I'll leave the debate to y'all cause I don't wanna get banned. I'll just say RIP.

---

Whatever he did, I'm not going blast a man that had the welfare of his people in mind when his government didn't.

---

THERE IS A SKELETON INSIDE OF YOU.

 

RIGHT NOW. THIS IS NOT A JOKE.

targeting civilians, women, children, day workers, is terrorism no matter who does it or for what reason.

 

Do you have any idea how many people you most likely praise as hero that has either turned a blind eye or encouraged these sort of tactics?

---

THERE IS A SKELETON INSIDE OF YOU.

 

RIGHT NOW. THIS IS NOT A JOKE.

Do you have any idea how many people you most likely praise as hero that has either turned a blind eye or encouraged these sort of tactics?

This.. America has praised worse.

---

Good man, great man, terrorist, liberator, freedom fighter, freedom-fighter....

 

Let's just say "remarkable".  The system that he and President Pik Botha took down was wrong, and instead of being destroyed by civil war, was destroyed by civility.

 

The one thing I can say about the man is that he could learn from mistakes.  Unlike a lot of us.

 

RIP

---

This.. America has praised worse.

America was practically founded on the blood of loyalist women and children

---

THERE IS A SKELETON INSIDE OF YOU.

 

RIGHT NOW. THIS IS NOT A JOKE.

America was practically founded on the blood of loyalist women and children

Thank You! Not to mention built on the backs of slaves.

---

So you're justifying civilian casualties yes or no?

 

edit: I'm talking about specifically targeting civilians. That's what the ANC did repeatedly.

 

I guess you're going to ignore my comment re the Allied forces terror bombing campaign. Yep, the good ol' USA.

 

I don't know where you draw the line, but it seems you may have some double standards you think ought to apply.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

I guess you're going to ignore my comment re the Allied forces terror bombing campaign. Yep, the good ol' USA.

 

I don't know where you draw the line, but it seems you may have some double standards you think ought to apply.

 

If you want to discuss America then fine, I'm discussing the man being praised in this thread. Typical when someone knows the point can't be argued the best tactic is to change the topic. So let me address you specifically, will or will you not concede targeting civilians is never acceptable? If so then you must either admit terrorism in Mendela's case is acceptable or he was not a man worthy of praise.

---

Thank You! Not to mention built on the backs of slaves.

 

Name a nation that wasn't built on the backs of slaves. That's a blemish on human culture world wide, not just America. And it doesn't change who or what Mendela was.

---

Whatever he did, I'm not going blast a man that had the welfare of his people in mind when his government didn't.

 

Hitler had the welfare of his people in mind, doesn't change the evil he did, intentions have nothing to do with justifying actions..........

 

Do you have any idea how many people you most likely praise as hero that has either turned a blind eye or encouraged these sort of tactics?

 

You have no idea who I hold or praise as a hero, All I've said is Mendela was no hero.

---

If you want to discuss America then fine, I'm discussing the man being praised in this thread. Typical when someone knows the point can't be argued the best tactic is to change the topic. So let me address you specifically, will or will you not concede targeting civilians is never acceptable? If so then you must either admit terrorism in Mendela's case is acceptable or he was not a man worthy of praise.

 

The problem is that your accusations are full of holes. You posted that Nelson Mandela plead guilty to 156 acts of terrorism against civilians, when in fact he plead not guilty to the only four charges brought against him in the trial that eventually sent him to prison. None of the four charges included any accusations that he targeted civilians. Mandela later acknowledged that he was involved in acts of sabotage against military and logistical targets, specifically to minimize the chances of collateral civilian casualties.

 

Every one of the ANC attacks you cited earlier, in which civilians were clearly targeted, occurred well after Mandela had been imprisoned. I can find no evidence outside of conspiracy sites (and most of those make circumstantial cases) that he was directing events from prison, especially given the difference in those attacks from the ones for which Mandela was convicted.

 

As for the video of him singing "kill the whites", well I'm skeptical. First of all, there were a few whites allegedly singing about killing themselves, and I found some alternate translations that made the song more figurative and political. Anyway, from what I could see, Mandela wasn't singing, for what that's worth.

 

Finally, put yourself in the place of a black man in South Africa during the 50s - 80s. The oppression was so systemic, so stacked against non-whites. Much more so than the Jim Crow era of our history. At least Dr. King, Thurgood Marshall and the rest of the heroic civil rights fighters had a federal court system to use in their peaceful fight against oppression. That wasn't available in the apartheid system of South Africa. The white minority had a stranglehold on the country. There came a point where violence was the only method that would work.

 

You seem to be a freedom loving individual. Where would you draw the line?

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

The problem is that your accusations are full of holes. You posted that Nelson Mandela plead guilty to 156 acts of terrorism against civilians, when in fact he plead not guilty to the only four charges brought against him in the trial that eventually sent him to prison. None of the four charges included any accusations that he targeted civilians. Mandela later acknowledged that he was involved in acts of sabotage against military and logistical targets, specifically to minimize the chances of collateral civilian casualties.

 

Every one of the ANC attacks you cited earlier, in which civilians were clearly targeted, occurred well after Mandela had been imprisoned. I can find no evidence outside of conspiracy sites (and most of those make circumstantial cases) that he was directing events from prison, especially given the difference in those attacks from the ones for which Mandela was convicted.

 

As for the video of him singing "kill the whites", well I'm skeptical. First of all, there were a few whites allegedly singing about killing themselves, and I found some alternate translations that made the song more figurative and political. Anyway, from what I could see, Mandela wasn't singing, for what that's worth.

 

Finally, put yourself in the place of a black man in South Africa during the 50s - 80s. The oppression was so systemic, so stacked against non-whites. Much more so than the Jim Crow era of our history. At least Dr. King, Thurgood Marshall and the rest of the heroic civil rights fighters had a federal court system to use in their peaceful fight against oppression. That wasn't available in the apartheid system of South Africa. The white minority had a stranglehold on the country. There came a point where violence was the only method that would work.

 

You seem to be a freedom loving individual. Where would you draw the line?

 

I personally draw the line at the actions of Mandela and any of their kind.  Mandela was, truthfully, what I would call a terrorist; however, from what I've read, he made sure buildings were evacuated before he bombed them as well as he could.  So there's that.

 

However, I think that he certainly changed and become a very kind, compassionate, and great man.  I'm a big believer in redemption, and Mandela certainly seemed to have become different.  In my mind, he absolutely deserved his imprisonment, but came out of it a changed man.  Here's a cool quote from Desmond Tutu that captures what I'm saying:

 

But perhaps more importantly, those 27 years were not wasted. When Mandela went to prison, he was an angry young man, rightly incensed at the travesty and miscarriage of justice that had just happened, that it should be a criminal offence to demand what were but inalienable rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which General Jan Smuts, one-time prime minister of South Africa, had given assent.

The crucible of suffering he entered was important in his evolution. The prison suffering was a continuation of a harassed existence before his arrest, when he was just always one step ahead of the security police, elusive as the Black Pimpernel, and who did not have the opportunity to enjoy a decent family life with his new young bride, Winnie.

The furnace of affliction burnt away the dross, and he progressively grew in a new spiritual depth. He began to be more patient and understanding of the foibles of others, especially of those of his jailers and the oppressors of his people and their fears of being overwhelmed by the black masses.

This is where he was purified and made to be more compassionate and magnanimous.

 

 

 Terrorist to nonviolent, compassionate rights activist.  Purty cool.

---

If you want to discuss America then fine, I'm discussing the man being praised in this thread. Typical when someone knows the point can't be argued the best tactic is to change the topic. So let me address you specifically, will or will you not concede targeting civilians is never acceptable? If so then you must either admit terrorism in Mendela's case is acceptable or he was not a man worthy of praise.

 

You missed the whole point. I think you're so concerned with being seen as more righteous than the rest of us you don't get it.

 

Yes, sometimes the ends justify the means. Without any doubt. Some honorable Americans (and allies) decided civilians must die to defeat Nazism.

 

Terror as a tactic in Mandela's case was certainly justified. What makes him a hero was the fact that as a victor he didn't take revenge and encourage massive bloodletting, which would have been quite easy to do.

 

Mandela took the hard path, and his country is much better for it.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

Hitler had the welfare of his people in mind, doesn't change the evil he did, intentions have nothing to do with justifying actions..........

 

 

You have no idea who I hold or praise as a hero, All I've said is Mendela was no hero.

Hitler also had the destruction of an entire demographic of people in mind. You'd be stupid to say the same about Mandela.

 

It's incredibly foolish of you to even compare Hitler to Nelson Mandela. They're nothing alike.

 

Mandela may not have been a hero to you, but he's arguably the most important figure in South Africa's history, and he saved that country from tearing itself apart by just about any means. 

 

Also, no one needs to know who you hold or praise as a hero to know they're indirectly responsible for the loss of life, the same thing you're condemning Mandela for.

 

Even Gandhi can be condemned. Know and understand that it's never as black and white as you make it seem.

---

THERE IS A SKELETON INSIDE OF YOU.

 

RIGHT NOW. THIS IS NOT A JOKE.

 

 

 

The problem is that your accusations are full of holes. You posted that Nelson Mandela plead guilty to 156 acts of terrorism against civilians, when in fact he plead not guilty to the only four charges brought against him in the trial that eventually sent him to prison. None of the four charges included any accusations that he targeted civilians. Mandela later acknowledged that he was involved in acts of sabotage against military and logistical targets, specifically to minimize the chances of collateral civilian casualties.

 

Every one of the ANC attacks you cited earlier, in which civilians were clearly targeted, occurred well after Mandela had been imprisoned. I can find no evidence outside of conspiracy sites (and most of those make circumstantial cases) that he was directing events from prison, especially given the difference in those attacks from the ones for which Mandela was convicted.

 

As for the video of him singing "kill the whites", well I'm skeptical. First of all, there were a few whites allegedly singing about killing themselves, and I found some alternate translations that made the song more figurative and political. Anyway, from what I could see, Mandela wasn't singing, for what that's worth.

 

Finally, put yourself in the place of a black man in South Africa during the 50s - 80s. The oppression was so systemic, so stacked against non-whites. Much more so than the Jim Crow era of our history. At least Dr. King, Thurgood Marshall and the rest of the heroic civil rights fighters had a federal court system to use in their peaceful fight against oppression. That wasn't available in the apartheid system of South Africa. The white minority had a stranglehold on the country. There came a point where violence was the only method that would work.

 

You seem to be a freedom loving individual. Where would you draw the line?

 

+1 on this good post.

 

As for the underlined bolded part, Mandela's legacy was exploited. There were organizations who carried out the attacks on innocent civilians(While Mandela was in prison) who hid behind Mandela as a reasoning for the attacks which was propaganda laced.  

 

Mandela himself was not a perfect person when it came do denouncing crime against humanity. But he turned South Africa around economically (to a degree) to where different cultures could thrive financially, socially, etc. The thing im disappointed about is the SA Government couldn't sustain what Mandela started in terms of growing the economy and reducing poverty.

 

I cant agree more with your last point. 

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

You missed the whole point. I think you're so concerned with being seen as more righteous than the rest of us you don't get it.

 

Yes, sometimes the ends justify the means. Without any doubt. Some honorable Americans (and allies) decided civilians must die to defeat Nazism.

 

Terror as a tactic in Mandela's case was certainly justified. What makes him a hero was the fact that as a victor he didn't take revenge and encourage massive bloodletting, which would have been quite easy to do.

 

Mandela took the hard path, and his country is much better for it.

 

You know you've lost the debate when you make this about Me and not Mendela. We simply disagree I never see acts of terror as acceptable nor do I see them as necessary. You're one of the ends justify the means guys fine, I'm one of those the means defines the end guys. The Nobility of a cause does not excuse any actions used to achieve that cause.

 

Hitler also had the destruction of an entire demographic of people in mind. You'd be stupid to say the same about Mandela.

 

It's incredibly foolish of you to even compare Hitler to Nelson Mandela. They're nothing alike.

 

Mandela may not have been a hero to you, but he's arguably the most important figure in South Africa's history, and he saved that country from tearing itself apart by just about any means. 

 

Also, no one needs to know who you hold or praise as a hero to know they're indirectly responsible for the loss of life, the same thing you're condemning Mandela for.

 

Even Gandhi can be condemned. Know and understand that it's never as black and white as you make it seem.

 

I'm not comparing Mendela to Hitler at all, I'm pointing out the flaw in your argument that whatever Mendela did can be overlooked because he had the "good of his poeple" in mind. You can say almost ANY dictator, liberator, terrorist, tyrant and so on had the good of their people in mind, that NEVER excuses acts of an individual or organization.

 

The problem is that your accusations are full of holes. You posted that Nelson Mandela plead guilty to 156 acts of terrorism against civilians, when in fact he plead not guilty to the only four charges brought against him in the trial that eventually sent him to prison. None of the four charges included any accusations that he targeted civilians. Mandela later acknowledged that he was involved in acts of sabotage against military and logistical targets, specifically to minimize the chances of collateral civilian casualties.

 

Every one of the ANC attacks you cited earlier, in which civilians were clearly targeted, occurred well after Mandela had been imprisoned. I can find no evidence outside of conspiracy sites (and most of those make circumstantial cases) that he was directing events from prison, especially given the difference in those attacks from the ones for which Mandela was convicted.

 

As for the video of him singing "kill the whites", well I'm skeptical. First of all, there were a few whites allegedly singing about killing themselves, and I found some alternate translations that made the song more figurative and political. Anyway, from what I could see, Mandela wasn't singing, for what that's worth.

 

Finally, put yourself in the place of a black man in South Africa during the 50s - 80s. The oppression was so systemic, so stacked against non-whites. Much more so than the Jim Crow era of our history. At least Dr. King, Thurgood Marshall and the rest of the heroic civil rights fighters had a federal court system to use in their peaceful fight against oppression. That wasn't available in the apartheid system of South Africa. The white minority had a stranglehold on the country. There came a point where violence was the only method that would work.

 

You seem to be a freedom loving individual. Where would you draw the line?

 

The video is a documentary from the BBC I believe, I've seen it on numerous sites from numerous accounts, never once seen anyone deny it's authenticity, if you have another version I'd be curious to see it.

 

As for Mendela being in prison while these "acts of terror" where committed you have to at the very least admit he set the stage with the founding of the ANC. While in prison his wife led the charge of most Necklacing that took place during this period. the Military arm of the ANC that HE co-founded carried out the bombings on CIVILIAN targets, and year after year he was offered release if he would simply denounce the acts of HIS wife and HIS organization, he refused every year. If I load my firearm, pull the charging handle, take off the safety, give it to an unstable, violent and angry mob do I hold no responsibility in their actions? You can argue he was in prison peacefully awaiting his day, you can argue he was pulling strings from inside the prison but you can't argue that he at the very least loaded the charge and placed the powder keg stepped away and watched his organization light the fuse.

---

You know you've lost the debate when you make this about Me and not Mendela. We simply disagree I never see acts of terror as acceptable nor do I see them as necessary. You're one of the ends justify the means guys fine, I'm one of those the means defines the end guys. The Nobility of a cause does not excuse any actions used to achieve that cause.

 

 

I'm not comparing Mendela to Hitler at all, I'm pointing out the flaw in your argument that whatever Mendela did can be overlooked because he had the "good of his poeple" in mind. You can say almost ANY dictator, liberator, terrorist, tyrant and so on had the good of their people in mind, that NEVER excuses acts of an individual or organization.

 

 

The video is a documentary from the BBC I believe, I've seen it on numerous sites from numerous accounts, never once seen anyone deny it's authenticity, if you have another version I'd be curious to see it.

 

As for Mendela being in prison while these "acts of terror" where committed you have to at the very least admit he set the stage with the founding of the ANC. While in prison his wife led the charge of most Necklacing that took place during this period. the Military arm of the ANC that HE co-founded carried out the bombings on CIVILIAN targets, and year after year he was offered release if he would simply denounce the acts of HIS wife and HIS organization, he refused every year. If I load my firearm, pull the charging handle, take off the safety, give it to an unstable, violent and angry mob do I hold no responsibility in their actions? You can argue he was in prison peacefully awaiting his day, you can argue he was pulling strings from inside the prison but you can't argue that he at the very least loaded the charge and placed the powder keg stepped away and watched his organization light the fuse.

 

I think it's clear that for you, this is all about you.

 

I suspect you would have been a Tory during the American Revolution.

 

Don't want to get your hands dirty.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

I think it's clear that for you, this is all about you.

 

I suspect you would have been a Tory during the American Revolution.

 

Don't want to get your hands dirty.

 

I'll accept you conceding defeat, you have a fixation on me when the topic at hand is Mendale.

---

South Africa's emancipation was a hell of a lot less bloody than our own.  Mandela deserves some credit for that.  That's why he and F.W. de Klerk were jointly awarded a Nobel Peace Prize.  And if you want to go all in on the terrorist angle, you better keep in mind some of the portraits on our currency.

 

Also, you need no further reminder of how things can go horribly wrong than Zimbabwe, S.A.'s neighbor.  Mandela wasn't perfect, but show me the leader who is.  And while you're at it, show me a world leader that someone, somewhere, doesn't violently hate.  It just comes with the territory.

---