Jump to content

RIP Nelson Mandela


Lighthouse

Recommended Posts

A great man to many....RIP.

 

but people should not be scared to point out that he was a terrorist. He was.

but he became a massive figure in the world.

 

I wonder what direction South Africa will go. As i get the impression it is in a sorry state ATM

Edited by Batman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recognise Mandelas significant positive impact on history and civil rights, but I am not going to mourn him.

 

He was a terrorist. Just like Gerry Adams, MartinMcGuinness, Bobby Sands, etc..

 

In what way was Mandela a terrorist? Please explain rather than sticking a label on and hoping that's sufficient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terrorism by definition - "the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

 

And what was official and authorised was apartheid and repression. Hiding behind the cloak of legality doesn't make something moral or right. That's a schoolboy error in jurisprudential terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the English Civil war - parliament against the Monarchy was terrorism. I see. Don't be offended if I disregard you.

 

yes, they were

even animal rights groups that use violence to further their beliefs are terrorists in the eyes of the law.

 

Like I said, there is no shame or wrong doing in admitting what he was. It made him the man he became

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recognise Mandelas significant positive impact on history and civil rights, but I am not going to mourn him.

 

He was a terrorist. Just like Gerry Adams, MartinMcGuinness, Bobby Sands, etc..

 

Wouldnt like to be one of the few white SA farmers left after today. Theres a body of thought that asserts his continuing existence was the sole reason they havent been ethnically cleansed by the extreme elements of the ANC.

 

Likewise. The concern now is that his inspiration will create an enduring change of attitudes in South Africa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes, they were

even animal rights groups that use violence to further their beliefs are terrorists in the eyes of the law.

 

Like I said, there is no shame or wrong doing in admitting what he was. It made him the man he became

 

The law isn't morality. The Nazis had law just as every other appalling dictatorship has done.

 

So if white farmers fought back against Mugabe -seemingly everyone's favourite cause on here- wouldn't they too be terrorists?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The law isn't morality. The Nazis had law just as every other appalling dictatorship has done.

 

So if white farmers fought back against Mugabe, wouldn't they too be terrorists?

 

people who use violence to further their aims against the state are terrorist in the eyes of those who set the law. don't be offended to admit he was one. I doubt he was

 

I am not too sure why people here are so desperate to erase that from history. I bet he was proud of what he done that ultimately, brought change and made him the (without question) world icon he became

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The law isn't morality. The Nazis had law just as every other appalling dictatorship has done.

 

So if white farmers fought back against Mugabe -seemingly everyone's favourite cause on here- wouldn't they too be terrorists?

If they were involved in the bombing of public places containing innocent people, women, children etc, then they would also be terrorists.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

people who use violence to further their aims against the state are terrorist in the eyes of those who set the law. don't be offended to admit he was one. I doubt he was

 

I am not too sure why people here are so desperate to erase that from history. I bet he was proud of what he done that ultimately, brought change and made him the (without question) world icon he became

 

Its a complicated moral issue. Some security forces who infiltrate terror groups need to take part in terrorist acts to maintain credibility. Some leaders who want a political solution accept some violent acts in order to control the headbangers and keep the political push going. Neither are easy calls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

people who use violence to further their aims against the state are terrorist in the eyes of those who set the law. don't be offended to admit he was one. I doubt he was

 

I am not too sure why people here are so desperate to erase that from history. I bet he was proud of what he done that ultimately, brought change and made him the (without question) world icon he became

 

Am not offended by it at all - just saying there are helmets on here who think the terrorism label carries some extra force in an argument when it may have none whatsoever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its a complicated moral issue. Some security forces who infiltrate terror groups need to take part in terrorist acts to maintain credibility. Some leaders who want a political solution accept some violent acts in order to control the headbangers and keep the political push going. Neither are easy calls.

 

it really isnt. he was. by definition a terrorist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terrorism by definition - "the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

 

Unauthorised by whom?

 

On your definition of terrorism the French resistance against the Nazis were terrorists, as was Stauffenberg in his attempt to murder Hitler, as were the Italian citizens wo strung up Mussolioni and his wife, as were the mass protesters who sparked the rebellion against Ceausecu, as were the killers of Gaddafi.

 

In fact, Gaddafi himself used exactly the definition you've just given to attack the rebellion against him. As did Hitler after the Stauffenberg plot - and as he did repeatedly in the murderous reprisals he ordered against French, Dutch and Czech resistance to Nazism.

 

So to repeat: unauthorised by whom?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unauthorised by whom?

 

On your definition of terrorism the French resistance against the Nazis were terrorists, as was Stauffenberg in his attempt to murder Hitler, as were the Italian citizens wo strung up Mussolioni and his wife, as were the mass protesters who sparked the rebellion against Ceausecu, as were the killers of Gaddafi.

 

In fact, Gaddafi himself used exactly the definition you've just given to attack the rebellion against him. As did Hitler after the Stauffenberg plot - and as he did repeatedly in the murderous reprisals he ordered against French, Dutch and Czech resistance to Nazism.

 

So to repeat: unauthorised by whom?

 

Was this guy Mussolioni or Hitler?

 

image003.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Struggling with the flawed logic of your own beliefs Jamie?

 

no mate. I used to be part of MOD security briefing teams. I am fully aware of the definition of a terrorist.

Mandela was infact, an example of one we used as the young lads today, would not look at him as such.

 

people working for say, UKPLC and purposely being ordered to get into a terrorist cell are NOT doing it to further their own ideology, religious and/or political aims

 

we are going round in circles, in the eyes of the worlds law, mandela was a terrorist. I suspect he is proud of his past. as said, it brought him to the man he became.

Edited by Batman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly that. What is the difference between Gerry Adams and Mandela?

 

It is obviously a big grey area but a big difference is that the IRA were free to use political means to further their cause but chose violence. The Black people in South Africa did not have that option.

 

Mandela was a great man and his use of violence was completely vindicated IMO. The IRA probably had a just cause but they had the ability to use peaceful ways to achieve their aim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly that. What is the difference between Gerry Adams and Mandela?

 

Plenty.

 

That the UK is well-governed with institutionalised spaces for dissent, making violence -or extralegal methods- much harder to justify whereas South Africa under apartheid was the polar opposite.

 

That's only a start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plenty.

 

That the UK is well-governed with institutionalised spaces for dissent, making violence -or extralegal methods- much harder to justify whereas South Africa under apartheid was the polar opposite.

 

That's only a start.

 

Good start. So Life is cheaper in Africa than Britain and the murder of innocent Africans to make political points Is justified there but not in the UK because of the government systems in place in the respective countries. Excellent start well made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good start. So Life is cheaper in Africa than Britain and the murder of innocent Africans to make political points Is justified there but not in the UK because of the government systems in place in the respective countries. Excellent start well made.

 

Well the Apartheid regime certainly thought as much regards the vast majority of the South African population - hence another difference. Curious you overlook that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cameron-we-were-wrong-to-call-mandela-a-terrorist-413684.html

 

"Cameron: We were wrong to call Mandela a terrorist"

 

...........................................

 

'The ANC is a typical terrorist organisation ... Anyone who thinks it is going to run the government in South Africa is living in cloud-cuckoo land' - Margaret Thatcher, 1987

 

This from the woman who declared Pinochet a 'great democratic'.

Edited by badgerx16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the Apartheid regime certainly thought as much regards the vast majority of the South African population - hence another difference. Curious you overlook that.

 

Have I described the apartheid regime as Heroes and inspirational figures then? Show me where I've justified their actions. You're the one justifying murder pal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cameron-we-were-wrong-to-call-mandela-a-terrorist-413684.html

 

'The ANC is a typical terrorist organisation ... Anyone who thinks it is going to run the government in South Africa is living in cloud-cuckoo land' - Margaret Thatcher, 1987

 

This from the woman who declared Pinochet a 'great democratic'.

 

I wonder how many of the current Conservative crop were involved in the "Hang Mandela" posters?

 

http://descrier.co.uk/politics/2013/12/cameron-involved-hang-mandela-posters-1980s/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have I described the apartheid regime as Heroes and inspirational figures then? Show me where I've justified their actions. You're the one justifying murder pal

 

You are either with the freedom fighters or against Turks. Now which is it? Eh, come on, pick a side. Are you with the goodies or the baddies? There is no looking objectively on this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have I described the apartheid regime as Heroes and inspirational figures then? Show me where I've justified their actions. You're the one justifying murder pal

 

Odd you single out the death of white south Africans in the struggles without acknowledging the other side of the balance sheet which towered in comparison.

 

Oh yeh I remember because some were 'terrorists' :rolleyes:

Edited by shurlock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are either with the freedom fighters or against Turks. Now which is it? Eh, come on, pick a side. Are you with the goodies or the baddies? There is no looking objectively on this forum.

The objective view is to acknowledge that there can be good and bad 'terrorists' (or whatever label you want to use) depending on the circumstances. Some violent acts are just and necessary to prevent greater harm. Not everyone who sanctions violence is 'a baddie'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No you are right. For the record I am firmly on the side of Mandela did far more good than bad during his life. However, I was drawn in by verbals comment asking to show where he was a terrorist, implying that he did not sanction acts of terror. I read his book and he did and admitted it.

 

He also signed off on the murder of innocent people, not military targets. The killing of black police officers and the bombing of innocent people shopping on Church Street are not in the same ball park as the French resistance bombing the Nazis during the war or the execution of a fascist dictator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No you are right. For the record I am firmly on the side of Mandela did far more good than bad during his life. However, I was drawn in by verbals comment asking to show where he was a terrorist, implying that he did not sanction acts of terror. I read his book and he did and admitted it.

 

He also signed off on the murder of innocent people, not military targets. The killing of black police officers and the bombing of innocent people shopping on Church Street are not in the same ball park as the French resistance bombing the Nazis during the war or the execution of a fascist dictator.

 

 

And the struggles in South Africa are different from those in Northern Ireland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cameron-we-were-wrong-to-call-mandela-a-terrorist-413684.html

 

"Cameron: We were wrong to call Mandela a terrorist"

 

...........................................

 

'The ANC is a typical terrorist organisation ... Anyone who thinks it is going to run the government in South Africa is living in cloud-cuckoo land' - Margaret Thatcher, 1987

 

This from the woman who declared Pinochet a 'great democratic'.

 

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/110862

 

The widely-quoted “cloud-cuckoo land” remark attributed to MT at the end of this article is apocryphal. As far as can be traced she never made a public comment even similar to this.

Rather the origin of the quote appears to be a response by her press spokesman, Bernard Ingham, on 16 October 1987 at the Vancouver Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. A Canadian journalist speculated that the African National Congress might overthrow the white South African regime, to which he replied: “It is cloud cuckooland for anyone to believe that could be done.” (See Washington Post, 17 Oct 1987.)

Years later the words were modified and attributed to MT by Hugo Young, who claimed that she had said at Vancouver: “Anyone who thinks that the ANC is going to run the government in South Africa is living in cloud-cuckoo land”. (See The Guardian, 26 Apr 1994.) In that form they became part of the journalistic ‘record’.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/10-things-you-thought-you-knew-about-margaret-thatchers-downing-street-years-8572023.html

 

We have searched the record and spoken to one of her most recent biographers and can find no such comment. She did say, in answer to a question at a press conference at the 1987 Commonwealth Summit in Vancouver on reports that the ANC said they would target British firms: "This shows what a typical terrorist organisation it is."

 

Also, she did not, as frequently maintained, say: "Anyone who thinks the ANC is going to run the government in South Africa is living in cloud-cuckoo land." This is a misquoting of her spokesman, Bernard Ingham, who, when asked if the ANC might overthrow the white South African regime by force, replied: "It is cloud-cuckoo land for anyone to believe that could be done." There are plentiful records of Thatcher condemning apartheid; as far back as 1961 she was proposing a bill of rights for newly independent Commonwealth countries; and her government's efforts in lobbying for Mandela's release were crucial.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-22069896

 

PA-10101474.jpg

Edited by trousers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just seen the tributes paid on SSN by the greats of sport and ..... Harry Redknapp??

 

He obviously didn't rate Mandela as he didn't once call him "triffic" nor "a top, top president".

 

Although he did try to sign him at West Ham but the board wouldn't sanction the transfer fee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...