OT John Humphreys on Mandela

Swords, the difference as I see it, is that the white racist government was just that - the government. And whilst the violence and oppression against the blacks was abhorrent to all, I don't think that Governments acting in their own country can technically be called terrorists. Whereas, armed militia groups perpetrating violent acts of sabotage and destruction, with the aim of destabilising and ultimately removing a government - that's what we call terrorists these days. The ANC started out as pacifist, non-aggressive protesters with action rarely exceeding stay-away or silent sit-down protests. When they abandoned that in favour of more direct action, they became a terrorist organisation inside South Africa.

As I said above, when we look back now, it's easy to say that they were fully justified in their actions, because a) they were fighting against such a heinous regime, and b) they won. But the acts perpetrated by the ANC - of which Mandela was a leading figure for a long time - fully meet the dictionary definition of 'terrorist'.

 

"Technically"? What are you talking about "technically"? You either think they are or they aren't. Have you some rule book somewhere that gives a definitive meaning to the term terrorist? You say the dictionary tells you so. Then you must be the most simple-minded yokel I've ever come across. Have another look at it:

Terrorist - a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims

Gee, I wonder could that apply to the apartheid regime who terrorized blacks that demanded equality? What about a Prime Minister/Emperor/President etc who orders an invasion of another Country and slaughters thousands of innocent people by fireballs from the sky?

Open your eyes

No, that's what you call terrorists Willy. You and people like you. Most right thinking people would call the oppressors terrorists, not the victims. Are you for real?

Well they weren't a Government acting in their own country were they? They were a small group of white European settlers in Africa that called themselves the Government of "their" Country. It was never their Country and hence it was never a legitimate Government. Can't you see???

I'd love to see how people like you would behave if you were brought up in your own Country in a state of semi-serfdom, effectively ruled by foreigners and treated like dirt and then have some pompous know-it-all from the other side of the World decide that you and those who chose to fight, were terrorists. If ze Germans had overrun your Country in WW2 and were still there, lording it over you, would any English people in a resistance movement be terrorists? I think not.
And by the way, if Mandela was indeed a terrorist, do you agree with his 27 year jail term?

Your reasoning is absurd. Oppression breeds resistance, not the other way around.

For God's sake man, open your eyes.

 

Leaving aside all your mindless rants and personal insults (which I have come to expect from you in place of any reasoned discussion) these are the facts:

1. The National Party WERE the legitimate Government in South Africa from their election in 1948 until the election of the ANC in 1994. Dunno what your definition of 'legitimate' is, but it sure doesn't fit the facts. I suggest you check your facts before writing - something I note you failed to do above as well.

2. The acts they perpetrated were those we call 'terrorist acts'. They included setting off bombs in Government buildings, attacking police and army outposts, among other actions. People might choose not to call these acts 'terrorism', but if they do it's purely from the viewpoint of sympathising with the aims of those carrying out the acts. THAT'S the difference between calling someone a terrorist and calling them a freedom fighter - the viewer's own subjective viewpoint. I can read and see history objectively - and objectively, people trying to overthrow the elected Government of a country by armed resistance and violent means - sounds like a fair description to me. I'm not for one second saying that I side with the National Party in the matter - their policies were abhorrent, their actions reprehensible, and their approach to the majority black population was one that fills me with disgust. But when they moved from non-violent protests to direct, armed action, IMO they probably harmed their cause.

If you want to class both sides as terrorists, because both sides were using violence and terrorism in the pursuit of their political aims, then fair enough. But just because the Government was so bad, doesn't absolve the ANC of responsibility for some pretty terrible acts of violence and destruction as well.

 

In case you need references for the above, try this:

Umkhonto we Sizwe (or MK), translated "Spear of the Nation", was the military wing of the ANC. Partly in response to the Sharpeville massacre of 1960, individual members of the ANC found it necessary to consider violence to combat what passive protest had failed to quell. There was a significant portion of the ANC who therefore turned to violence to achieve their goals. A significant portion of ANC leadership agreed that this violence was needed to combat increasing backlash from the government. Some ANC members were upset by the actions of the MK, and refused to accept violence as necessary for the ending of Apartheid, but these individuals became a minority as the militant leaders such as Nelson Mandela gained significant popularity. Many consider their actions to be criminal, but the MK deemed the means justified by the end goal of ending apartheid. The MK committed terrorist acts to achieve their aims, and MK was responsible for the deaths of both civilians and members of the military. Acts of terrorism committed by the MK include the Church Street bombing and the Magoo's Bar bombing. In co-operation with the South African Communist Party, MK was founded in 1961.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANC

 

Who voted them in Willy?

Who's this "we" you keep referring to? You and COL? Or are there more of you?

So I presume you also believe dropping bombs on Government buildings from the air and attacking army outposts like in, say 2001 Iraq, was also terrorism?

And again, whose Government was this? Who elected it?

Who elected it Willy? I need an answer mate

And would you call say, the American rebels and George Washington terrorists for overthrowing the Government of a Country by armed resistance and violent means?
Because that's exactly what they did.

I most certainly do not. I wouldn't degrade the black resistance by even comparing them to the thugs that ruled them. They're not even on the same Planet in terms of right and wrong so don't even equate the two.

Again, considering you believe Mandela was a terrorist, do you agree with his 27 year jail term?

 

Giving up on you, Swords, as you aren't interested in debate, just trying to provoke. Every single point you are trying to ram home is subjective and hinges on your refusal to accept the 1948 election results, despite the fact that voter restrictions aside, the result was intrrnationally ratified and it was the subsequent policies, not the government, that the ANC fought against. The ANC accepted the result as legitimate. Why don't you?

That's my lot for this thread.

 

A terrorist/freedom fighter who through violence has achieved most, if not all of their political aims against a ruling/oppresive government.

Risen to the ranks of government/statesman meeting with world leaders and commanding the respect that goes with it.

At the moment thiis is all being related to the recently departed Mandela. but could just as easily apply to the like of Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness.

I wonder if their demise will be met with such tributes in years to come?

 

Easy cop out mate.

Of course I don't accept the '48 election results!! The vast majority of the population, IE the "natives", weren't allowed to vote in a free election! So how the hell was it a legitimate Government? Are you insane Willy? I can't believe people like you still exist in the year 2013.

Yes it is subjective and I contend that your making excuses for the apartheid white minority's despicable rule makes you morally redundant.

No surprise there because you refused to answer a direct question three times: "If Mandela was a terrorist, do you agree with his 27 year jail term?"

Your refusal to answer that question makes all your posturing and hysterics over the John Terry saga look somewhat fabricated. In fact, its quite disturbing. I knew it was all mock outrage from a sanctimonious fraud at the time which is why I repeatedly called you out on it. I'm glad I was proved right in the end.

Beware the two faces of the Christian. Wolves in sheep's clothing


That's my lot here too

 

Ok, one more, because you have overstepped the mark. You are a real piece of work, you know that? One of the most obnoxious people I have ever had the misfortune to encounter online.

I didn't answer your leading question because I refuse to pour more fuel on your fire. Once more your posts reveal the troll you really are, posting simply to offend and provoke. Once more, you choose your target and push the buttons gauranteed to be most offensive.

Well done. I hope you are enjoying yourself. Carry on like this and it'll be a lonely place for you round here.