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

[Michael Hardner]

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?

It's got nothing to do with me. I was following the lines of the definition that was discussed. I think we can see the problem.

[ReeferMadness]

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

As I've said before, there is no universal definition of a terrorist. It is simply used as an epithet against one's political adversaries or used by people in power to de-legitimize violence used by opponents while maintaining the justification for one's own violence. In other words:

As Bruce Hoffman has noted: "terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. (...) Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization 'terrorist' becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism."[3] For this and for political reasons, many news sources (such as Reuters) avoid using this term, opting instead for less accusatory words like "bombers", "militants", etc

Definition of Terrorism

Here are examples of groups that were or could have been described as terrorist according to modern usage of the term:

• the Mujahideen
• the early American "Sons of Liberty" who were agitating for independence from the British
• the French resistance during World War II
• the ANC agitating against apartheid rule
• the rebels that rose up against Ghadafi
• the founders of modern Israel who rose up against British rule
• violent Quebecois separatists
• the IRA
• the people who overthrew democratically elected Salvador Allende and replaced him with the dictator Pinochet

I have differing degrees of sympathy with the groups but that does not mean I condone the actions.

Lumping all of these gropus together makes no sense at all. The reason is that terrorism is a political term.

[ReeferMadness]

It's got nothing to do with me. I was following the lines of the definition that was discussed. I think we can see the problem.

Michael, you're exactly right. If the tables were turned and it was the western powers bombing, by the logic used to select targets in Iraq and Serbia, the twin towers would have been considered legitimate targets. I remember them bombing a television station in Serbia and defending it by saying that it was used for "propaganda purposes".

[BC_chick]

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?

Deliberately attacking civilians is terrorism. Yep, that's definitely how he defined it.

[On Guard for Thee]

I toured through a building on the outskirts of Khartoum that Bill Clinton ordered 2 cruise missiles into when he was the pres. It was touted to be a pharmaceutical plant but the administration concluded it was a terrorist chemical weapons plant. Luckily it was done at night when the plant wasn't operating so small number of casualties. Turns out, it was a pharmaceutical plant. Oh well, it certainly got the Monica Lewinsky out of the headlines for a while. Coincidence? I wonder if that would fit the category of terrorism?

[dre]

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

Collateral damage is not an accident. I could throw a hand grenade at someone... that just happens to be in a crowd of other people. And when the whole crowd is dead I guess I could say "I only targetted that one person, the rest is collateral damage". Problem is even if I did target just that one person, I knew full well lots of other people were going to die. Its not an "accident". Or a gang member shoots another gangmember in a crowded mall, and some little kid dies in the cross fire... same thing.

And this is the case with a lot of military conflicts. During "shock and awe" in Iraq for example, there was heavy bombardment of a city full of civilians, and the targetting of civilian infrastructure. Accident my ass.

In domestic law they call that negligence, and you can be charged with second degree murder if your careless, stupid actions cause someone elses death. Same penalty as if you deliberately killed them without premeditation.

[BC_chick]

I made a similar argument earlier on the thread, but he didn't respond. Let's see if he'll address you.

[dre]

The reality is theres no such thing as "terrorism". That used to be a word in the english language, that was defined as acts designed to cause fear with the purpose of achieving a political objective. This classic definition would nicely describe both non-state actors and state actors, in almost every conflict.

That word now has no real meaning, and like the word "fascism" has simply become a universal epithet for everything bad, and virtually any entity that the person using the word opposes.

[Bonam]

Collateral damage is not an accident. I could throw a hand grenade at someone... that just happens to be in a crowd of other people. And when the whole crowd is dead I guess I could say "I only targetted that one person, the rest is collateral damage".

Why pick such an extreme example? What if rather than the certainty of undesireable casualties, it's only a chance? Let's say your drone is watching a known enemy target, and you see that target go into a cave. In two or three days, no one else comes into or out of that cave than that guy. There may or may not be other people in the cave, you don't know for sure. Is it a valid target? If there turns out to be a few other people in the cave when you do strike it, were the extra casualties "intentional"? How probable does an extra casualty have to be for their death to be considered "intentional"? There is ALWAYS, in any violent action, the possibility of hurting someone besides your primary target. Clearly, if the chance is 0.00001%, it's not intentional. If the chance is 100%, it's intentional (but may or may not be justifiable). Where's the line in between?

In domestic law they call that negligence, and you can be charged with second degree murder if your careless, stupid actions cause someone elses death.

Different conditions apply in international conflicts than in domestic violence. Consider jbg's example of a missile launcher on the roof of a hospital. When faced with such a situation and weapons of only limited accuracy, the defender is faced with a choice: destroy the launcher and likely kill some people in the hospital, or don't attack the launcher and watch your own people killed by the missiles. I would argue that a government should take the first choice, it should be defending its own people first. Even though the civilian casualties in the hospital may be "intentional" (that is, foreseeable as a result of the action), they may nonetheless be justifiable.

Now, that is not to say the above two arguments (not intentional because probability of extra casualties was not 100%; or intentional but still justifiable) are applicable to all cases of civilian casualties inflicted by Western nations, but one should nonetheless recognize that these scenarios exist and pause to consider which a particular incident may fall into, rather than the un-nuanced view of seeing any military action that results in harm to a civilian as being morally equivalent to "terrorism".

Edited December 9, 2013 by Bonam

[dre]

Why pick such an extreme example? What if rather than the certainty of undesireable casualties, it's only a chance? Let's say your drone is watching a known enemy target, and you see that target go into a cave. In two or three days, no one else comes into or out of that cave than that guy. There may or may not be other people in the cave, you don't know for sure. Is it a valid target? If there turns out to be a few other people in the cave when you do strike it, were the extra casualties "intentional"? How probable does an extra casualty have to be for their death to be considered "intentional"? There is ALWAYS, in any violent action, the possibility of hurting someone besides your primary target. Clearly, if the chance is 0.00001%, it's not intentional. If the chance is 100%, it's intentional (but may or may not be justifiable). Where's the line in between?

Different conditions apply in international conflicts than in domestic violence. Consider jbg's example of a missile launcher on the roof of a hospital. When faced with such a situation and weapons of only limited accuracy, the defender is faced with a choice: destroy the launcher and likely kill some people in the hospital, or don't attack the launcher and watch your own people killed by the missiles. I would argue that a government should take the first choice, it should be defending its own people first. Even though the civilian casualties in the hospital may be "intentional" (that is, foreseeable as a result of the action), they may nonetheless be justifiable.

Now, that is not to say the above two arguments (not intentional because probability of extra casualties was not 100%; or intentional but still justifiable) are applicable to all cases of civilian casualties inflicted by Western nations, but one should nonetheless recognize that these scenarios exist and pause to consider which a particular incident may fall into, rather than the un-nuanced view of seeing any military action that results in harm to a civilian as being morally equivalent to "terrorism".

I never said its terrorism, in fact, I said thats not even a real word with a meaning. What I said is its not accident. If you bomb the hospital to take out that launcher its not an "accident" that a bunch of people inside died. Those deaths were the predictable result of your actions, and you knew what was likely to happen. Thats what we call negligence.

There may or may not be other people in the cave, you don't know for sure.

Maybe but when youre raining thousands of bombs down on Bhagdad, and heavily bombarding roads, bridges, schools, hosplitals, power stations, and infrastructure, then you know for a fact that a lot of civilians are going to die. This fits the class definition of the word terrorism (back when that was still a real word) to a tee. There were hundreds/thousands of non-military targets, that were chosen weeks or months ahead of time. These were not missile launchers on roofs.

[bud]

a powerful column in haaretz in regards to perez and bibi's hypocrisy and their sad display of once again trying to score morality points, like anyone believes israel anymore, by mentioning mandela and what he stood for:

Mandela's mission is not yet complete

Shimon Peres and Benjamin Netanyahu have no right to eulogize Nelson Mandela.

South African President Nelson Mandela, in his address for International Solidarity Day with the Palestinian People on December 4, 1997, said: “We know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.” And Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said after Mandela’s death: “Nelson Mandela was among the greatest figures of our time … a man of vision and … a moral leader of the highest order.”

The sharp-eyed surely noticed the picture in the background when Netanyahu delivered his statement: an Israeli flag and the walls of Jerusalem’s Old City. There he was, eulogizing the “moral leader” against the background of the occupied city, whose Palestinian residents are oppressed and dispossessed. It’s a city where a separation regime prevails – an example of Israeli apartheid, even if it’s not the worst example. The sharp-eared must have noticed how false his flowery words sounded.

President Shimon Peres also offered high praise for the “leader of immense stature,” and his words were no less hypocritical. The man who was involved up to his neck in the disgraceful cooperation between Israel and apartheid South Africa, who hosted its prime ministers with pomp and circumstance while Mandela languished in prison, is suddenly admiring the man who symbolized the struggle with that regime.

Neither Peres nor Netanyahu have any right to eulogize Mandela; both are responsible, more than any other statesmen in the free world, for undermining his legacy and establishing the (nonidentical) twin of the regime he battled. They’re eulogizing him? Mandela will turn in his grave and history will laugh bitterly.

he goes on to ask two very simple but important questions:

Why was Israel virtually the only country that collaborated with that evil regime?

Why are so many good people convinced that Israel is an apartheid state? While it may not pay to dwell on past shame – even Mandela forgave Israel – questions about the present should disturb us greatly.

Edited December 9, 2013 by bud

[Rue]

Oh look who is using the death of Mandela as a platform to Israel bash. It was just a matter of time.

[bud]

any criticism of israel and their racist behaviour is 'bashing israel' and 'anti-semitism'. that's how you apologists roll, i realize that.

i am simply pointing out to netanyahu's slimy attempt at scoring political points by using mandela's name to continue the fictitious image that the zionists have created for themselves as moral and ethical. when in reality, most people know that zionist israel is no different than apartheid south africa. especially since they worked so closely together during the height of apartheid south africa. you just cannot deny this:

South African President Nelson Mandela, in his address for International Solidarity Day with the Palestinian People on December 4, 1997, said: “We know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.”

[bleeding heart]

Argus

I think high ranking civilian politicians in the West 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.

The argument that Reagan was so colossally ignorant about reality that he was an incompetent President and a stupid, drooling moron--your argument, in other words--is an interesting one, but I don't quite buy it.

But ok, let's say for the sake of argument that you're right about the Contras and Nicaragua; what about our other example, Indonesia? The idea then is that not only Reagan, but Ford (who explicitly greenlighted the invasion), Carter, Bush Sr., and Clinton were also totally in the dark about the atrocities, thanks to their handlers and Cabinets (who are, by your estimation here, criminals)....but so were their counterparts in the UK, France, Australia, et al. And for twenty-five years.

The notion is preposterous. they knew every bit as much of what was going on as did their more principled opposites: the activists and courageous East Timorese who struggled for so long to bring the matter to public awareness. (Something that Ford and Kissinger, as we know from declassified records, were at pains to avoid....so much for their naivete.)

[bud]

this ugly man and what he represents, gets uglier:

Nixing Mandela funeral as too costly, Bibi shows world what he's truly made of

In his eleventh-hour decision against attending the funeral of Nelson Mandela, Benjamin Netanyahu proved that he is not the smug, petty, vindictive, waffling, in-your-face insulting man he seems. He's something worse.

What we are stuck with, in the end, is the message that Netanyahu is sending to the world. The world that Netanyahu's Israel is determined not to be a part of.

"The whole world is coming to South Africa," foreign ministry spokesman Clayson Monyela said at the weekend.

The world, yes. Israel, maybe not.

[Rue]

Once again Bud has to hijack this thread showing he will use any pretext to bash Israel even exploiting the memory of Mandela.

What makes his latest exploitation a mockey is that he is well aware Israel had to reduce its representation due to an announcement made in South Africa that Israel was not welcome:

http://mondoweiss.net/2011/08/south-african-airport-put-on-lockdown-for-israeli-delegations-arrival.html

It is truly pathetic to hijack the thread on Mandela to try use it to bash Israel.

Here is a furtjher article that addresses thisissue from the Jerusalem Post.

It is unfortunate the forum allows this hijacking of the thread to take place. I had no choice but to present the other information to balance out what clearly is an attempt to use someone's death to bash Israel.

I find what Bud has done repulsive. It shows he has no respect for Mandela's life to do this.

source:http://ca.search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0geuqlpbKZSUgsAGbHrFAx.;_ylc=X1MDMjExNDcyMTAwMwRfcgMyBGJjawM4OTg4ZW5wOTFzZHZxJTI2YiUzRDQlMjZkJTNEckZqWnlBeHBZRlJyR3dJWXUwZ3U0S2E5UFNWMGJpTDlNQUUtJTI2cyUzRGJkJTI2aSUzRGtTNGZYMzlsdVdJY3lhMU8EY3NyY3B2aWQDbTk0Vk0wZ2V1eVdFb1E2LlVoNDMuZzVJMEU4OVpsS21iR2tBQ2hiagRmcgN1c2gtZ2xvYmFsbmV3cwRmcjIDc2ItdG9wBGdwcmlkAwRtdGVzdGlkA251bGwEbl9yc2x0AzEwBG5fc3VnZwMwBG9yaWdpbgNjYS5zZWFyY2gueWFob28uY29tBHBvcwMwBHBxc3RyAwRwcXN0cmwDBHFzdHJsAzM1BHF1ZXJ5A2lzcmFlbCdzIGRlbGVnYXRpb24gdG8gc291dGggYWZyaWNhBHRfc3RtcAMxMzg2NjM4NDU2OTIyBHZ0ZXN0aWQDbnVsbA--?p=israel%27s+delegation+to+south+africa&fr2=sb-top&fr=ush-globalnews&rd=r1

After Netanyahu, Peres back out, Israel sends Edelstein to Mandela funeral

By LAHAV HARKOV

12/09/2013 19:27

Knesset Speaker to head Israeli delegation at memorial as PM, Peres can't attend for financial, security reasons.

The US sent its president and three former presidents to Tuesday’s memorial service for anti-apartheid hero and former South African president Nelson Mandela. The UK and France sent its prime ministers, as did another nearly 90 countries. Oprah Winfrey and the Dalai Lama were set to attend. Israel, however, came close to sending no one, in a near diplomatic fiasco that started Sunday and developed throughout Monday.

In the end, Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein flew Monday night to the memorial service, along with the first female Ethiopian MK Pnina Tamnu-Shata (Yesh Atid), as well as MKs Dov Lipman (Yesh Atid), Nitzan Horowitz (Meretz), Gila Gamliel (Likud Beytenu) and Hilik Bar (Labor).

Edelstein, a former prisoner of Zion in the USSR, said he’s “happy that in the end Israel has representation at this important event. As a former prisoner of conscience, I had the privilege of meeting Mandela as a minister in 1996, and we shared experiences from prison and the fight for our rights. This is a sort of closure for me.”

The saga began when Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who was originally scheduled to attend, decided against it, with his office citing a price tag of millions of shekels for the trip due to security costs. Not only would Netanyahu and his guards require their own plane, another heavy-duty aircraft would have to carry armored cars for him, because the Israel Security Agency (Shin Bet) could not go to South Africa in advance and make security arrangements.

Netanyahu declined to go to the service a week after coming under fire for spending thousands on scented candles and wine.

The next option, President Shimon Peres, did not work out either. Peres had a bad cold, his office explained. Nonetheless, Peres held a press conference with the president of Guatemala Monday, not as strenuous an undertaking for a 90-year-old as a 10-hour flight.

In addition, Peres was instrumental in Israel’s relations with the apartheid regime, and there are people in South Africa who did not forgive him or Israel, even though he had close ties with Mandela in more recent years.

The Shin Bet was concerned about Netanyahu or Peres visiting South Africa, because of overwhelmingly pro-Palestinian sentiment in the country.

Next in line to visit was Edelstein, who put together a group of MKs to join him.

However, the final decision was delayed for hours. First, because of difficulties finding a free plane. Then, it was unclear that an Israeli plane would be able to land, due to high air traffic.

Eventually, three hours before the Knesset delegation was supposed to fly, Edelstein closed the deal, even reducing the price of renting a small plane from NIS 2 million to NIS 350,000. The plane will have to stop on the way to refuel, possibly in Djibouti.

“I’m proud and excited to take part in this historic event,” Tamnu-Shata said. “As someone born in Africa, I feel a great privilege in representing the State of Israel in the emotional funeral for a black hero who made history with his two hands and changed not only South Africa but the whole world in his fight against racism and discrimination.”

Lipman, chairman of the Knesset’s delegation to the South African parliament, said “Nelson Mandela reminded us that one person can change the world.

He showed that with persistence, patience, and passion, every one of us has the ability to make a mark and leave the world a better place... It is an honor for me to be traveling to South Africa to join Southern Africans in mourning the death of this great leader and in representing Israel in paying tribute to him.”

Greer Fay Cashman contributed to this report.

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=465818

The above is an article of an Arab Israeli defending Israel in South Africa. The politics between South Africa and Israel belong on a different thread. I asked the moderator to move these comments and I was ignored so I had no choice but to respond in this thread.

Edited December 10, 2013 by Rue

[Argus]

Perhaps it is worth noting that Mandela, the 'world's moral conscience' did not seem to have much of a problem befriending dictators both before, during and long after South Africa became a black ruled nation. Among his friends was Cuba, Libya, under Khadafi, and Iran.

[ReeferMadness]

Perhaps it is worth noting that Mandela, the 'world's moral conscience' did not seem to have much of a problem befriending dictators both before, during and long after South Africa became a black ruled nation. Among his friends was Cuba, Libya, under Khadafi, and Iran.

.... which makes him no different from any of the major world powers.

[Argus]

.... which makes him no different from any of the major world powers.

No one is talking about other world powers being a 'moral compass' though.

[eyeball]

Remember the Shining Beacon? It used to be the north pole of moral compasses, at least until the bulb burned out.

[jbg]

Argus

The argument that Reagan was so colossally ignorant about reality that he was an incompetent President and a stupid, drooling moron--your argument, in other words--is an interesting one, but I don't quite buy it.

Hardly the case.

About as much as Chretien being a peasant from Shawinigan.

[ReeferMadness]

Argus

The argument that Reagan was so colossally ignorant about reality that he was an incompetent President and a stupid, drooling moron--your argument, in other words--is an interesting one, but I don't quite buy it.

That actually seems like a very accurate description to me.

[bud]

snubbing mandela's funeral?

bibi and peres are trying to fly under the radar, by not drawing attention to israel's past and present. this is why they're not attending the funeral, while pretty much every other leader in the world is going. they thought it's going to blow over, but the similarities of the struggles of the palestinians under the racist zionist regime and that of the victims under apartheid south africa are just too big. not to mention that israel was so very close to the racist apartheid regime, until the very end.

larry derfner nails it:

Why aren't Netanyahu and Peres going to Johannesburg for Mandela's memorial?

Bibi says it’s the expense, Peres says it’s a flu he can’t kick. More likely it’s two other reasons: Israel’s past and present.

Nelson Mandela’s death brought up some inconvenient memories for Israel and the Diaspora Jewish establishment: Israel’s extremely fruitful alliance with apartheid South Africa until the very, very end; the anti-Mandela stance of right-wing Zionists because of his support for Arafat and the PLO (as well as for Gadhafi); and mainstream South African Jewry’s comfort with the apartheid regime (notwithstanding the brave opposition by a greatly disproportionate number of the country’s Jews). Then there’s the present-day, ongoing inconvenience of the similarity between apartheid and the occupation, and the awkwardness of having to praise a man who chose violence over submission while vilifying Palestinians who make the same choice.

[Bonam]

Hah, how predictable. Everything is about Israel with bud. Don't you have something better to hijack than a eulogy thread?

[The_Squid]

Perhaps it is worth noting that Mandela, the 'world's moral conscience' did not seem to have much of a problem befriending dictators both before, during and long after South Africa became a black ruled nation. Among his friends was Cuba, Libya, under Khadafi, and Iran.

2/3 of friends of America.... Until they weren't of course...

And Canada has been friendly with Cuba...

Edited December 10, 2013 by The_Squid