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

[On Guard for Thee]

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

If you are trying to tell me that apartheid was anything less than terrorism then you really do have your head in the sand. Something people on the right like to do. Just because other European governments were raping the place, such as the idiots in Whitehall who drew phony east west borders when people needed to travel north south, doesn't give the Dutch any excuse for the horrors they visited on their chosen target.

[On Guard for Thee]

As an old comedy skit goes, "when the whites came to South Africa. they had the bible and we had the land. Then they said you must all pray so we bowed our heads. When the prayer was over and we raised our heads, we had the bible and they had the land"

Probably not so funny if you actually lived it.

[On Guard for Thee]

I don't need to justify oppression. And there are a variety of ways to overcome it, some peaceful, some violent.

Most don't involve targeting civilians in bars and farmers at their homes.

Would those be those same farmers that came from Europe, stole the land and then enslaved the previous owners to work it for them?

Violence begets violence it would seem.

[Argus]

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.

The only people who make that kind of statements are those so zealous in their ideological commitments and so lacking empathy and humanity they see nothing wrong with the deaths of those who oppose their aims.

[bleeding heart]

However, there is a conceptual difference between intentionally targeting innocent civilians and killing them unintentionally while engaging a valid target. This is why negligence causing death carries a different sentence than first degree murder."

In an academic sense--"conceptually" as you say, perhaps--but this is more often than not a moot point, as very little of what we blithely pass off as "collateral damage" actually fits this description.

If--as is usually the case--an attack against a "valid target" includes the likelihood that innocent civilians will be killed....then those killings are not "unintentional." They're wholly intentional.

So in the legal sense that you summon, we actually are talking about first degree murder, not negligence.

For example, if I blow up a building, in order to destroy a specific target within...even though the others killed were not my target, not the purpose for the attack, the uncontroversial fact that I knew I was likely to kill other people makes me guilty of intentionally murdering them; and a lot (probably most) of what we self-servingly deem "collateral damage" certainly fits this analogy to some degree.

That it is first-degree murder is certainly the case in the legal sense that you cite.

Edited December 8, 2013 by bleeding heart

[Argus]

Would those be those same farmers that came from Europe, stole the land and then enslaved the previous owners to work it for them?

Violence begets violence it would seem.

No, those would be the farmers whose great, great, great, great, great grandparents worked so hard to turn the land from jungle to some of the best farmland in the world. The previous owners stole the land from the previous owners themselves and were a lot more violent in doing so.

[Argus]

If--as is usually the case--an attack against a "valid target" includes the likelihood that innocent civilians will be killed....then those killings are not "unintentional." They're wholly intentional.

So in the legal sense that you summon, we actually are talking about first degree murder, not negligence.

The Geneva Convention makes a very clear distinction between deliberately killing civilians, and killing them as incidental to a legitimate target. The fact is that war has never exempted civilians, nor could it possibly do so. The aim is to minimize damage to civilians as much as possible. Nevertheless, it's long been accepted that you cannot prosecute war without killing civilians at the same time. For example, certain dictatorships like to locate weapons plants in the midst of civilian areas, or even to force civilians to gather around legitimate targets to discourage attacks by western nations (such things never discourage attacks by anyone else). There's also sometimes an effort by some, like certain Palestinian groups, for example, to deliberately draw attacks on civilian areas. They like to fire rockets into Israel from the midst of residential distracts, for example in hopes artillery responses will kill civilians so they can scream to the media.

But accepting that civilians are going to die in any war, policy makers make the decision that the greater good is served in prosecuting that war anyway. The people of South Korea are infinitely better off for the sacrifices of their ancestors who endured war, and who died in great numbers during that war. One could have said the same for the people of Iraq except for their zealous pursuit of religious violence against each other. The US lost more people in the war which followed 9/11 than on 9/11 itself, but are they better off having taught a lesson to the world on what it would accept in the way of attacks on its homeland?

Deaths in war are inevitable, including civilian deaths but international law still forbids targeting civilians, adn that is what terrorists do. Just as it is what dictatorships do. That is NOT what the western powers do.

[bleeding heart]

Deaths in war are inevitable, including civilian deaths but international law still forbids targeting civilians, and that is what terrorists do. Just as it is what dictatorships do. That is NOT what the Western powers do.

That's silly; and we've had this discussion before, in which I've demonstrated plenty of cases in which the Western powers do exactly that. So why the pretence?

Perhaps you could take a page from the book of those posters who accept the truth of what "Western powers" have routinely done, up to and including mass murder on a large scale...but defend it anyway. It might be the sniveling stance of moral cretins and political commissars (and it certainly is that) but at least it's not a denial of the truth itself.

[Argus]

That's silly; and we've had this discussion before, in which I've demonstrated plenty of cases in which the Western powers do exactly that. So why the pretence?

Our disagreement comes from your tendency to expand the definition of terms like 'targeting' and 'deliberate' and to blame western powers for the actions of third world countries they are supporting.

Even in the cases where those western powers were aware of the intentions and behavior of their surrogates it isn't a certainty they could control those surrogates to the extent as to prevent such behavior, and in any case, such actions were never done with the knowledge and consent of the people back home. Those people, had they known, would have been as strongly opposed to such behavior as they are to terrorist behavior.

And frankly, I doubt those at the top were ever really fully aware of what their surrogates were doing. It's hard to conceptualize Ronald Reagan, for example, eagerly journeying to a village in Nicaragua and cheering on the Contras as they raped and butchered villagers. I think he would have been horrified had he actually been brought face to face with the results of his (illegal) support of the contras. But I don't think he ever actually understood what was going on.

On the other hand, I can imagine Vladimir Putin journeying to Chechnya watching the artillery raining down on civilians with an icy cold expression, without the slightest remorse or care.

Edited December 8, 2013 by Argus

[bleeding heart]

Our disagreement comes from your tendency to expand the definition of terms like 'targeting' and 'deliberate'

My definition of "targeting" is no doubt the same as yours....I've specifically said that, in cases we count as "collateral damage," the civilians are not the intended target.

As for "deliberate"...as I said, in cases where you know that your specific action at a specific time is likely to cause civilian deaths...yes, that is unequivocally "deliberate," by connotation and denotation. That's not even a controversial assertion.

We can argue about justification (and people from "man on the street" to policy intellectuals have been arguing about exactly this point for a long time); but if we're going to argue to alter the very definition of "deliberate," especially for purposes of defending the myths of Western Noble Behaviour...well, I can't see any point....beyond the obvious propaganda purposes.

Even in the cases where those Western powers were aware of the intentions and behavior of their surrogates it isn't a certainty they could control those surrogates to the extent as to prevent such behavior

Sometimes, without question.. Each case is no doubt unique. In the case you mention, the Contras, their ability to do what they did at such a scale was clearly dependent upon US material help (not to mention training at Fort Benning, in Honduras, and I imagine elsewhere).

In the previous case we've discussed, Indonesia, the atrocities stopped precisely because Western powers closed the spigot. that's all it took...and all it would have taken over the previous 25 years. And it was a bloodless cessation of hostilities....which tells us just where the West's adherence to human rights and "international law" resided: nowhere.

As to the ignorance of Reagan and other leaders; that's of course impossible, and reflects upon your faith. The atrocities committed by the Contras, and by the Indonesian military and militias, were well-known to a lot of people, and was being roundly condemned (in the face of a mostly silent and compliant press, exposing the myth of a "left-wing activist" media) for a long time.

It's literally impossible that the leaders were unaware. they simply didn't give a good goddamn, until matters became politically uncomfortable.

And since we're talking material aid, without which the murderousness is substantially decreased...they are literally directly accountable.

[Jimmy Wilson]

My definition of "targeting" is no doubt the same as yours....I've specifically said that, in cases we count as "collateral damage," the civilians are not the intended target.

As for "deliberate"...as I said, in cases where you know that your specific action at a specific time is likely to cause civilian deaths...yes, that is unequivocally "deliberate," by connotation and denotation. That's not even a controversial assertion.

We can argue about justification (and people from "man on the street" to policy intellectuals have been arguing about exactly this point for a long time); but if we're going to argue to alter the very definition of "deliberate," especially for purposes of defending the myths of Western Noble Behaviour...well, I can't see any point....beyond the obvious propaganda purposes.

Sometimes, without question.. Each case is no doubt unique. In the case you mention, the Contras, their ability to do what they did at such a scale was clearly dependent upon US material help (not to mention training at Fort Benning, in Honduras, and I imagine elsewhere).

In the previous case we've discussed, Indonesia, the atrocities stopped precisely because Western powers closed the spigot. that's all it took...and all it would have taken over the previous 25 years. And it was a bloodless cessation of hostilities....which tells us just where the West's adherence to human rights and "international law" resided: nowhere.

As to the ignorance of Reagan and other leaders; that's of course impossible, and reflects upon your faith. The atrocities committed by the Contras, and by the Indonesian military and militias, were well-known to a lot of people, and was being roundly condemned (in the face of a mostly silent and compliant press, exposing the myth of a "left-wing activist" media) for a long time.

It's literally impossible that the leaders were unaware. they simply didn't give a good goddamn, until matters became politically uncomfortable.

And since we're talking material aid, without which the murderousness is substantially decreased...they are literally directly accountable.

Very true...

Many of those atrocities committed in Latin America and Africa were with the explicit knowledge of the US State Department (by the way,the Soviets were committing just as many atrocities).The list of dictators propped up in the name of "freedom" is legendary and lengthy.

Now,to Argus' point,there was a war going on to stop the spread of Communism.And it's true that some of that was going.But,it also gave these dictators convenient cover to kill as many political opponents they could by calling any and all dissent "communist".

As this relates to Mr. Mandela,it's true he was an avowed Marxist and wanted violent revolution as the only way to affect change.But,he changed during his incarceration and realized that you cannot answer a fist with a fist....

[bleeding heart]

by the way, the Soviets were committing just as many atrocities

Oh, I agree, Soviet monstrosity is not in question. Worse, in fact, I'd argue.

But of course, no one is arguing otherwise. Western bad behavior, on the other hand, is eternally justified.

And it's justified through the same mentality as by the Soviet Commissars, who spoke passionately about Soviet righteousness.

But really, that's unfair to the Russians....after all, they could face dire consequences for dissenting from the myths of the Party line.

Our home-grown commissars have no such excuse.

[eyeball]

Our home-grown commissars have no such excuse.

Actually they do, they just claim it's what their voters wanted.

[Rue]

JBG for the record Mandela did denounce the violence his wife kept promoting but it is also public fact when he returned from prison she had a new partner and in practical effect was no longer his wife. She also was accused with taking bribes and kick-back and corruption from members within the ANC. Winnie Mandela was no angel.

Now his third wife, Grace Marcel is interesting. She was a lawyer who spoke 3 languages. The former wife of the leader of Mozambique when she married him his family and many South Africans were not happy.

She seems to have in his last years played an important part as his companion.

Its interesting the debate on terrorism though. I myself think many people look at the ends, then if they like the ends, they justify the terrorism but if they don't l like the ends, they condemn the terrorism. To me terrorism is terrorism and the ends does not define its

morality.

To me the simplest way to define terrorism is the belief that attacking civilians and civilian targets is a legitimate political expression.

Its interesting how the concept is twisted and spun around depending on how history is revised.

I will say this and its probably unpopular but what the hell. In Africa there have been few Mandelas if any and this is why I believe he is also unique. How many tyrants have we seen come out of Africa? Far too many.

I think it takes a remarkable man to shake his enemy's hand and convince him to let go of the past hatred.

Look at the butchers in Africa, Emperors for Life Bokassa in the Central African Republic and Idi Amin in Uganda-the butchers in Sudan, Mugabe, Mobutu in Zaire, Ghaddafi, the lunatics in Liberia, Equitorial Guinea,Malawi, Rwanda, on and on.

Its a part of the world that seems overwhelmed by tyrants whose names change but violence remains the same.

There was a time everything was blamed on the colonialists dividing the continent artificially and using arbitrary borders that force competing or conflicting tribes into the same nations as well as placing puppets in such countries, now?

I am not sure if another person can emerge like a Mandela capable of transcending colour, class, religion, tribe and unifying the people of this continent.

[Michael Hardner]

That's silly; and we've had this discussion before, in which I've demonstrated plenty of cases in which the Western powers do exactly that. So why the pretence?

I also find it strange to consider the possibility that if Bin Laden had simply said he was targeting the CIA station in the twin towers, the attacks would not be considered terrorism ?

[bleeding heart]

I think that's a fascinating hypothetical, not least because the answer would be an unequivocal "yes," in my opinion, at least for a lot of people..

Which begs a question or two, obviously.

It seems that "terrorism" is a politicized term, generally reserved for "them," and which does not belong to "us."

[The_Squid]

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.

Fair trials for blacks in apartheid SA? Seriously? Talk about revisionist history....

Detention without trial.... Torture was common practice... Lots of confessions from blacks.... Maybe we should try that, eh? Seemed to work so well in SA!

[jbg]

The only people who make that kind of statements are those so zealous in their ideological commitments and so lacking empathy and humanity they see nothing wrong with the deaths of those who oppose their aims.

Well an exception to your condemnation should be the Shiites who seek the death of Sunnis and vice versa. There are obviously good reasons, going back more than a millennium for these people to want each other dead.

[jbg]

For example, if I blow up a building, in order to destroy a specific target within...even though the others killed were not my target, not the purpose for the attack, the uncontroversial fact that I knew I was likely to kill other people makes me guilty of intentionally murdering them; and a lot (probably most) of what we self-servingly deem "collateral damage" certainly fits this analogy to some degree.

That it is first-degree murder is certainly the case in the legal sense that you cite.

So it the Gazans place missile launchers onto the roof of an apartment building or hospital Israel just has to sit there and endure the attacks?

[ReeferMadness]

The only people who make that kind of statements are those so zealous in their ideological commitments and so lacking empathy and humanity they see nothing wrong with the deaths of those who oppose their aims.

Argus, I'm not sure whether you haven't bothered to try to understand my point or if you are just trolling. It would be helpful if in the future you could specify which so I can decide whether there is any point responding.

[Argus]

I also find it strange to consider the possibility that if Bin Laden had simply said he was targeting the CIA station in the twin towers, the attacks would not be considered terrorism ?

You are carrying things to ludicrous levels. And ones that international law does not support. If used nukes and said he was targeting the CIA station in the towers would that be okay with you?

[Argus]

We can argue about justification (and people from "man on the street" to policy intellectuals have been arguing about exactly this point for a long time); but if we're going to argue to alter the very definition of "deliberate," especially for purposes of defending the myths of Western Noble Behaviour...well, I can't see any point....beyond the obvious propaganda purposes.

I'm simply pointing out there is a moral difference between say, assessing whether a drone stroke would likely cause a lot of civilian casualties (which is done routinely, and often has the strike called off for that reason), and deliberately seeking out large groups of civilians to murder, as in a pizza parlor or a market, specifically to terrorize people. The purpose of a drone strike on Al Quaeda leadership is not to terrorize but to eliminate certain high ranking individuals.

As to the ignorance of Reagan and other leaders; that's of course impossible, and reflects upon your faith. The atrocities committed by the Contras, and by the Indonesian military and militias, were well-known to a lot of people, and was being roundly condemned (in the face of a mostly silent and compliant press, exposing the myth of a "left-wing activist" media) for a long time.

I think high ranking civilian politicians in the west like Reagan are largely captive of their information sources, and those information sources tend to massage their data to put it into the best light, and dismiss other information which contradicts them. I doubt Reagan was in the habit of reading the newspapers, but as you say, if he was there wouldn't have been much coverage in them anyway. The ability to dismiss unflattering reports as biased or done by "marxist sympathizers" seems boundless in the US, and is not inconsiderable elsewhere. Look at FOX news, and consider how they would have reported on Nicaragua. Do you think Americans viewing it would have been alarmed at what was going on with their support, or would they have been content with the news that only bad guys were being attacked by the heroic guerrilas?

And since we're talking material aid, without which the murderousness is substantially decreased...they are literally directly accountable.

I dunno. There wasn't much in the way of modern weapons in Rwanda and that didn't prevent hundreds of thousands of brutal deaths.

[Argus]

So it the Gazans place missile launchers onto the roof of an apartment building or hospital Israel just has to sit there and endure the attacks?

Under international law, if the Israelis are permitted to attack those sites. It is the Palestinians who are violating international law in that case.

[Argus]

Argus, I'm not sure whether you haven't bothered to try to understand my point or if you are just trolling. It would be helpful if in the future you could specify which so I can decide whether there is any point responding.

I'm sure terrorists have a point. I simply have no sympathy with it - or them. Does that help?

[ReeferMadness]

You are carrying things to ludicrous levels. And ones that international law does not support. If used nukes and said he was targeting the CIA station in the towers would that be okay with you?

They didn't use nukes. In fact, nukes have only been used against civilians on two occasions, both in 1945. Of course, if they had been used by a non-state, it would have been a heinous act of terrorism. But since they were used by a state, it's completely defensible.

Now can you see how arbitrary and pointless the word terrorism actually is?