Nelson Mandela

socrates

Sorry but resistance or terrorism. If by resistance you mean that it is ok to kill innocent people going about their daily business then I suppose we could use that to have our own way freely for any situation. It is terrorism, no different from the apartheid system.

DeVlaeminck

In every conflict in history innocent people have been killed. Unless you are arguing from a pacifist perspective you still have to weigh up the ends against the means to judge whether it was justified. I don't know enough about the situation back then to judge but the fact that it was terrorism doesn't automatically make it unjustified if the ends were just and other avenues weren't open to them.

Frank the tank

Victimised/oppressed groups tend to take to violence when they get consistently ignored by their oppressors whilst pursuing a peaceful protest. It's born out of frustration.

mamba80

DeVlaeminck wrote:

In every conflict in history innocent people have been killed. Unless you are arguing from a pacifist perspective you still have to weigh up the ends against the means to judge whether it was justified. I don't know enough about the situation back then to judge but the fact that it was terrorism doesn't automatically make it unjustified if the ends were just and other avenues weren't open to them.

So you (or your children etc) would quite happy to be blown to bits for someones dreams or ambitions then? either that or you have no idea how traumatic the unexpected loss of someone close to you actually is.

Mikey23

Violence can never be a means to an end whatever the justification...

daviesee

Mikey Ghandi.

bdu98252

Reviewing history tells you that the victor of a conflict writes history. In Mandela's case he was the victor and this view is shared by most of the world rightly or wrongly. History has a soft spot for people who have killed directly or indirectly but pursued an overall goal that is widely recognised as beneficial. The end of appartide is widely recognised as beneficia. If you happened to be the relative of someone who was killed diectly or indirectly by Mandela then you may take a different view. Not many people would go on Newsnight in the present day and argue that treating a race of people with prejudice is a good idea.

shockedsoshocked

I was out with my girlfriend and her friends the day after this broke, which led to reams of platitudes from them as he's apparently such a massive inspiration to them all. Apparently it's bad form to suggest that as a bunch of people who can't cope with any form of mild criticism or conflict in any capacity, citing a man who spent a good chunk of his life in prison for standing up for what was right and what he believed in is a bit of an insult to him, and that as a white, relatively well off (in the grand scheme of things) male living in England I wasn't going to disrespect the feelings of millions of people he helped and gave hope to by focusing on some grief I have (or pretend to have) for him. But then again I was in a foul mood so may have been being intentionally difficult.

I think if more people had a fraction of his commitment to resolving injustice and bringing equality to people even on the smallest of scales the world would genuinely be a better place. I have massive respect for the man, even understanding his history, and he passed away at a ripe old age having achieved what he set out to and brought genuine change about. I doubt there'll be many others who leave this world in such a fashion.

flywheel88

I love him. He has always been a personal hero for me. Not only for what he did politically, but how he was able to grow as a person. How he was able to forgive his oppressors. He was a great man in so many ways.

Frank the tank wrote:

Can't believe such a man has passed by and not a mention on here.

Or are we all playing some kind of game and I've took the bait?

A man who had the choice whether to divide or unite a nation, he chose the latter.

Unlike a certain leader of this nation, and that is why their passings in their respective countries has been reflected in the response to their deaths.

He was a great man and one from we should all take inspiration. R.I.P.

graham.

Regarding the interpreter bloke doing the hand jive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d2L2v_9Nbw

rick_chasey

Ballysmate wrote:

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?

So who did Mandela kill??

What I mean to say is before 2001 people had a broader understanding of terrorism. Any act that induced terror rather than just killing innocent people. Your response 'dead is dead is dead' is exactly why I said it.

Afaiaa Mandela blew stuff like power lines up. Not kill people. Still terrorism but very very different.

MichaelW

At his funeral today, WTF was going on with that flag they removed from the coffin? Two students trying to fold a bed sheet for the first time ever?

potters1863

In apartheid South Africa there used to be a lot of Africans from neighbouring states, including Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Zambia etc basically southern Africa working in South Africa. Strange when things were so bad eh! They had access to a job a wage, medical, transport, food etc, they would send money home to their corrupt one party state countries where their working , living conditions were inferior and no food in the shops. They had no vote as such either.

The apartheid system needed sorting out, which it was and Mandela did a good job of keeping everything peaceful for which he deserves credit but he was no angel, the present set up is not ideal, too many people looking after themselves at the expense of the people of the country.

South Africa is a beautiful country but it is heading the same way as Zambia, Zimbabwe etc which is worse than it was 30 years ago. Hopefully the country will go the way of Botswana.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

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?

So who did Mandela kill??

What I mean to say is before 2001 people had a broader understanding of terrorism. Any act that induced terror rather than just killing innocent people. Your response 'dead is dead is dead' is exactly why I said it.

Afaiaa Mandela blew stuff like power lines up. Not kill people. Still terrorism but very very different.

And to put it in context, the South African security forces were using terrorist methods of their own at the time. They assassinated ANC activists and their family members with parcel bombs.

http://www.sabctrc.saha.org.za/tvseries/episode3/section3/transcript11.htm?tab=victims

Alain Quay

I liked Mandela's self-description of a few years ago:

"an unemployed pensioner with a criminal record.".

the playing mantis

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

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?

So who did Mandela kill??

What I mean to say is before 2001 people had a broader understanding of terrorism. Any act that induced terror rather than just killing innocent people. Your response 'dead is dead is dead' is exactly why I said it.

Afaiaa Mandela blew stuff like power lines up. Not kill people. Still terrorism but very very different.

what like the ira blowing up a load of pensioners sitting in deck chairs around a bandstand. that wasnt just killing innocents was it...

Southgate

The playing mantis is right. The ANC are a bunch of violent terrorists. I mean, if they didn't want to live in a racist dictatorship and get tortured and murdered and stuff, why didn't they just democratically vote out the government?

the playing mantis

What are you talking about, where have I once referenced my point against the actions of the anc. I'm responding to the point about terrorism changing after 2001 apparently.

Best think or actually bother to read before typing in future.

Southgate

No, your posts equate the ANC with the IRA, which you denounce in emotive terms.

"terrorism is terrorism" you say, before going on to ask rhetorically: "what like the ira blowing up a load of pensioners sitting in deck chairs around a bandstand. that wasn't just killing innocents was it..."

You seem very agitated about the ANC adopting armed struggle, or "terrorism" as you put it, but you steadfastly refuse to say how they could have overthrown the apartheid dictatorship given that they could not vote and all peaceful means of opposition had been outlawed.

Others have pointed out the extreme brutality of the regime, its torture centres, extra-judicial killings, car bombs, parcel bombs and other genuinely terroristic atrocities designed to silence those who dare to demand democracy.

There are two questions to ask when determining whether armed struggle is right.

1. Is the cause just?
2. Have all peaceful means of overthrowing the regime been exhausted?

In the South African case, the answers are, unequivocally, yes and yes.

So unless you've got some better ideas of how to get rid of a criminal regime that has racially enslaved 90% of the population, your "terrorism is terrorism" mantra looks a bit like an apology for apartheid. I mean, if we were discussing WW2 and your focus was all on the "terrorism" of the French Resistance, people might think you were a bit soft on Nazis.

Paulie W

I call Godwin's and we're done.

Lookyhere

Southgate wrote:

There are two questions to ask when determining whether armed struggle is right.

1. Is the cause just?
2. Have all peaceful means of overthrowing the regime been exhausted?

In the South African case, the answers are, unequivocally, yes and yes.

But you are arguing that blowing up a church of white civilians is also justified and even if the "armed struggle" was correct, what has the ANC done for the avg black man ?
Do the striking miners recently shot dead by the SA security forces demand justice? (the worst state sponsored massacre there since 1960 !!) no police have been prosecuted for this ... so no change there!
and can they vote out the ANC ? or do the ANC suppress political opposition? yes they do, so using your argument, the miners can start planting bombs and carry out shootings on ordinary blacks hanging around where ever ?
You are romanticising terrorism and your comparing WWII and the French resistance/Nazism with SA and the ANC shows you ve no grasp of history either.

Southgate

you are arguing that blowing up a church of white civilians is also justified

Uh?? What church?? I haven't argued anything of the sort! I have merely stated that an oppressed people have the right to armed struggle when all other means of change have been closed off. It's odd that you seem so concerned about white people, when apartheid was a system whereby whites enslaved millions of blacks, systematically and deliberately depriving them of the most basic of rights, economic and political, and murdering those who raised a voice in protest. It was a crime against humanity, and as an organised system of legalised racial supremacy it had quite a lot in common with Nazism. It's odd that the response to such a dictatorship provokes such outrage in you, but you don't seem half so outraged about the dictatorship itself.

As for "what has the ANC done for the average black man?", your concern is touching and hopefully genuine. My personal opinion is actually quite a lot, but it is for the average black man (or woman) to say, wouldn't you agree?

And if the answer is nothing, then they can vote them out at the next election can't they, just like the whites or anyone else, average or otherwise, can. Alongside political freedoms, there is a legal system, a free press and freedom of speech. It's called democracy. What is amazing isn't that the ANC adopted armed struggle after decades of peaceful resistance in the face of dictatorship, but that they defeated apartheid with so few white casualties.

andy_f

Southgate wrote:

you are arguing that blowing up a church of white civilians is also justified

As for "what has the ANC done for the average black man?", your concern is touching and hopefully genuine. My personal opinion is actually quite a lot, but it is for the average black man (or woman) to say, wouldn't you agree?

They interviewed the average black woman on BBC 24, I think it was last Wed or Thur. Three women of the same family Gran, mother and daughter and all three said the biggest change they had seen over the years of Mandelas struggle was that he became a very, very rich man.

Southgate

"the" average black woman, you say? Lol

We can all scan the TV or newspapers to find someone we agree with.

I can quote random strangers too. Doesn't mean much though, does it? Except in this case, I actually think you have a point. Not the point you were trying to make perhaps. But a point nonetheless.

The average black person, in fact the average or not average any person, can now say whatever they wish to the BBC or vote for whomever they like, be it the ANC, the DA, COPE, or any of the other dozen parties represented in parliament.

That, my friend, is down to Nelson Mandela and the freedom struggle.

daviesee

Southgate wrote:

That, my friend,

I always like when people use this phrase.
Most demeaning.

Southgate

...but not quite as demeaning as conjuring up "the average black person" from off the telly, who, surprise, surprise, just happens to rubbish Mandela, eh?

Lookyhere

Yes, I ve lived worked and travelled all over southern Africa, from the late 80s through to 97 and have relatives over there... in the early 90s, there was great excitement bout Mandela being realised, amongst black and white, by the mid 90s that was replaced with resignation, crime soared, corruption rife.
what has always struck me is the dignity of the common man there, genuine and hard working, treated appallingly by the whites and now by the ANC.
Plenty of blacks hate the ANC but vote for them out of loyalty to Mandela, hopefully that ll change but whats needed is a far fairer education system, people who cant read or write cant make informed choices.. but that suits the ANC, just as it suited the whites.

the ANC blew up a church full of whites, google church street bombings, no doubt in response to a sadf murder/torture etc and I expect the sadf carried out even more murders after this attack.
Your logic justifies these bombings and reprisal killings.
what you don't grasp is that it was international isolation that bought the whites to the negotiating table and not a few bombs and shootings, the white SA likes his luxuries and with the rand falling through the floor and import taxes extremely high, they had to give way.

the playing mantis

Southgate wrote:

No, your posts equate the ANC with the IRA, which you denounce in emotive terms.

"terrorism is terrorism" you say, before going on to ask rhetorically: "what like the ira blowing up a load of pensioners sitting in deck chairs around a bandstand. that wasn't just killing innocents was it..."

You seem very agitated about the ANC adopting armed struggle, or "terrorism" as you put it, but you steadfastly refuse to say how they could have overthrown the apartheid dictatorship given that they could not vote and all peaceful means of opposition had been outlawed.

Others have pointed out the extreme brutality of the regime, its torture centres, extra-judicial killings, car bombs, parcel bombs and other genuinely terroristic atrocities designed to silence those who dare to demand democracy.

There are two questions to ask when determining whether armed struggle is right.

1. Is the cause just?
2. Have all peaceful means of overthrowing the regime been exhausted?

In the South African case, the answers are, unequivocally, yes and yes.

So unless you've got some better ideas of how to get rid of a criminal regime that has racially enslaved 90% of the population, your "terrorism is terrorism" mantra looks a bit like an apology for apartheid. I mean, if we were discussing WW2 and your focus was all on the "terrorism" of the French Resistance, people might think you were a bit soft on Nazis.

again where have i mentioned anc once in relation to terrorism? please show me where i have mentioned them once in relation to my terrorism pitch? and where i get agitated about the anc's terrorism?

thanks*

*now if we do want to talk about the anc, the great nazi reference really relevant and adds a lot to the argument as the situations are so very comparable....

rick_chasey

the playing mantis wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

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?

So who did Mandela kill??

What I mean to say is before 2001 people had a broader understanding of terrorism. Any act that induced terror rather than just killing innocent people. Your response 'dead is dead is dead' is exactly why I said it.

Afaiaa Mandela blew stuff like power lines up. Not kill people. Still terrorism but very very different.

what like the ira blowing up a load of pensioners sitting in deck chairs around a bandstand. that wasnt just killing innocents was it...

What part of 'a broader understanding of terrorism, not just killing people' didn't you get?

Mandela fought the apartheid in his youth, and became a leader and focal point of the movement to end it.

Furthermore, when in power he preached forgiveness and peace. That he could be SO forgiving given what he had endured gave him the credibility to have that power and persuade a country not to dwell on the horrible past and move forward. Just watch some of the footage of those admission courts to witness how powerful that idea was.

That's something to admire. It's what we all should be but can't. And it's quite likeable.

the playing mantis

Rick Chasey wrote:

the playing mantis wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

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?

So who did Mandela kill??

What I mean to say is before 2001 people had a broader understanding of terrorism. Any act that induced terror rather than just killing innocent people. Your response 'dead is dead is dead' is exactly why I said it.

Afaiaa Mandela blew stuff like power lines up. Not kill people. Still terrorism but very very different.

what like the ira blowing up a load of pensioners sitting in deck chairs around a bandstand. that wasnt just killing innocents was it...

What part of 'a broader understanding of terrorism, not just killing people' didn't you get?

Mandela fought the apartheid in his youth, and became a leader and focal point of the movement to end it.

Furthermore, when in power he preached forgiveness and peace. That he could be SO forgiving given what he had endured gave him the credibility to have that power and persuade a country not to dwell on the horrible past and move forward. Just watch some of the footage of those admission courts to witness how powerful that idea was.

That's something to admire. It's what we all should be but can't. And it's quite likeable.

look i'm not concerned with the anc's methods, doesn't impact/concern me one jot. the sole issue i have is comments saying terrorism in general changed after 2001. that's what i took issue at. thats is all.