Nelson Mandela: Good Man or Terrorist?

#27
#27
therealUT said:
You endorse a "God-given right" to use violence to protect your property...



...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?
Click to expand...

Is it really going to solve the problem to take away someone else's rights (by killing them or destroying their property) to claim your own? Or is it going to make the problem worse?
 
#28
#28
LibertyVol said:
Is it really going to solve the problem to take away someone else's rights (by killing them or destroying their property) to claim your own? Or is it going to make the problem worse?
Click to expand...

How do these questions make your statements anymore consistent?

You think you have a right to violently defend your property; yet, you do not think they have a right to violently fight for their lives, freedom, and property?

Your stance is entirely inconsistent.
 
#30
#30
volinbham said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think TRUT brought up an excellent point:

therealUT said:
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.
Click to expand...

I am not saying that it is only an American bias. It is a western military bias. We sometimes distinguish the difference between military and civilians in times of war. Mostly when it is convenient or easy for us to do so.

However, that is not always the case. We have definitely done acts of "terrorism" in our history. My main point is that we tend to judge to quickly the tactics of other cultures with a helping dash of American exceptionalism.
 
#31
#31
A little of both, he fought against the government and apartheid the only way they could. MLK survived because the government did not send in troops to kill him. In South Africa, the government would attack Africans who spoke out against apartheid. Mandela and others fought fire with fire.
 
#32
#32
LibertyVol said:
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.
Click to expand...

1. The Constitution doesn't exist overseas.
2. Actually, we started recognizing his birthday as a national holiday because he died while spearheading the Civil Rights Movement; he died because he fought for something he believed in.
3. You would opt out and abandon your country. There's one difference between you and Mandela.
4. So the ends fail to justify the means when you disagree with it? How do you justify the collateral damage caused to innocent civilians by us overseas?
5. You've labeled the political aspect of Islam as a social problem in the past... how do you justify correcting it with death, destruction, and warfare?
 
#33
#33
ericpatterson1 said:
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?
Click to expand...

How about Bill Ayers bombing of the Pentagon?





Rasputin_Vol said:
fyp
Click to expand...

LOL.




therealUT said:
Provide the dates of the bombings you speak of; Mandela was in prison from from 1962-1990.
Click to expand...

Mandela was offered a full pardon if he would renounce violence and he would not.

The Church street bombing to which I referred was mentioned by Mandela in his own book, he had prior knowledge of it and supported it if indeed he may or may not have picked the target.

Mandela should have been hung for murder instead of being imprisoned to begin with.

Much of the time he was in 'prison' he was in a nice bungalo with a staff, fax, copy machines and telephones to run his widespread communist terrorist organization.


Terrorist watch!

1) Concerning Mandela's jail sentence. The crimes he committed were shamelessly criminal, and included no heroic acts. In fact, it is still a mystery why Percy Yutar (the then state attorney) did not file for murder, but manslaughter instead. Based on the facts it is commonly agreed by legal scholars that Mandela would have been hanged if Yutar filed for murder. You can easily get access to the case and you will find facts that the media, for whatever reason, prefer to ignore.

2) They often show Mandela's cell on Robben Island. That is not where he spent most of his time. He later lived in a house under so-called "arrest". It was comfortable if not luxurious, and most people work every day of their lives for the privilege to live in something not nearly as good as that. Why do they never show photographs of that?

3) What is really mind-boggling is the fact that while he was in the "house jail" he had free access, on account of the S.A. tax-payers, to telephone, fax and other communicating facilities to organize the ANC. That is why he was still the leader when he was "released".

4) You already know of the terrible deeds he ordered for his own people who disappointed him. He has many murders of his own on his hands.

5) He was supposedly in "jail" for 20 or more years. One would expect that he had a negligible income in that time. Yet when he and his wife were divorced about 4 years after his "release" he had to pay her millions in settlement. Where did these millions come from? Who else could earn millions in 4 years from a salaried job after taxes? Obviously something is seriously wrong. You find out where all that money came from and you will discover a lot about Mandela that the press never report.

6) Once he left "jail" (the house the government provided) he moved into a very luxurious home in one of the richest suburbs of Johannesburg. However, he kept a little four-room house in Soweto and pretended to live there. That is where he would interview reporters and where photographs were taken. What a liar and bigot. I cannot believe that the press did not know this. It simply played along to sell this falsehood of a hero and martyr. These are six leads that anyone from S.A. should be able to confirm easily with documentary proof. Mandela is a murderer and a liar. He only lived in "poverty" when it suited him. Just ask where he is presently living. There are very few Whites or other people that can, after a lifetime of working, afford the house he is living in now. Nonetheless, for some reason, I have no reason why, the media are ignoring all of this and misrepresent the actual situation.

- Report sent by South African historical expert living in the United States.
Click to expand...








tvolsfan said:
I'd have to guess he was a genuinely good person who resorted to the absolute extremes to get what he wanted.
Click to expand...

So the ends justify the means to you?

Why did nelson Mandela get arrested

Nelson Madela was originally incarcerated, not for his political views, but for involvement in 23 different acts of sabotage and conspiring to overthrow the government.

He and his fellow conspirators of the ANC and the South African Communist Party were caught by the police while in the possession of 48,000 Soviet-made anti-personnel mines and 210,000 hand-grenades.

The full list of munitions and charges read as follows:


• One count under the South African Suppression of Communism Act No. 44 of 1950, charging that the accused committed acts calculated to further the achievement of the objective of communism;

• One count of contravening the South African Criminal Law Act (1953), which prohibits any person from soliciting or receiving any money or articles for the purpose of achieving organized defiance of laws and country; and

• Two counts of sabotage, committing or aiding or procuring the commission of the following acts:

1) The further recruitment of persons for instruction and training, both within and outside the Republic of South Africa, in:

(a) the preparation, manufacture and use of explosives-for the purpose of committing acts of violence and destruction in the aforesaid Republic, (the preparation and manufacture of explo- sives, according to evidence submitted, included 210,000 hand grenades, 48,000 anti-personnel mines, 1,500 time devices, 144 tons of ammonium nitrate, 21.6 tons of aluminum powder and a ton of black powder);

(b) the art of warfare, including guerrilla warfare, and military training generally for the purpose in the aforesaid Republic; (ii) Further acts of violence and destruction, (this includes 193 counts of terrorism committed between 1961 and 1963);
(iii) Acts of guerrilla warfare in the aforesaid Republic;
(iv) Acts of assistance to military units of foreign countries when involving the aforesaid Republic;
(v) Acts of participation in a violent revolution in the aforesaid Republic, whereby the accused, injured, damaged, destroyed, rendered useless or unserviceable, put out of action, obstructed, with or endangered:

(a) the health or safety of the public;
(b) the maintenance of law and order;
(c) the supply and distribution of light, power or fuel;
(d) postal, telephone or telegraph installations;
(e) the free movement of traffic on land; and
(f) the property, movable or immovable, of other persons or of the state.

Source: The State v. Nelson Mandela et al, Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division, 1963-1964, Indictment.
Click to expand...

What if someone in America did the same.

Would you say that would be justifiable?

The objective would be the same, to get what they wanted.







orangestorm said:
A little of both, he fought against the government and apartheid the only way they could. MLK survived because the government did not send in troops to kill him. In South Africa, the government would attack Africans who spoke out against apartheid. Mandela and others fought fire with fire.
Click to expand...

You are sadly misinformed.

Mandela and his cronies killed more blacks than the white government ever even thought about.
 
#34
#34
I know I might get slammed but shouldn't the Pentagon be considered a military target?
 
#38
#38
therealUT said:
How do these questions make your statements anymore consistent?

You think you have a right to violently defend your property; yet, you do not think they have a right to violently fight for their lives, freedom, and property?

Your stance is entirely inconsistent.
Click to expand...

I don't know a lot about South African history, nor do I know what types of activities he participated in. And I am not defending what the South African government did either. I am just saying that I do not believe conducting terrorist activities and indescriminately bombing and killing innocent people, in my mind is not justified in claiming your rights or redirecting the policy of a government.

I would not bomb innocent people indescriminately to protect my life or property. However, I would defend my house and home.

So you think that terrorist activities are justified even if innocent people are killed because the end result was the desired result?
 
#40
#40
LibertyVol said:
I don't know a lot about South African history, nor do I know what types of activities he participated in. And I am not defending what the South African government did either. I am just saying that I do not believe conducting terrorist activities and indescriminately bombing and killing innocent people, in my mind is not justified in claiming your rights or redirecting the policy of a government.

I would not bomb innocent people indescriminately to protect my life or property. However, I would defend my house and home.

So you think that terrorist activities are justified even if innocent people are killed because the end result was the desired result?
Click to expand...

Who was innocent in apartheid South Africa?
 
#41
#41
DinkinFlicka said:
1. The Constitution doesn't exist overseas.
2. Actually, we started recognizing his birthday as a national holiday because he died while spearheading the Civil Rights Movement; he died because he fought for something he believed in.
3. You would opt out and abandon your country. There's one difference between you and Mandela.
4. So the ends fail to justify the means when you disagree with it? How do you justify the collateral damage caused to innocent civilians by us overseas?
5. You've labeled the political aspect of Islam as a social problem in the past... how do you justify correcting it with death, destruction, and warfare?
Click to expand...

King did not endorse violence. He did die for what he believed in.

I would not kill innocent people at random through terrorist activity in order to claim my rights or protect my property. Yes, I would leave this country before I would do that.

I am not saying what we are doing overseas is justified. I am just answering a question as to whether Mandela is a terrorist. And the answer is in my opinion, yes, he is a terrorist, if he participated in killing innocent people at random.

I never said Islam is a social problem. Last time I checked they have the right to worship their god as they chose as long as they, like everyone else, respect the privacy and property of others.
 
#42
#42
therealUT said:
Who was innocent in apartheid South Africa?
Click to expand...

Think about the marines that took the infamous leak. Was what they did okay? No. But is it to be expected from them given the circumstances? Yes.

Same thing with Apartheid. Was the violent reaction reprehensible? Absolutely. But what else would you expect with violent oppression?
 
#43
#43
therealUT said:
Who was innocent in apartheid South Africa?
Click to expand...

Probably neither side. I just do not think terrorism (randomly killing people for a political purpose or to claim one's rights) is justified even if it is for a worthy purpose. I would not take away your right to live to claim mine even if you were the one denying me of those rights. Two wrongs do not make a right.
 
#48
#48
volinbham said:
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.
Click to expand...

dresden, tokyo, troy, carthage, hiroshima, nagasaki, small pox blankets, shermans march, the occupation of new orleans, jericho... I could keep going.

DinkinFlicka said:
And the American Revolution was?
Click to expand...

An overarching act of treason using tactics of terrorism, guerrilla warfare, standard warfare and propaganda.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top