Nelson Mandela: Hero or Villain?

Fratton Fred

Rascasse wrote: »

That's quite a leap. Apartheid started in 1949, MK formed in early 60's, most of the high profile civilian deaths occurred in the 80's and it was effectively over in 1990.

The Thatcher government was well behind the ending of apartheid, her calling Mandela a terrorist (once) did not affect that.

I'm certainly no terrorist supporter, but after living down there for a few years and learning about apartheid regime I honestly find it hard to criticise the man or the organisation for what they did.

Actually she called the ANC terrorists, not Mandela himself.

Nodin

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Yep, and it's quite possible that it would have ended quicker without their civilian murdering activities (e.g. both Reagan and Thatcher, two of the most powerful people in the world at the time, referred to the ANC as terrorists)

Still can't answer the question?

The fact that the ANC were (rightly) seen as a terrorist organisation probably slowed down the elimination of Apartheid as most powerful countries (USA and Britain, for example) opposed them on this general principle

This would be the same US that supported the Contras, the death squads all over Latin America? You are aware that the SA Government practiced assassination and torture? Don't you think that such doublethink was highly unlikely? Whats wrong? is it too difficult to engage beyond posting 'waaaah, terrorism; repeatedly?'

Mr Whirly

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No, probably not, but you must also recognise the amazing effort put in by Archbishop Desmond Tutu and the bravery of FW Dr Clerk and the enlightened movement.

Umkhonto we Sizwe though did little to change things.

I do. In fact Tutu is one of the few clerics I admire, he also said this of Mandela and the ANC "The ANC was very good at leading us in the struggle to be free from oppression." I agree.

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Actually she called the ANC terrorists, not Mandela himself.

Given the thoughts of Denis and her son, its not too hard to imagine why.

TheLastMohican

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Ad Hominem xenophobic attack from a hippy.

Never thought you would defend murdering innocent people, it never takes long for people to show their true colours.

BNP/NF ffs, how utterly childish of you.

17-06-2013, 10:52 #6 Fratton Fred
Registered User


Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sarf Dublin innit
Posts: 17,298
Adverts | Friends


We have to let non eu nationals in to the country, we are then obliged to give them a free house, car with taxi plate and free pushchairs so they can abandon them at bus stops.

(15) thanks from: bluewolf, Chinasea, conor1979, c_man, drdeadlift, Earthhorse, GTDolanator, Gummy Panda, Itwasntme., mariaalice, massdebater, reprazant, S.R., southsiderosie, spank_inferno

Well if that's not BNP or National Front? Could it be Combat18? You seem to be conflicted Fred.

Nodin

TheLastMohican wrote: »

17-06-2013, 10:52 #6 Fratton Fred
Registered User


Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sarf Dublin innit
Posts: 17,298
Adverts | Friends


We have to let non eu nationals in to the country, we are then obliged to give them a free house, car with taxi plate and free pushchairs so they can abandon them at bus stops.

(15) thanks from: bluewolf, Chinasea, conor1979, c_man, drdeadlift, Earthhorse, GTDolanator, Gummy Panda, Itwasntme., mariaalice, massdebater, reprazant, S.R., southsiderosie, spank_inferno

Well if that's not BNP or National Front? Could it be Combat18? You seem to be conflicted Fred.

In fairness, that was sarcasm.

Rascasse

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Actually she called the ANC terrorists, not Mandela himself.

Well, by calling the ANC terrorists you are affectively calling it's head a terrorist.

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You seem to be confusing guerrilla warfare and terrorism.

There is a huge difference, for example, between attacking an army patrol and bombing a shopping centre, regardless of the cause.

No I don't Fred. That's my point innocent people die at the hands of guerrillas, terrorists and armies. All of the above use violence to achieve a political gain. As regards the difference involved in bombing there really isn't a lot of difference except in the minds of those who practice cognitive dissonance.

Bombs kill plenty of innocent people Fred and to those people the technical nomenclature of the group that planted the bomb is really irrelevant.

Violence is barbaric and I wouldn't advocate it's use but Mandela had just as much right to use violence as any western army does to drop bombs, use drones or send soldiers into a foreign land.

Nelson was fighting apartheid and won. Violence is never good but Nelson achieved more good using it than any western army in the last 100 years.

Fratton Fred

Mr Whirly wrote: »

I do. In fact Tutu is one of the few clerics I admire, he also said this of Mandela and the ANC "The ANC was very good at leading us in the struggle to be free from oppression." I agree.

The ANC was huge and had many splinter groups and factions, a lot of whom we're violent corrupt. It was, however, the main opponent of apartheid and under Mandela it handled the transition very well.

I don't think you can say it is good or bad without having a discussion about it. Would you, for example, call Winnie Mandela a good or bad person?

Fratton Fred

steddyeddy wrote: »

No I don't Fred. That's my point innocent people die at the hands of guerrillas, terrorists and armies. All of the above use violence to achieve a political gain. As regards the difference involved in bombing there really isn't a lot of difference except in the minds of those who practice cognitive dissonance.

Bombs kill plenty of innocent people Fred and to those people the technical nomenclature of the group that planted the bomb is really irrelevant.

Violence barbaric and I wouldn't advocate it's use but Mandela had just as much right to use violence as any western army does to drop bombs, use drones or send soldiers into a foreign land.

Nelson was fighting apartheid and won. Violence is never good but Nelson achieved more good using it than any western army in the last 100 years.

The four men that boarded tube trains and a bus in London on July seventh and killed 52 people, how would you describe them?

--Kaiser--

steddyeddy wrote: »

N
Violence is never good but Nelson achieved more good using it than any western army in the last 100 years.

What a ludicrous claim. If it wasn't for western armies Europe would probably be under the control of the Third Reich

Mr Whirly

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I don't think you can say it is good or bad without having a discussion about it. Would you, for example, call Winnie Mandela a good or bad person?

On the face of it no, she is probably not a good person.

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The four men that boarded tube trains and a bus in London on July seventh and killed 52 people, how would you describe them?

You're comparing violence to end apartheid to violence for some bizarre jihadi notion......? Seriously?

Mr Whirly

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

What a ludicrous claim. If it wasn't for western armies Europe would probably be under the control of the Third Reich

The Third Reich were western. If it wasn't for the Russians Europe would probably be under the control of the Third Reich.

Thanks lads.

Nodin

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

What a ludicrous claim. If it wasn't for western armies Europe would probably be under the control of the Third Reich

....Western armies who carpet bombed and targeted civillians. Didn't think that through, did ye.

Still can't answer the question?

kaiser wrote:

The fact that the ANC were (rightly) seen as a terrorist organisation probably
slowed down the elimination of Apartheid as most powerful countries (USA and Britain, for example) opposed them on this general principle

This would be the same US that supported the Contras, the death squads all over Latin America? You are aware that the SA Government practiced assassination and torture? Don't you think that such doublethink was highly unlikely? Whats wrong? is it too difficult to engage beyond posting 'waaaah, terrorism; repeatedly?'

--Kaiser--

Mr Whirly wrote: »

The Third Reich were western. If it wasn't for the Russians Europe would probably be under the control of the Third Reich.

Thanks lads.

And if there wasn't anything as armies and guns and murder would all live in a magical fairy hippy land and go to work on giant butterflies.

Thank lads.

Mr Whirly

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

And if there wasn't anything as armies and guns and murder would all live in a magical fairy hippy land and go to work on giant butterflies.

Thank lads.

Go away with your nonsense. You believe Europe and the US are keeping us free, I get it. Good luck.

--Kaiser--

Mr Whirly wrote: »

Good luck.

Thanks

steddyeddy

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

What a ludicrous claim. If it wasn't for western armies Europe would probably be under the control of the Third Reich

But they killed a lot of civilians? So targetting innocent civilians is justified to meet some goals it seems. Cognitive dissonance at its finest.

Fratton Fred

Nodin wrote: »

You're comparing violence to end apartheid to violence for some bizarre jihadi notion......? Seriously?

Bizarre to us maybe. I'm pretty sure the young men that did it thought it was a noble cause.

I'm just trying to get across that because the campaign is right, the action may not be. Simply saying it was a war and in war innocent people get killed justifies every war crime ever committed.

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Bizarre to us maybe. I'm pretty sure the young men that did it thought it was a noble cause.
......

I'm sure they did. That's totally irrelevant to you comparing their actions to those used to remove an evil regime, however.

who the fug

Why does he have to be one or the other, he is human

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Bizarre to us maybe. I'm pretty sure the young men that did it thought it was a noble cause.

I'm just trying to get across that because the campaign is right, the action may not be. Simply saying it was a war and in war innocent people get killed justifies every war crime ever committed.

But I'm sure most including yourself think ending apartheid is a just cause.

Fratton Fred

Nodin wrote: »

I'm sure they did. That's totally irrelevant to you comparing their actions to those used to remove an evil regime, however.

Except, of course, that I didn't.

steddyeddy

Mr Whirly wrote: »

The Third Reich were western. If it wasn't for the Russians Europe would probably be under the control of the Third Reich.

Thanks lads.

Russia's role in ending the war is often underplayed in the grand scheme of things.

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Except, of course, that I didn't.

O. Why did you bring them up then? What's the relevance?

--Kaiser--

steddyeddy wrote: »

But they killed a lot of civilians? So targetting innocent civilians is justified to meet some goals it seems. Cognitive dissonance at its finest.

Not saying I supported the bombing of civilians, but the Third Reich was not going to be halted by any political means. Whereas 90% of the people killed by the ANC were civilians because the amoral cowards

steddyeddy

Amazing you have people banging on about Nelson being a terrorist who targets civilians and then go on about how the west needed to save us from being under the (also western) third reich. Part of the way they did that was to drop two atomic bombs.

steddyeddy

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Not saying I supported the bombing of civilians, but the Third Reich was not going to be halted by any political means. Whereas 90% of the people killed by the ANC were civilians because the amoral cowards

Nagasaki? What bravey was shown there? Aparteid didn't exactly give men on dark skin the option to vote and change things did they?

Mr Whirly

steddyeddy wrote: »

Russia's role in ending the war is often underplayed in the grand scheme of things.

I know.