Nelson Mandela terrorist?

Fuinseog

I have often wondered why people here would support someone like Nelson Mandela and vilify someone like Gerry Adams?
Mandela was imprisoned for terrorist activities. he was the head of a militant group that killed civilians so why is he such a hero?

eth0

Because in the end he actually won? Nearly 100 years on and we're still living with partition in Ireland. The IRA made a balls of it

Sonics2k

I think we all know the true answer to this.

Gerry Adams has a funny voice.

Terrorist = Freedom Fighter, depending on which side of the fence you're sitting on.

eth0

Sonics2k wrote: »

I think we all know the true answer to this.

Gerry Adams has a funny voice.

Sityeashun

Mr Benevolent

No rational person cares about partition in Ireland anymore.

SEPT 23 1989

because he had a long jog to freedom

JohnMarston

People with beards appear less trustworthy

Higher

Fuinseog wrote: »

I have often wondered why people here would support someone like Nelson Mandela and vilify someone like Gerry Adams?
Mandela was imprisoned for terrorist activities. he was the head of a militant group that killed civilians so why is he such a hero?

The reason Mandela is so well regarded is not because of how he came to power but his leadership when he came to power. At a time when the entire nation was baying for retrubution against the white population, he risked everything to protect the very people who he suffered so terribly under.

He led by example and in doing so showed one of the greatest modern day examples of forgiveness and tolerance.

That is why he is considered such a hero.

Gurgle

Fuinseog wrote: »

I have often wondered why people here would support someone like Nelson Mandela and vilify someone like Gerry Adams?
Mandela was imprisoned for terrorist activities. he was the head of a militant group that killed civilians so why is he such a hero?

You have to take into account the scale of the injustice each was fighting.

NI was (still is in some areas?) a pretty bloody oppressive place to be born to a catholic / irish / nationalist family, but never came close to the injustice of apartheid in SA.

Fuinseog

Higher wrote: »

The reason Mandela is so well regarded is not because of how he came to power but his leadership when he came to power. At a time when the entire nation was baying for retrubution against the white population, he risked everything to protect the very people who he suffered so terribly under.

He led by example and in doing so showed one of the greatest modern day examples of forgiveness and tolerance.

That is why he is considered such a hero.

could he same not be said about Gerry Adams and Martin McG? they risked a lot to enter the peace process and made enemies for themselves among more extreme republicans.

gerry adams sat down and tried to talk peace with people who had tried to kill him and his family.

LordSutch

eth0 wrote: »

The IRA made a balls of it

How do you mean?

Chips Lovell

Nothing exemplifies how vain and delusional the Provos are than when they compare themselves to people like Mandela.

bluecode

While Adams and McGuinness are to be congratualated on coming over from the dark side. It took them far too long. They persisted with a violent campaign for many years after the point when it became obvious that it was pointless and had descended from idealism to pure bloody minded terrorism.

What was proved by the peace process was that terrorism was never neccessary. What we have now is not much different from what was proposed by the Sunningdale agreement as far back as 1973. If Adams and the rest wanted peace they had the ability to stop the campaign at any time. But they stood over the murder of thousands of people over many years of pointless violence.

Plus there is absolutely no comparison between South Africa and Northern Ireland in terms or Mandela's imprisonment. Adams is definitely no Mandela.

cowzerp

History will see them in the same light, Mandela was seen as a terrorist and now as freedom fighter, Ireland been partitioned is ridiculous no matter what way you look at it-Just because the people who consider themselves Irish are not persecuted anymore does not change this.

There is still people who view Mandela as a terrorist, it all depends what view your coming from-When they are all long gone History will write them as Men who stood for a cause, This i have no doubt about.

The 1916 rising soldiers where thought as Terrorists, There considered Heroes by most now.

fishy fishy

Higher wrote: »

The reason Mandela is so well regarded is not because of how he came to power but his leadership when he came to power. At a time when the entire nation was baying for retrubution against the white population, he risked everything to protect the very people who he suffered so terribly under.

He led by example and in doing so showed one of the greatest modern day examples of forgiveness and tolerance.

That is why he is considered such a hero.

Do you know the history of Nelson Mandela BEFORE he was imprisoned? It makes me laugh that people can call Nelson Mandela a hero (which he is by the way) out of one side of their mouth, and yet slate similar likeminded people/leaders out of the other side of their mouth. It shows a lack of understanding.

Oh by the way, anyone see "reeling in the years 1971 last night" it showed the "ethnic cleansing" up North. Very interesting.

ejmaztec

It all depends on how long ago these people stopped being terrorists. Memories get a bit more vague after a few decades.

lugha

Fuinseog wrote: »

I have often wondered why people here would support someone like Nelson Mandela and vilify someone like Gerry Adams?
Mandela was imprisoned for terrorist activities. he was the head of a militant group that killed civilians so why is he such a hero?

The “terrorist” label is irrelevant. The PIRA took it upon themselves to use force on behalf of the Irish people when it was demonstrably obvious that the vast majority of the people did not support this means, even if a majority did support the same ends.

Can make an argument that Nelson Mandela similarly did not have the support of the people he represented?

guinnessdrinker

lugha wrote: »

The “terrorist” label is irrelevant. The PIRA took it upon themselves to use force on behalf of the Irish people when it was demonstrably obvious that the vast majority of the people did not support this means, even if a majority did support the same ends.

Can make an argument that Nelson Mandela similarly did not have the support of the people he represented?

So do you think whether a person should be labeled a terrorist or freedom fighter depends on the amount of support that particular person has?

--Kaiser--

Yes

lugha

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

So do you think whether a person should be labeled a terrorist or freedom fighter depends on the amount of support that particular person has?

I steer clear of the label “terrorist” altogether. The question to ask of those that use violence is whether or not their actions are justified.

It is not an easy question to answer, but I would think an obviously necessary (but not sufficient of course) condition is that a majority of the people you claim to represent support you.

granturismo

no

guinnessdrinker

lugha wrote: »

I steer clear of the label “terrorist” altogether. The question to ask of those that use violence is whether or not their actions are justified.

It is not an easy question to answer, but I would think an obviously necessary (but not sufficient of course) condition is that a majority of the people you claim to represent support you.

I get where you are coming from but for example would you say the majority of British people supported the war in Iraq and the violence that it entailed? And do the majority of those British citizens support the ongoing involvement in Afghanistan?

lugha

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

I get where you are coming from but for example would you say the majority of British people supported the war in Iraq and the violence that it entailed? And do the majority of those British citizens support the ongoing involvement in Afghanistan?

Well the British army, like any other army in a democracy, is under the control of the government. So, you should really ask if the government rather than the army have the support of the people. And of course, they do.

You plainly cannot expect that the people will approve of every decision their government will take, though there is certainly an argument that if you are going to do something big like involve your country in a war, you should get explicit permission from the people.

LordSutch

What ever happened to Mandela's wife Winnie? I seem to remember her waiting for him when he came out of prison, but you dont see much of her anymore!

fishy fishy

lugha wrote: »

The “terrorist” label is irrelevant. The PIRA took it upon themselves to use force on behalf of the Irish people when it was demonstrably obvious that the vast majority of the people did not support this means, even if a majority did support the same ends.

Can make an argument that Nelson Mandela similarly did not have the support of the people he represented?

oh, that oul line again. Covers a multitude.

Oink

LordSutch wrote: »

What ever happened to Mandela's wife Winnie? I seem to remember her waiting for him when he came out of prison, but you dont see much of her anymore!

That's because she's a wagon.

guinnessdrinker

lugha wrote: »

Well the British army, like any other army in a democracy, is under the control of the government. So, you should really ask if the government rather than the army have the support of the people. And of course, they do.

You plainly cannot expect that the people will approve of every decision their government will take, though there is certainly an argument that if you are going to do something big like involve your country in a war, you should get explicit permission from the people.

Good points about governments and true of course but I'm talking about popular support.

For example I don't think the supporters of the ANC or even Mandela himself would have supported all of that organisation's actions over the years. A lot of the actions of the ANC could have been described by some as terrorist attacks etc, so would that make Mandela a terrorist too?

Chuck Stone

Confab wrote: »

No rational person cares about partition in Ireland anymore.

What a terribly self-defeating, irrational statement to make.

By making the statement it shows that you actually care - because if you didn't care you wouldn't have made it. Hilarious!

There are lots of things I don't care about and you know what? I don't comment on them because, well, I don't care.

You funny.

fishy fishy

LordSutch wrote: »

What ever happened to Mandela's wife Winnie? I seem to remember her waiting for him when he came out of prison, but you dont see much of her anymore!

didn't winnie get herself into a bit of bother after nelson mandela was released - he had to distance himself from her and her "new friends'

Fratton Fred

LordSutch wrote: »

What ever happened to Mandela's wife Winnie? I seem to remember her waiting for him when he came out of prison, but you dont see much of her anymore!

She was a nasty piece of work.

charlemont

Confab wrote: »

No rational person cares about partition in Ireland anymore.

Speak for yourself.

Anybody with half a brain would know the damage Partition has caused here.

ITS_A_BADGER

the label "terrorist" can be used by both good and bad forces, it is used to describe an opposing force or group that is not official or non goverment, so it can be used ambigiously to describe both good and bad forces, so isnt it just a label??

charlemont

charlemont wrote: »

Confab wrote: »

No rational person cares about partition in Ireland anymore.

Speak for yourself.

Anybody with half a brain would know the damage Partition has caused here.

If it wasn't for the partition, then we wouldn't have slightly cheaper alcohol up the North.

gurramok

lugha wrote: »

I steer clear of the label “terrorist” altogether. The question to ask of those that use violence is whether or not their actions are justified.

It is not an easy question to answer, but I would think an obviously necessary (but not sufficient of course) condition is that a majority of the people you claim to represent support you.

Are the rebels in Libya and Syria terrorists or freedom fighters?

leggo

lugha wrote: »

The “terrorist” label is irrelevant. The PIRA took it upon themselves to use force on behalf of the Irish people when it was demonstrably obvious that the vast majority of the people did not support this means, even if a majority did support the same ends.

You are aware that the 1916 Rising was, essentially, a way of drumming up support for a cause that was seen as more of a nuisance at the time, than anything else, by the majority?

The Irish rebels knew that they probably wouldn't be able to beat the British army, knew that they would be made into martyrs, but the majority of the public were comfortable with day-to-day life and didn't want the hassle...so they needed to see the brutality of the British in full force to actually get behind the cause.

Not that I agree with the PIRA's actions, but public support is a horrible way to gauge whether a cause is worthy or not. It could've been argued that we should have overthrown the FF government, by any means necessary, while they were in power a few years ago*. But a general public will typically withstand a serious amount of inconvenience before resorting to that, it generally takes something extraordinary to force them into action. Sure a lot of us in the south never paid attention to the day-to-day struggles of many in the north, unless there was a terrorist atrocity bringing it back to our attention. It actually worked. This is how, I imagine, a lot of former IRA members get themselves to sleep each night.

*In doing so, we could've potentially avoided the Bank Guarantee, IMF Bailout and brought the likes of Seanie Fitz to justice sooner...before anyone pipes up and says, "We were better off waiting it out and giving them a hammering in the polls." It's still a valid argument.

floggg

bluecode wrote: »

While Adams and McGuinness are to be congratualated on coming over from the dark side. It took them far too long. They persisted with a violent campaign for many years after the point when it became obvious that it was pointless and had descended from idealism to pure bloody minded terrorism.

What was proved by the peace process was that terrorism was never neccessary. What we have now is not much different from what was proposed by the Sunningdale agreement as far back as 1973. If Adams and the rest wanted peace they had the ability to stop the campaign at any time. But they stood over the murder of thousands of people over many years of pointless violence.

Plus there is absolutely no comparison between South Africa and Northern Ireland in terms or Mandela's imprisonment. Adams is definitely no Mandela.

lugha wrote: »

The “terrorist” label is irrelevant. The PIRA took it upon themselves to use force on behalf of the Irish people when it was demonstrably obvious that the vast majority of the people did not support this means, even if a majority did support the same ends.

Can make an argument that Nelson Mandela similarly did not have the support of the people he represented?

While to my shame I don't know as much about the history of my island as I should myself, the above comments don't really seem to accord with history.

When the Troubles began, it wasn't the IRA who initiated violence, or sectarianism. It was the UVF, not the IRA who first started an organised violent campaign. Nationalist civil rights marches were also attacked by loyalist, aided and abetted by the RUC.

When the army came at first, they were welcomed by the nationalist communities as being impartial and were hoped to provide some protection to them. When that didn't occur, the people of nationalist communities cried out for the IRA to intervene, and the were criticised by many for not doing so immediately.

The Irish army set up field hospitals on the border to assist the injured and even drew up invasion plans in response to the abuse of nationalist communities. Even apart from the violence, nationalist communities had been victims of discrimination for years, before and after partition, and there had been little impeteus for change in that regard until the Troubles began. Any attempt at political resolution or change was ignored until the violence broke out.

To say that the IRA did not have the support of the Irish/nationalists, or that civil rights or peace would have been achieved without them is false in my book. While I don't condone terrorism, it has to be admitted that sometimes it takes a violent spark for change to occur.

Malcolm X once said

I want Dr. King to know that I didn't come to Selma to make his job difficult. I really did come thinking I could make it easier. If the white people realize what the alternative is, perhaps they will be more willing to hear Dr. King.

It was only when there was a less attractive alternative to civil rights and political movements that the UK and unionist authorities became willing to listen to them.

Dravokivich

Dónal wrote: »

Terrorist = Freedom Fighter, depending on which side of the fence you're sitting on.

Bullshít.

If the cause is so righteous terrorists wouldn't slaughter civilians as much as they seem to do. Very little terrorist activity I've seen reported had anything to do with "Freedom Fighters" fighting against the forces that seem to be preventing them from claiming their freedom.

fishy fishy

Dravokivich wrote: »

Bullshít.

If the cause is so righteous terrorists wouldn't slaughter civilians as much as they seem to do. Very little terrorist activity I've seen reported had anything to do with "Freedom Fighters" fighting against the forces that seem to be preventing them from claiming their freedom.

i take it you didn't watch "Reeling in the Years" last night. It was about the 1971 ethnic cleansing of the catholics in the north.

or is it only abhorrent when it is in a different country?

Dravokivich

fishy fishy wrote: »

i take it you didn't watch "Reeling in the Years" last night. It was about the 1971 ethnic cleansing of the catholics in the north.

or is it only abhorrent when it is in a different country?

Never been to interested in the show. But to get the context of my response, think of the quote I replied to. It says all "terrorists" are "Freedom fighters." How can one claim to be a freedom fighter when they themselves take the freedom of someone who had no involvement in their issue?

It's a catch all expression that no-one ever puts context against.

With your interest in the North, can you tell me was that Freedom Fighters in Omagh or Manchester? were those many civilians killed during those in any way a force preventing other peoples freedoms?

Forget about the North for a moment, were they Freedom Fighters in New York, Washington, London?

Also, I said "Very little terrorist activity I've seen reported had anything to do with "Freedom Fighters""

There can be times when the phrase of terrorism is thrown out to give a group bad PR and I accept that. But it can't just be said that everyone presented as a terrorist are victims themselves looking to fight back.

floggg

Dravokivich wrote: »

Bullshít.

If the cause is so righteous terrorists wouldn't slaughter civilians as much as they seem to do. Very little terrorist activity I've seen reported had anything to do with "Freedom Fighters" fighting against the forces that seem to be preventing them from claiming their freedom.

It's very easy to draw such firm moral lines when you are detached from the situation.

But when your entire community is being oppressed by a powerful majority, and you have limited means to fight back, those moral distinctions become less firm.

Take for example a Palestinian who's family has been killed by the Israeli Defence Forces for no other reason than being Palestinian in the wrong place and wrong time. It would be a natural enough response to want to fight back, but if you're choices are terrorism or taking on a well trained and equipped army with catapults, what choice do you have?

Sometimes terrorism is the only weapon a victimised community feels it has.

And while civilians may not be the direct oppressors, they often form part of a community which is responsibility for it. I'm not saying they should be targets but do civilians bear no responsibility for actions done on their behalf and for their benefit?

Of course, in many (but certainly not all) cases at the start of the Troubles, it was civilian mobs responsible for attacks on nationalist communities.

I don't condone terrorism in any circumstances, and don't believe in targeting civilians. But to say that terrorism is always a black and white issue, or that you could never see why you might feel forced into it is naive and over simplistic.

There are many instances around the world where "terrorists" have been responsible for implementing great change for the good and ending oppression or discrimination.

gurramok

Dravokivich wrote: »

If the cause is so righteous terrorists wouldn't slaughter civilians as much as they seem to do. Very little terrorist activity I've seen reported had anything to do with "Freedom Fighters" fighting against the forces that seem to be preventing them from claiming their freedom.

State forces have slaughtered unarmed civilians too. Are they terrorists?

kfallon

LordSutch wrote: »

What ever happened to Mandela's wife Winnie? I seem to remember her waiting for him when he came out of prison, but you dont see much of her anymore!

<Insert Nelson's Column joke>

Dravokivich

gurramok wrote: »

State forces have slaughtered unarmed civilians too. Are they terrorists?

You are stretching out to more than what I'm saying.

With your context here now, if you were to re-write my post with state forces instead of terrorist/freedom fighters, you are inviting the opinion that all State Forces are terrorists because some State Forces slaughtered innocent civilians.

fishy fishy

Dravokivich wrote: »

Never been to interested in the show. But to get the context of my response, think of the quote I replied to. It says all "terrorists" are "Freedom fighters." How can one claim to be a freedom fighter when they themselves take the freedom of someone who had no involvement in their issue?

It's a catch all expression that no-one ever puts context against.

With your interest in the North, can you tell me was that Freedom Fighters in Omagh or Manchester? were those many civilians killed during those in any way a force preventing other peoples freedoms?

Forget about the North for a moment, were they Freedom Fighters in New York, Washington, London?

Also, I said "Very little terrorist activity I've seen reported had anything to do with "Freedom Fighters""

There can be times when the phrase of terrorism is thrown out to give a group bad PR and I accept that. But it can't just be said that everyone presented as a terrorist are victims themselves looking to fight back.

I don't have any more interest in the north than I do any other country, but I don't understand why a lot of people on this boards site think what happened in the north is okay, they deserved it, while spouting about the injustice of the same thing happening in another country.

I've seen your "typical" questions hundreds of times before - it shows that you only go along believe what is fed to you through the box, instead of actually thinking the situation through yourself.

re. the reeling in the years programme last night - it doesn't matter if you didn't see it - Im sure you know and have seen and maybe even witnessed (although maybe not) the ethnic cleansing in the North - surely you know it and therefore I can load your own question back at you

"were those many civilians killed during those in any way a force preventing other peoples freedoms?"

I'll let you decide the answer for yourself.

kfallon

George Walker wrote: »

Yeah, the world will see a man who ordered the murder of a mother to get shot in the head as a freedom fighter. Delusion has no bounds for IRA terrorist supporters.

Which mother do you speak of?

Dravokivich

fishy fishy wrote: »

I don't have any more interest in the north than I do any other country, but I don't understand why a lot of people on this boards site think what happened in the north is okay, they deserved it, while spouting about the injustice of the same thing happening in another country.

I've seen your "typical" questions hundreds of times before - it shows that you only go along believe what is fed to you through the box, instead of actually thinking the situation through yourself.

re. the reeling in the years programme last night - it doesn't matter if you didn't see it - Im sure you know and have seen and maybe even witnessed (although maybe not) the ethnic cleansing in the North - surely you know it and therefore I can load your own question back at you

"were those many civilians killed during those in any way a force preventing other peoples freedoms?"

I'll let you decide the answer for yourself.

Again you continue to take what I said out of context. A context that's there because I'm not going by everything that's fed to me by the box.

fishy fishy

George Walker wrote: »

Was this the South Armagh genocide of Protestants on this programme? Would be interested to see it. Thanks.

no, it was the ethnic cleansing and burning of homes in the north in 1971.

Myrddin

One mans terrorist is another mans hero. Consequently, one mans president is another mans war criminal. Title means nothing, cause, is what matters

Fenian Army

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Nothing exemplifies how vain and delusional the Provos are than when they compare themselves to people like Mandela.

Maybe you should look at what people like Mandela think of "the provos".

http://ansionnachfionn.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/lg_mandela_adams.jpg?w=584

Of course the IRA also helped the fight against apartheid in a real way, by helping mastermind some of the most successful attacks.

As for comparing Mandela and Adams etc.. the UUP called him a "black provo"

Of course the ANC etc regularly send over delegations (and vice versa, this has been happening for a long time) to Sinn Féin meetings. They view SF and the IRA (gone now of course) as comrades.

So sorry, you were saying?

kingtiger

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Nothing exemplifies how vain and delusional the Provos are than when they compare themselves to people like Mandela.

did you grow up a Catholic in the 50ies\60ies in the six counties?

I don't think so, cause if you did you may have a different view