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

[WWWTT]

Nelson was part of the MK...helped found it. They used to blow-up innocent people at bus stops. Terrorists.

Innocent people that had more rights than what they did in their own country!

Also many of those "innocent" people never spoke out against the human rights violations being committed by their own democratically elected government ( democratically elected by only those who had the right to vote!)

WWWTT

[DogOnPorch]

Innocent people that had more rights than what they did in their own country!

Also many of those "innocent" people never spoke out against the human rights violations being committed by their own democratically elected government ( democratically elected by only those who had the right to vote!)

WWWTT

So they deserved it then. There we go...

Edited December 11, 2013 by DogOnPorch

[WWWTT]

You don't think people suffered under Communist governments? Really?

Any more than under other so called capitalistic countries?!?!??!

Are you joking?

You're joking right?

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Except for your first sentence, nobody is disputing that. The problem is that you refuse to see that Mandela's means were just as evil as the oppression he was fighting.

As for that first sentence, the US and Britain both had sanctions against Apartheid South Africa. So to make the blanket statement that they simply supported Apartheid is wrong and you've gone even further to say that they helped them.

There's a difference between "evil" and a "necessary evil".

To blow up people for no reason would be just criminal!

To tell a race of people that they have no rights is evil and criminal!

To blow up people in your defence is called self defence!

WWWTT

Edited December 11, 2013 by WWWTT

[DogOnPorch]

Any more than under other so called capitalistic countries?!?!??!

Are you joking?

You're joking right?

WWWTT

Suggest that you read the Gulag Archipelago 1 & 2.

[bush_cheney2004]

....To blow up people in your defence is called self defence!

So that means ANC "necklacing" of opponents was A-OK too...how nice !

[DogOnPorch]

So that means ANC "necklacing" of opponents was A-OK too...how nice !

In the modern South Africa, you can be gunned down by both black and white police officers. If that isn't progress...

[WWWTT]

So they deserved it then. There we go...

They deserved more rights than the black Africans???

If you say so.

WWWTT

[Shady]

Any more than under other so called capitalistic countries?!?!??!

Are you joking?

You're joking right?

WWWTT

Yes, much, much, much, much more. You must be completely and utterly ignorant of any history. Sad.

[DogOnPorch]

They deserved more rights than the black Africans???

If you say so.

WWWTT

You clearly put innocent in quotation marks as if to say they are not innocent. So you meant what you said. Those victims of the African National Congress simply deserved it. Man, woman and child alike.

It's also a fallacy to assume that no white South Africans spoke out against Apartheid. It's a fallacy to assume black South Africans call South Africa home more than white South Africans. Both have very long histories in the region and both have a history of displacing the so-called rightful owners.

[WWWTT]

Here is more about Nelson Mandela.

http://www.canadianfeedthechildren.ca/news-views/cftc-blog/six-lessons-nelson-mandela-taught-us

It's easy to see why many right wing politicians in the west wanted to keep the focus on "terrorism"!

Either way, it has been clearly demonstrated that human rights where Nelson Mandels's priority. And not even a concern for the right wing politicians that wanted to destroy the former Soviet Union! Even if it meant helping Osama bin Laden and the Taliban, Pinochet or the South African government!

After seeing all the human rights crimes committed by these US ally dictators, it is clear who was right, and who was proven wrong!

WWWTT

[cybercoma]

There's a difference between "evil" and a "necessary evil".

To blow up people for no reason would be just criminal!

To tell a race of people that they have no rights is evil and criminal!

To blow up people in your defence is called self defence!

WWWTT

now we're getting somewhere. So you're ok with terrorism as long as it's for something you agree with.

[cybercoma]

They deserved more rights than the black Africans???

If you say so.

WWWTT

Nice bait and switch. The point is that the ANC was involved in bombing civilians and planting mines in public roads. If you think it's ok that they target innocent civilians for their freedom, just says so. And don't give me this implicit nonsense. That makes YOU personally implicit in Harper's idiocy.

[WWWTT]

now we're getting somewhere. So you're ok with terrorism as long as it's for something you agree with.

I am for demanding equal rights when those rights are given to a few privileged and not others!

If the legal system says, sorry folks, your black, you have no right to ask for rights! Therefore you have no rights!

If my people go out on the streets to protest and we are cut down like animals.

If my people are thrown into jails and executed for trying to peacefully obtain equal rights.

If there are death squads in my country roaming around lynching my people because we want justice.

Then perhaps the use of violence is the only thing that those who use violence to oppress will listen to.

You seem to think that ONLY the ANC used terrorism, when in fact, by the same definition that YOU are using, the South African government was using terrorism to oppress the black Africans long before the CIA helped the apartheid South African government jail Nelson Mandela!

WWWTT

[Shady]

I am for demanding equal rights when those rights are given to a few privileged and not others!

If the legal system says, sorry folks, your black, you have no right to ask for rights! Therefore you have no rights!

If my people go out on the streets to protest and we are cut down like animals.

If my people are thrown into jails and executed for trying to peacefully obtain equal rights.

If there are death squads in my country roaming around lynching my people because we want justice.

Then perhaps the use of violence is the only thing that those who use violence to oppress will listen to.

You seem to think that ONLY the ANC used terrorism, when in fact, by the same definition that YOU are using, the South African government was using terrorism to oppress the black Africans long before the CIA helped the apartheid South African government jail Nelson Mandela!

WWWTT

No, the government wasn't using terrorism, it was using brute force. You still do t get it, even after numerous members have tried to explain it to you. Sad.

[WWWTT]

LOL!

After numerous members on MLW tried to explain it to me????

Man I can't stop giggling!

Are you really sad Shady?

Since you made me laugh, I will reward you with another link that you should enjoy!

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/comment/talking-politics/censored-why-media-hides-cuba-role-end-apartheid-102945153.html

WWWTT

Edited December 12, 2013 by WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Here's another link for those here who think that life for a black person living in South Africa in 1980 was better than someone living in communist China.

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/12/11/the_secret_history_of_how_cuba

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Heard of this today.

Very sad to see that something like this has happened

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/mandela-memorial-deaf-interpreter-39-fake-39-105911960.html

I hope it doesn't reflect poorly on the achievements of Nelson Mandela.

WWWTT

[Bonam]

Nice bait and switch. The point is that the ANC was involved in bombing civilians and planting mines in public roads. If you think it's ok that they target innocent civilians for their freedom, just says so. And don't give me this implicit nonsense. That makes YOU personally implicit in Harper's idiocy.

Just as the allies targeted German and Japanese civilians in WWII in order to do everything they could to win the war, lest the world fall under the dominion of those regimes. In sufficiently dire situations, targeting civilians can be justifiable. Presumably, the struggle of black South Africans against oppression is an example of such a situation. The tactics employed by Mandela are what we would call "terrorist" tactics, but as many have pointed out, terrorism has become a largely meaningless word. What matters is whether a given set of actions was justifiable or not.

It's not so much an "ends justify the means" argument, but perhaps a utilitarian harm reduction argument. That is, if the status quo is more harmful than the means needed to end it, than those means should be employed, even if those means are quite nasty. If the choice is between killing a few civilians, or watching many more civilians die under terrible oppression, then the choice is clear.

It very much matters in cases like this to evaluate the level of oppression being resisted against. For example, Rick Santorum recently made an (absurd) analogy between the oppression in SA and the oppression imposed on the American people by Obamacare. Clearly, if someone took up a violent campaign, targeting civilians, in their desire to free the people from Obamacare, that would not be justifiable. The difference in why one is justifiable and the other is not is not in the means employed to attempt to stop it, but in the nature of the thing you are trying to stop.

So yes, you can interpret that as dumbed down "terrorism is fine in cases you agree with" if your aim is to score internet argument points. But the real point is that there is a lot more to evaluating a situation than just looking at the tactics involved and whether or not they can be described as "terrorism". There are exceptions to every rule, and there are times when things must be done that one would normally abhor doing.

Edited December 12, 2013 by Bonam

[Wilber]

I don't think Gandhi could have made a good president after Indian independence. While he was the focus of the independence movement, he had little to do with the negotiations that resulted in parition or prevent the tradgedy that followed. Mandella did both. South Africa is the exception on that continent and more than anyone, Mandella is responsible.

[cybercoma]

I am for demanding equal rights when those rights are given to a few privileged and not others!

Defending equal rights by any means necessary? Including torturing or murdering innocent people?

Then perhaps the use of violence is the only thing that those who use violence to oppress will listen to.

Even when that violence is against not the perpetrators of violence, not the government that is oppressing you, but innocent civilians in cafes or driving to work?

You seem to think that ONLY the ANC used terrorism, when in fact, by the same definition that YOU are using, the South African government was using terrorism to oppress the black Africans long before the CIA helped the apartheid South African government jail Nelson Mandela!

WWWTT

I think you're extremely confused about the definition of terrorism. Edited December 12, 2013 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

Here's another link for those here who think that life for a black person living in South Africa in 1980 was better than someone living in communist China.

WWWTT

Who said that anywhere in this thread? Link please.

[cybercoma]

Just as the allies targeted German and Japanese civilians in WWII in order to do everything they could to win the war, lest the world fall under the dominion of those regimes. In sufficiently dire situations, targeting civilians can be justifiable. Presumably, the struggle of black South Africans against oppression is an example of such a situation. The tactics employed by Mandela are what we would call "terrorist" tactics, but as many have pointed out, terrorism has become a largely meaningless word. What matters is whether a given set of actions was justifiable or not.

It's not so much an "ends justify the means" argument, but perhaps a utilitarian harm reduction argument. That is, if the status quo is more harmful than the means needed to end it, than those means should be employed, even if those means are quite nasty. If the choice is between killing a few civilians, or watching many more civilians die under terrible oppression, then the choice is clear.

It very much matters in cases like this to evaluate the level of oppression being resisted against. For example, Rick Santorum recently made an (absurd) analogy between the oppression in SA and the oppression imposed on the American people by Obamacare. Clearly, if someone took up a violent campaign, targeting civilians, in their desire to free the people from Obamacare, that would not be justifiable. The difference in why one is justifiable and the other is not is not in the means employed to attempt to stop it, but in the nature of the thing you are trying to stop.

So yes, you can interpret that as dumbed down "terrorism is fine in cases you agree with" if your aim is to score internet argument points. But the real point is that there is a lot more to evaluating a situation than just looking at the tactics involved and whether or not they can be described as "terrorism". There are exceptions to every rule, and there are times when things must be done that one would normally abhor doing.

If you read my posts in the first few pages, I already said all of this.

My problem is with people practically canonizing Mandela as a Saint, comparing him to Gandhi and Martin Luther King and other such nonsense. He wasn't those people. He murdered innocent people to get his way. Was it justifiable? Well that depends on who you ask. I think it was necessary, even if not justifiable on moral grounds. But I hate it when people try to paint Mandela as if he was some sort of man of peace. He fought a war and did horrific things in the process to take over South Africa from an oppressive government.

When you try to take that away from him, in my opinion, it takes away from the utter hopelessness they faced and the brutal desperation that led them to do those things. It's a key piece of what happened and a reflection of the dire circumstances they were in.

[Bonam]

If you read my posts in the first few pages, I already said all of this.

Apologies, I did not. Only skimmed the thread.

My problem is with people practically canonizing Mandela as a Saint, comparing him to Gandhi and Martin Luther King and other such nonsense. He wasn't those people.

Certainly, Mandela was a very different person, I would agree. I don't know what makes someone qualify as a "Saint", but if the argument is about whether or not Mandela was as morally upstanding a person as Gandhi or MLK, I would say that the mere fact that Mandela committed violent acts does not necessarily preclude him from being so (not that I necessarily think that he was, either). In the right situation, violent action may be the most moral choice. Pacifism itself can be an immoral choice.

[dre]

If you read my posts in the first few pages, I already said all of this.

My problem is with people practically canonizing Mandela as a Saint, comparing him to Gandhi and Martin Luther King and other such nonsense. He wasn't those people. He murdered innocent people to get his way. Was it justifiable? Well that depends on who you ask. I think it was necessary, even if not justifiable on moral grounds. But I hate it when people try to paint Mandela as if he was some sort of man of peace. He fought a war and did horrific things in the process to take over South Africa from an oppressive government.

When you try to take that away from him, in my opinion, it takes away from the utter hopelessness they faced and the brutal desperation that led them to do those things. It's a key piece of what happened and a reflection of the dire circumstances they were in.

Nobody is honoring the guy that wad committed or was involved with commiting those acts. He went to prison for decades for them. People are honoring the guy who got out of prison and peacefully secured human rights for millions of people. And rightfully so! Very very few people in the world have ever achieved something like that.