|
Doesn't seem like you read your own link.
"it would be unrealistic and wrong for African leaders to continue preaching peace and non-violence at a time when the government met our peaceful demands with force."
Comparing Mandela with bin Laden is beyond absurd.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
So one wrong deserves another does it?
|
|
|
|
|
Erudite_Eric wrote: So one wrong deserves another does it?
No, a wrong deserves to be righted. The whole reason for the right to bear arms is so that the people have a means of defending themselves from a corrupt government.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
And a corrupt govt does not include innocent civilans.
Look, I think Tony Blair is a terrorist and war criminal and should be locked up for life you know. I am not biassed against Mandella, it is all people who inflict pain and suffering on others in pursuit of their political goals that I detest.
|
|
|
|
|
Erudite_Eric wrote: t is all people who inflict pain and suffering on others in pursuit of their political goals that I detest.
I certainly empathize with that. There's a lot of pain and suffering, and not just because of direct "violence". For example, I think this gov't is causing lots of pain and suffering with it's f*** up health care system, lobbyists, etc.
Yes, ultimately, Ghandi had it right, really embracing non-violent resistance.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Also peaceful protest wouild have gaine support from the whites. Not all south africans were fascists you know.
|
|
|
|
|
Erudite_Eric wrote: Also peaceful protest wouild have gaine support from the whites.
Except they tried exactly that. And laws were passed to prevent them from doing exactly that.
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: Yes, ultimately, Ghandi had it right, really embracing non-violent resistance.
Unfortunately even Ghandi was not beyond a bit of political manipulation himself - on one occasion he threatened to starve himself to death knowing full well that if he did so there would be riots on the streets. Ambedkar, who incidentally did much more for the untouchables than Gandhi did, gave in and Gandhi had his way - hardly an act of non-violence.
Basically I find life is messy and complicated and claims of people who are completely pure and unblemished are what fairy tales are made of.
I prefer Philip Zimbardo's much more nuanced and down to earth take on heroes and villains www.lucifereffect.com/[^]
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
GuyThiebaut wrote: Basically I find life is messy and complicated and claims of people who are completely pure and unblemished are what fairy tales are made of.
Indeed. I'll take a look at the book too. Thanks!
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Erudite_Eric wrote: And a corrupt govt does not include innocent civilans.
Huh? Of course corrupt governments are likely to have innocent civilians. And even more likely to have civilians.
|
|
|
|
|
Like I said,
He should be called Benighted_Eric 
Loading signature...
. . . Please Wait . . .
|
|
|
|
|
"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason." - John Harrington
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
He also did a remarkable amount of good in his life in the face opposition from an apartheid government. Apartheid is the real villain in all of this.
And today I am reminded also that the city I live in trolled the SA government in the mid-80s by renaming the street the South African consulate was on to Nelson Mandela Place. (I love Glasgow)
|
|
|
|
|
And Calcutta renamed Park Street on which the US Consulate stood to Ho Chi Minh Street.
|
|
|
|
|
When the ANC was formed, it was ILLEGAL in South Africa for people with dark skin to organize, much less to fight for their basic human rights. They were engaged in a war, and wars are never clean. That the apartheid government called them terrorists is little different than the British government of the late 1700s calling US revolutionaries terrorists.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh no, not another one who doesnt know the difference between military and civilan targets.
|
|
|
|
|
Erudite_Eric wrote:
Oh no, not another one who doesnt know the
difference between military and civilan targets.
The American Revolution was no different: civilians perceived as supporting the British were frequently targeted, their homes ransacked by mobs and their businesses burned to the ground. Politically motivated murders were not uncommon: I will look for references, but I know at least one Massachusetts Assemblyman was found hanged the day after voting against the colony's support of the American revolution.
As I said, it was war. In war, no one has clean hands. What matters is what one does after winning , and Nelson Mandela has worked very, very hard to clean up the aftermath of that war.
|
|
|
|
|
So they were terrorists too. Doesnt make them right. Doesnt make Mandella right.
|
|
|
|
|
Really! The government who decorated Mandela with such title was the one who created apartheid system in the country. You do know about unnecessary police raids in black communities, which BTW were at sub-human living standards, that were carried out during this reign.
They were the one who did Sharpeville massacre[^] which preceded the formation of military wings in ANC.
So, you are saying he is terrorist because he fought against racist, discriminatory and brutal regime. Great.
Here[^] is something you may want to know.
"Bastards encourage idiots to use Oracle Forms, Web Forms, Access and a number of other dinky web publishing tolls.", Mycroft Holmes[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
d@nish wrote: So, you are saying he is terrorist because he fought against racist,
discriminatory and brutal regime
Where did I say that? Oh yes, thats right, I didnt did I, You just imagined I did because you have a simplstic dualistic thought process that says if SA is bad, Mandella is good.
They are both bad. get it?
|
|
|
|
|
Erudite_Eric wrote: Where did I say that?
That is obvious. Mandela did fight against the racist regime. According to you, he is terrorist. Hence, Mandela is a terrorist because he fought against racist regime.
Erudite_Eric wrote: They are both bad. get it?
No, that is not correct. Mandela was charged with 193 so called terrorist activity charges. These activities were defined as act of terrorism from the same government which divided the nation. So the charges themselves hold no water.
"Bastards encourage idiots to use Oracle Forms, Web Forms, Access and a number of other dinky web publishing tolls.", Mycroft Holmes[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
Did you read the link? His organisation killed many people. He was a terrorist.
|
|
|
|
|
d@nish wrote: That is obvious. Mandela did fight against the racist regime. According to you, he is terrorist. Hence, Mandela is a terrorist because he fought against racist regime.
No sorry. You are mistaken. He didn't say that.
He said he is a terrorist because the group he formed targeted civilian targets.
You might challenge something in that statement, but you can't change the statement to make your point.
|
|
|
|
|
You are so right.
Anyone who fought against oppression of the majority by a minority is a terrorist.
Jomo Kenyatta was a terrorist.
Nelson Mandela was a terrorist.
George Washington was a terrorist.
|
|
|
|
|
You are forgetting Mandella planted bombs and killed civilians.
Or perhaps you are just being stupid.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
