Nelson Mandela, an icon of freedom, tolerance and equality, dies at 95

[cybercoma]

Well, yes, exactly... what if ? I don't condone aggression against non-combatants but one can imagine circumstances where individuals are driven to such extremes.

I'm not lacking in imagination. I fully recognize they had no democratic means to freedom and I understand why they did what they did.

[eyeball]

I am getting the impression, eyeball, that you find nothing morally wrong with terrorism.

No I just think its morally wrong to not apply the label to people when they deserve it for their actions.

[cybercoma]

Are you suggesting killing someone by accident is as culpable as killing someone deliberately?

It's for a different discussion, but a lot of the collateral damage today is avoidable. It's more akin to getting behind the wheel drunk and killing someone through your negligent decisions than not seeing someone from sun glare and killing them completely by accident. The collateral damage we see in Israeli attacks and drone strikes in Afghanistan are foreseeable, but they conduct the strikes anyway because I suppose in their minds the ends justify the means. So it is through that kind of thinking, the ends justify the means, that Mandela was involved in terrorism.

[cybercoma]

I think what eyeball may not realize is that the ANC's attacks also killed innocent black South Africans too.

[Argus]

Good Lord, you most obviously have never been to SA. I'd probably blow up a few things if I was treated the way blacks were back in Mandelas days, and in many ways still are. The Boers are just as boerish as ever from what I saw there.

And yet, they still treated blacks better than any other government in Africa at the time... Something most on the left prefer to ignore.

[cybercoma]

And yet, they still treated blacks better than any other government in Africa at the time... Something most on the left prefer to ignore.

Yeah, but this is like arguing that slave owners treated slaves well. They should have been happy to have shelter, clothing, and food from their "massa". I say this because some slaves were treated very well, but they were still slaves. Edited December 7, 2013 by cybercoma

[Argus]

No I just think its morally wrong to not apply the label to people when they deserve it for their actions.

No, they actually don't. Even if one voted for the government, what was most likely in their minds was economic issues, and that the government would protect them from a horde of barbaric communist black revolutionaries who would rape their womenfolk and kill them all.

[-TSS-]

Apartheid was wrong and it's good that the system was abolished. Yet, no-one can deny that under the white rule South Africa was the only Sub-saharan country which somehow resembled a normally functioning country.

[eyeball]

One could make the point apartheid wasn't what resulted in death, but opposition to apartheid.

You might suggest that blacks in SA had no freedom to which the white voters would say "and so?" No blacks in Africa had freedom, regardless of the skin pigmentation of their rulers. What the white voter did was not invite the blacks into their cozy little western capitalist world of freedom and democracy, but it could also be argued that their little world could not possibly have sustained such numbers of illiterate third world newcomers anyway, and would have collapsed.

One could make these arguments I suppose but you won't find me making them, especially that victims were to blame. Whose cozy little world it was and who the unsustainable newcomers were, defies morality.

You could also say the end justifies the means, I suppose, but then you'll have to explain to me the benefits which were showered upon the former black citizens of Rhodesia when they 'won' their 'independance' from white rule.

It is what it is. Are you suggesting the outcome in Rhodesia is grounds for returning to white rule as it was being practiced? Good luck with that.

[Argus]

Yeah, but this is like arguing that slave owners treated slaves well. They should have been happy to have shelter, clothing, and food from their "massa".

No, what I'm trying to say is that the blacks in South Africa were treated much the same as blacks everywhere else in Africa. They had no less freedom, and in fact, the government was less repressive than many other African governments. Let's remember that Mandela was first detained after organizing a rally of some 10,000 calling for freedom. He wasn't held long and wasn't mistreated. Had he done the same thing in most AFrican nations the crowd would have been broken up with tanks and he would have found himself in prison for a very long time. He was next arrested, along with a number of others, undre a law banning communist organizations. He wound up being given a suspended sentence. Again, something most unlikely to have happened elsewhere in Africa. He was later arrested for treason, along with most of the ANC executive. After a long trial, interupted when the ANC was able to make the three judges recuse themselves, they were all found not guilty. Again, not something which would have happened elsewhere in Africa.

Now these were the government's worst enemies, yet they were neither imprisoned for opposing apartheid nor tortured. They were given free and fair trials, a novelty for that continent even today. Are we to conclude the great mass of largely apolitical, non-involved black citizens were repressed to a worse degree? Compared to the rights expected of us or others in the west they were certainly lacking freedom and subject to repression, but on a third world scale, on an African scale, they were no worse off and in many ways better off than their fellows.

[Argus]

One could make these arguments I suppose but you won't find me making them, especially that victims were to blame. Whose cozy little world it was and who the unsustainable newcomers were, defies morality.

It is what it is. Are you suggesting the outcome in Rhodesia is grounds for returning to white rule as it was being practiced? Good luck with that.

First, I don't think you can call the whites newcomers when they'd been there for centuries. Second, that world WAS unsustainable in Zimbabwe. It was only sustainable (mostly) in South Africa due to Mandela's restraint. Had he been the man he was decades earlier it would not have been sutstainable, and for that matter, no one is sure how much longer it can be sustained given the growing corruption and anti-democratic principals of many of its current leadership.

As for Zimbabwe/Rhodesia. There is no case to be made that the revolution gave any degree of freedom to the people there. It destroyed the economy, made everyone much poorer (except, of course, the succesful revolutioaries), and led to more repression and less freedom. When a government brings in people from North Korea to train its security forces you know where their mind is at.

Edited December 7, 2013 by Argus

[eyeball]

I think what eyeball may not realize is that the ANC's attacks also killed innocent black South Africans too.

You seem to be under the impression that I'm excusing murderers. Everyone should still have to account for their actions.

[eyeball]

No, they actually don't. Even if one voted for the government, what was most likely in their minds was economic issues, and that the government would protect them from a horde of barbaric communist black revolutionaries who would rape their womenfolk and kill them all.

Ignorance is no excuse. People have to take some responsibility for the crap they choose to believe.

[DogOnPorch]

Apartheid was wrong and it's good that the system was abolished. Yet, no-one can deny that under the white rule South Africa was the only Sub-saharan country which somehow resembled a normally functioning country.

It's a bit of that bigotry of low expectations, me thinks. All the whites in South Afrika HAVE to be racists and all the blacks HAVE to be blameless. It's the correct way to think. No matter Mandela and Zuma singing 'Kill the Bhulu'. They don't really mean it...

[Michael Hardner]

I'm not lacking in imagination. I fully recognize they had no democratic means to freedom and I understand why they did what they did.

I think we've arrived at the same point.

[Guest Derek L]

Apartheid was wrong and it's good that the system was abolished. Yet, no-one can deny that under the white rule South Africa was the only Sub-saharan country which somehow resembled a normally functioning country.

And today South Africa is the murder and rape capital of the world……I remember reading a paper by Interpol that suggested a women is raped in South Africa every 17 seconds……

[Guest Derek L]

First, I don't think you can call the whites newcomers when they'd been there for centuries. Second, that world WAS unsustainable in Zimbabwe. It was only sustainable (mostly) in South Africa due to Mandela's restraint. Had he been the man he was decades earlier it would not have been sutstainable, and for that matter, no one is sure how much longer it can be sustained given the growing corruption and anti-democratic principals of many of its current leadership.

And to add, one could also suggest the Xhosa people (the tribe Mandela, Tutu and other prominent leaders of the ANC are from) were also “newcomers” to South Africa, migrating South from central Africa and displacing the Zulu and Khoisan peoples in the region about a century before the Dutch arrived…..

Indecently in the remaining decades of Apartheid, the white Government was partitioning parts of South Africa and granted the Zulu people self rule in the form of Bantustans, in particular KwaZulu……Of course once the Mandela led ANC took power, self governed tribal nations were abolished….clearly the punishment the Zulus received for their “collaboration” with the Afrikaner folks…..

[Guest Derek L]

And yet, they still treated blacks better than any other government in Africa at the time... Something most on the left prefer to ignore.

I guess everybody forgets the wife of Mandela endorsing necklacing other blacks deemed to be “collaborators”……..

[jbg]

And yet, they still treated blacks better than any other government in Africa at the time... Something most on the left prefer to ignore.

I certainly think that Mugabe in Zimbabwe, Emperor Bokassa in the Central African Empire, and Mohamed Siad Barre (sp) of Somalia were enlightened.

[Shady]

I guess everybody forgets the wife of Mandela endorsing necklacing other blacks deemed to be “collaborators”……..

Good point. His wife was pretty disgusting and never was able to make the transition the way Mandela did.

[ReeferMadness]

When you set off bombs in restaurants and markets its terrorism. Full stop. End of story. It's not 'freedom fighting' or 'guerrila warfare'. It's terrorism.

Terrorism is a political term invented by the powerful to demonize the violent actions of their political enemies while justifying their own violence. There is no internationally accepted definition. The term has two main uses:

1. As a political bludgeon by hypocrites who seek to selectively demonize violent acts
2. By lazy journalists who want to boost their audience through sensationalism

If you are against violence, there is no need to resort to the T word. Speak out against violence.

Interestingly, the US considered Mandela a terrorist until 2008.

[jbg]

I guess everybody forgets the wife of Mandela endorsing necklacing other blacks deemed to be “collaborators”……..

Good point. His wife was pretty disgusting and never was able to make the transition the way Mandela did.

May be part of why they split?

[BC_chick]

Are you suggesting killing someone by accident is as culpable as killing someone deliberately?

Shooting at a criminal in the middle of a crowded area isn't exactly 'accidental'.

[jbg]

Terrorism is a political term invented by the powerful to demonize the violent actions of their political enemies while justifying their own violence. There is no internationally accepted definition. The term has two main uses:

• As a political bludgeon by hypocrites who seek to selectively demonize violent acts
• By lazy journalists who want to boost their audience through sensationalism

If you are against violence, there is no need to resort to the T word. Speak out against violence.

The working difference between terrorism and other forms of violence is that terrorists "fight" out of uniform, primarily against helpless people, and target innocent people rather than military targets. As much as I despised Egypt and Syria for triggering the 1973 war, those were military attacks and not terror. The acts of Palestinian "freedom fighters" are different (link):

Terror is not blind. A Palestinian sniper opens fire at a baby

Shalhevet -Tchiya Pass, 10 months - murdered in her stroller

On Monday, March 26, 2001 a Palestinian sniper aimed his rifle and opened fire at 10-month old Shalhevet Pass in Hebron, while she was lying in her stroller. Shalhevet was killed by a bullet to the head.

In the afternoon, Yitzhak and Orya Pass took a walk with their daughter Shalhevet from their home in the Beit Hadassah neighborhood to the Avraham Avinu neighborhood where Orya’s parents lived. They heard shots when they reached the entrance to the Avraham Avinu neighbor-hood. Yitzhak fell. Orya grabbed Shalhevet in her arms and hid behind a wall, then she saw the blood. She screamed: “The baby has been shot in the head!” Two doctors tried to resuscitate Shalhevet, but failed. She died of the gunshot wound to her head.

An investigation conducted at the site revealed that two Palestinian snipers, situated on Abu Sneinah hills overlooking the Avraham Avinu neighborhood, shot Shalhevet. One of the bullets penetrated the baby’s skull, passing through it and then hitting her father’s leg.

The investigation revealed that it was clear the snipers aimed directly at the baby’s head.

I think there is a huge difference in "fighting" and "terror."

[ReeferMadness]

The working difference between terrorism and other forms of violence is that terrorists "fight" out of uniform, primarily against helpless people, and target innocent people rather than military targets.

And whose working difference might that be?

How do you know who are the targets?

How do you define a "helpless person"?

How doe you define "innocent people"?