclusion was not easily arrived at. It was only when all else had failed, when all channels of peaceful protest had been barred to us, that the decision was made to embark on violent forms of political struggle, and to form Umkhonto we Sizwe. We did so not because we desired such a course, but solely because the government had left us with no other choice. In the Manifesto of Umkhonto published on 16 December 1961, which is exhibit AD, we said:
'The time comes in the life of any nation when there remain only two choices – submit or fight. That time has now come to South Africa. We shall not submit and we have no choice but to hit back by all means in our power in defence of our people, our future, and our freedom.'

Firstly, we believed that as a result of Government policy, violence by the African people had become inevitable, and that unless responsible leadership was given to canalise and control the feelings of our people, there would be outbreaks of terrorism which would produce an intensity of bitterness and hostility between the various races of this country which is not produced even by war. Secondly, we felt that without violence there would be no way open to the African people to succeed in their struggle against the principle of white supremacy. All lawful modes of expressing opposition to this principle had been closed by legislation, and we were placed in a position in which we had either to accept a permanent state of inferiority, or take over the Government. We chose to defy the law. We first broke the law in a way which avoided any recourse to violence; when this form was legislated against, and then the Government resorted to a show of force to crush opposition to its policies, only then did we decide to answer with violence."

ballysmate

Rick Chasey wrote:

carrock wrote:

This is the think most people overlook. He admitted to acts of terrorism, and however benign in his later years, however noble the cause, he presided over the terrorist wing of the ANC who committed many atrocities, before his undoubted charisma led him to become a leading political figure.

He was offered freedom by PW Botha years earlier but refused to renounce terrorism.....so yes, an admirable man in some ways but don't gloss over his past

Untill 2001 terrorism was a little less exteme.

I believe he was a demo expert and blew stuff like power lines up.

Not killing people.

His leadership post prison also helped save many lives.

It wasn't really terrorism in the sense it provoked terror. He was helping irritate an apartheid government and focussed on the military who voilated his community on a daily basis.

How can it be less extreme? Dead is dead is dead, surely?
I agree that the numbers involved in 2001 were horrific, but 2 kids were killed in Warrington, 29 in Omagh and the list goes on. Innocent civilians killed through terrorism. To their families numbers are meaningless.
As someone has pointed out, one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. A terrorist considers his actions justified in their mind.
Some people look back and justify some terrorist campaigns because they can identify with the cause. Who is to say in future years the atrocities carried out by AQ will not be viewed with more sympathy, depending on history's twists and turns?

arran77

Ballysmate wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Untill 2001 terrorism was a little less exteme.

How can it be less extreme? Dead is dead is dead, surely?
I agree that the numbers involved in 2001 were horrific, but 2 kids were killed in Warrington, 29 in Omagh and the list goes on. Innocent civilians killed through terrorism. To their families numbers are meaningless.

Absolutely spot on, the only thing more 'extreme' about 2001 was the shear numbers, any act of terrorism is extreme in my opinion and as you say, to the families of those killed the numbers are in-material, their loved one is dead, it gets no more extreme than that.

FransJacques

This sign language fiasco is killing me with laughter. I'm crying I'm laughing so hard.

Nigerian lady beside me says "it's so african" i.e. the psychotic episode claim, the company now vanished.

Easiest way to tell if he's real is to make the guy sit a practical signing test.

This is the stuff that makes white right wingers say "bongo bongo land"

secretsam

FransJacques wrote:

This sign language fiasco is killing me with laughter. I'm crying I'm laughing so hard.

Nigerian lady beside me says "it's so african" i.e. the psychotic episode claim, the company now vanished.

Easiest way to tell if he's real is to make the guy sit a practical signing test.

This is the stuff that makes white right wingers say "bongo bongo land"

Agreed, can't help thinking that Mandela, with his famous sense of humour, would be larffing his arse off now