Nelson Mandela: Good Man or Terrorist?

#1

Burhead

God-Emperor of Politics
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
26,159
Likes
9,925
#1
I've been debating this issue for awhile now and what to hear your opinions. On one hand he helped bring about the end of apartheid in South Africa, but on the other, he did lead an organization that carried out bombings and other acts of terror.

I ask because almost everyone I talk to thinks he is some sort of hero but I'm really not sure if they really know what he did for a time.
 
#2
#2
I've been debating this issue for awhile now and what to hear your opinions. On one hand he helped bring about the end of apartheid in South Africa, but on the other, he did lead an organization that carried out bombings and other acts of terror.

I ask because almost everyone I talk to thinks he is some sort of hero but I'm really not sure if they really know what he did for a time.

Started out as a terrorist; turned into a good man.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3
#3
I've been debating this issue for awhile now and what to hear your opinions. On one hand he helped bring about the end of apartheid in South Africa, but on the other, he did lead an organization that carried out bombings and other acts of terror.

I ask because almost everyone I talk to thinks he is some sort of hero but I'm really not sure if they really know what he did for a time.


George Washington: good man or terrorist?
 
#4
#4
He's a good man that used terrorism to achieve his political goals which, primarily, were to remove apartheid from South Africa. Of course that was before he was jailed for 27 years, at which point he had to use his words to encourage those who were still fighting.

Does he have blood on his hands? Certainly, but given that terrorist tactics were the tactics of choice for both sides during that decades long conflict it is difficult to condemn him for using them.
 
#6
#6
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

This x1000....... All in the eyes of what is socially acceptable. I imagine if it were two tribes of African decent that were what the outside world referenced as the same "race" then he just would have been labeled a terrorist trying to start a civil war. Instead, he is looked upon as a hero. No winning this debate, just a matter of opinion.
 
#7
#7
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Maybe I'm a terrorism purist but I generally associate terrorism with some form of civilian attack designed to provoke fear and uncertainty among the civilian population. Attacks on military personnel of a declared enemy not so much.
 
#8
#8
Maybe I'm a terrorism purist but I generally associate terrorism with some form of civilian attack designed to provoke fear and uncertainty among the civilian population. Attacks on military personnel of a declared enemy not so much.

Not arguing, just enjoy debating.... Would you say then that the flight into the Pentagon on 9/11 was terrorism or an act of war brought by another nation?
 
#9
#9
I think since the 9/11 attacks involved the use of civilian flights and targets causing large numbers of civilian casualities, they were terrorism (as well as militarian since specific targets were chosen). As oppose to the Mandela led attacks which were not intended to cause civilian deaths.
 
#11
#11
This x1000....... All in the eyes of what is socially acceptable. I imagine if it were two tribes of African decent that were what the outside world referenced as the same "race" then he just would have been labeled a terrorist trying to start a civil war. Instead, he is looked upon as a hero. No winning this debate, just a matter of opinion.

Yep. It is all about perception.

Maybe I'm a terrorism purist but I generally associate terrorism with some form of civilian attack designed to provoke fear and uncertainty among the civilian population. Attacks on military personnel of a declared enemy not so much.

I get what you are saying. However, this is a very much a western world (military) power view. We are blessed to live in a country which has a military capable of keeping us safe from threats via foreign states. Other countries and other cultures do not have that luxury. Therefore, they have to resort to other tactics to get their message across which is very taboo in our culture. I have no doubt that Americans would not hesitate to use similar tactics on foreign enemies, if we were ever to god forbid, switch places with them in terms of military capabilities and military/economic dominance by a hostile foreign country which comprises our sovereignty.

I am not trying to defend the actions of terrorists; however, I think it arrogant to dismiss their actions as purely evil and sinister because it is impossible for us to relate to them due to Americans being consumed in our own cultural bubble cut off from the rest of world's reality.
 
#13
#13
Maybe I'm a terrorism purist but I generally associate terrorism with some form of civilian attack designed to provoke fear and uncertainty among the civilian population. Attacks on military personnel of a declared enemy not so much.

So bombing a restaurant, killing a couple dozen people while they are having their lunch doesn't qualify?

Mandela was definately a communist terrorist.

His ANC murdered far far more blacks while liberating them in a short while than the South African government had since the beginning of apartheid, often for the flimsiest of reasons such as being suspected of cooperating with the government.

They did it in the most gruesom many too, to maximize fear among the blacks into supporting the communist ANC, they called it necklacing and did it publicly for everyone to see.

A large portion of the media has elevated Mandela to godlike status just as many would have you believe the murderous psychopath Che Guevara is some sort of hero.
 
#14
#14
Yep. It is all about perception.



I get what you are saying. However, this is a very much a western world (military) power view. We are blessed to live in a country which has a military capable of keeping us safe from threats via foreign states. Other countries and other cultures do not have that luxury. Therefore, they have to resort to other tactics to get their message across which is very taboo in our culture. I have no doubt that Americans would not hesitate to use similar tactics on foreign enemies, if we were ever to god forbid, switch places with them in terms of military capabilities and military/economic dominance by a hostile foreign country which comprises our sovereignty.

I am not trying to defend the actions of terrorists; however, I think it arrogant to dismiss their actions as purely evil and sinister because it is impossible for us to relate to them due to Americans being consumed in our own cultural bubble cut off from the rest of world's reality.

Throughout history there has been a separation between attacks on a military and attacks on civilians - I don't see that as some American cultural bias; I think it's pretty well established as warfare vs other acts of violence.
 
#15
#15
So bombing a restaurant, killing a couple dozen people while they are having their lunch doesn't qualify?

Mandela was definately a communist terrorist.

His ANC murdered far far more blacks while liberating them in a short while than the South African government had since the beginning of apartheid, often for the flimsiest of reasons such as being suspected of cooperating with the government.

They did it in the most gruesom many too, to maximize fear among the blacks into supporting the communist ANC, they called it necklacing and did it publicly for everyone to see.

A large portion of the media has elevated Mandela to godlike status just as many would have you believe the murderous psychopath Che Guevara is some sort of hero.

Provide the dates of the bombings you speak of; Mandela was in prison from from 1962-1990.
 
#16
#16
Throughout history there has been a separation between attacks on a military and attacks on civilians -

I do not agree with this statement. For the better part of history, civilians have felt the wrath of warfare. The periods in which militaries made attempts not to rape and kill civilians are minute.
 
#17
#17
And, I'd say, based on the number of conflicts occurring are still in the minority. Darfur being a prime example.
 
#18
#18
I'd have to guess he was a genuinely good person who resorted to the absolute extremes to get what he wanted.
 
#19
#19
I'd have to guess he was a genuinely good person who resorted to the absolute extremes to get what he wanted.

If black people here were subject to apartheid at the same time, I would have a hard time imagining the outcome to be very different from what happened in south africa.
 
#20
#20
He was a terrorist.

You cannot justify using violence to correct a social problem. Martin Luther King used nonviolence.

The ends does not justify the means.

He may have changed later in life, but that does not justify what he did, if indeed he committed acts of violence to achieve his political goals.
 
#21
#21
He was a terrorist.

You cannot justify using violence to correct a social problem. Martin Luther King used nonviolence.

The ends does not justify the means.

He may have changed later in life, but that does not justify what he did, if indeed he committed acts of violence to achieve his political goals.

So a crack dealer sets up shop in your basement...

Or better yet, the government decides for whatever reason it wants your television, computer and phone. Not just yours but they confiscate everyone's.

What do you do?
 
#22
#22
You cannot justify using violence to correct a social problem.

You support the war in Afghanistan, yes? What do you think the main focus of counterinsurgency operations are? We are attempting to correct social problems in Afghanistan (were attempting to in Iraq) and build Constitutions that mandate equality under the law for all, regardless of gender, religion, or tribe.
 
#23
#23
So a crack dealer sets up shop in your basement...

Or better yet, the government decides for whatever reason it wants your television, computer and phone. Not just yours but they confiscate everyone's.

What do you do?

I have a God-given right to protect my property and my life. That is the intent of our Constitution. That is also why I will never give up my gun. But in reality I would probably leave and try to find a place where I could be free to live as I choose, much like our forefathers did.

I do not have a right to correct a social problem by killing others and destroying their property. Martin Luther King used nonviolence which is why we celebrate his holiday.

The ends does not justify the means.
 
#24
#24
I have a God-given right to protect my property and my life. That is the intent of our Constitution. That is also why I will never give up my gun. But in reality I would probably leave and try to find a place where I could be free to live as I choose, much like our forefathers did.

You endorse a "God-given right" to use violence to protect your property...

I do not have a right to correct a social problem by killing others and destroying their property. Martin Luther King used nonviolence which is why we celebrate his holiday.

The ends does not justify the means.

...yet, you say that persons do not have the right to use violence to protect themselves against oppression (said oppression included the routine violation of any semblance of 'property rights' for these individuals)?

Consistency?
 
#25
#25
You support the war in Afghanistan, yes? What do you think the main focus of counterinsurgency operations are? We are attempting to correct social problems in Afghanistan (were attempting to in Iraq) and build Constitutions that mandate equality under the law for all, regardless of gender, religion, or tribe.

My assumption has been that their primary mission was to identify and destroy terrorist cells from which direct attacks on this county could originate. I saw a criticism over a trivial matter as hindering this purpose. To be honest, I am really not a big fan of using our military to correct the problems of the world.

I would almost never criticize our guys in uniform in a manner that would hinder their mission whether I agreed or disagreed with it.
 

VN Store



Back
Top