RIP Nelson Mandela

[redarmi]

There has to be a point at which you stand up and say enough is enough and I am willing to fight for what I believe in.  Sometimes these things can be done without violence but, throughout history, often change has been acheived through violence too.  That doesn't neccesarily mean that it is the preferred method of the perpetrator and it often takes courage.  Often, and in this case, it is a bigger crime to do nothing.

[bobby1]

http://rt.com/news/mandela-sharp-quotes-media-860/
http://thebackbencher.co.uk/3-things-you-didnt-want-to-know-about-nelson-mandela/

No sources from the source ldo. Am I missing anything? Just a bit young for it all at a guess. He obviously did a lot of good things as well.

I saw someone quote this on facebook the other day too.  I don't know enough to know if it is true or not but given it is widely considered to have been a just cause I don't see how it lessens his acheivements.  One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter etc?

Why does the media get to choose who is the terrorist and who is the freedom fighter? Who got to choose whether his cause was just? I'm sure  most terrorists see their actions as fighting for a just cause, and obviously this is easier to acknowledge but plenty of governments have taken action that could result in attacks that could be argued as someone "just cause".  Mandela has a whiter than white reputation, and I'm really struggling to see why. If I renounce my actions afterwards that makes everything ok? The only way to judge these terrorist/freedom fighter situations is to say any violence is wrong, unless it perhaps prevents further violence, but this does lead us onto another slippery slope. This is making my head hurt. Everyone talks about his lack of bitterness post release from prison, but how can he be bitter if he was fairly incarcerated?  

edit: For someone praised as such a peaceful man, praising dictators doesn't seem too great.

I agree with most of your post mate.

I'm glad someone else has this view and put it much better than I could have done.

[bobby1]

There has to be a point at which you stand up and say enough is enough and I am willing to fight for what I believe in.  Sometimes these things can be done without violence but, throughout history, often change has been acheived through violence too.  That doesn't neccesarily mean that it is the preferred method of the perpetrator and it often takes courage.  Often, and in this case, it is a bigger crime to do nothing.

Should Gerry Adams have a Nobel peace prize then?

[Doobs]

http://rt.com/news/mandela-sharp-quotes-media-860/
http://thebackbencher.co.uk/3-things-you-didnt-want-to-know-about-nelson-mandela/

No sources from the source ldo. Am I missing anything? Just a bit young for it all at a guess. He obviously did a lot of good things as well.

I saw someone quote this on facebook the other day too.  I don't know enough to know if it is true or not but given it is widely considered to have been a just cause I don't see how it lessens his acheivements.  One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter etc?

Why does the media get to choose who is the terrorist and who is the freedom fighter? Who got to choose whether his cause was just? I'm sure  most terrorists see their actions as fighting for a just cause, and obviously this is easier to acknowledge but plenty of governments have taken action that could result in attacks that could be argued as someone "just cause".  Mandela has a whiter than white reputation, and I'm really struggling to see why. If I renounce my actions afterwards that makes everything ok? The only way to judge these terrorist/freedom fighter situations is to say any violence is wrong, unless it perhaps prevents further violence, but this does lead us onto another slippery slope. This is making my head hurt. Everyone talks about his lack of bitterness post release from prison, but how can he be bitter if he was fairly incarcerated?  

edit: For someone praised as such a peaceful man, praising dictators doesn't seem too great.

I don't think it is really the truth.  Nelson Mandela helped found Spear of The Nation, which was the armed wing of the ANC.  The original aim was sabotage, and I don't think there were any deaths before he was imprisoned the year after.  Given he was imprisoned for sabotage then I think I am right here.  Blaming him for the subsequent change in strategy is obviously a big step that the article doesn't really explain.  That big step doesn't seem consistent with some of the statements attributed to Mandela.

He would be jailed in the UK for his offences, so I don't think there can be any complaint there.  There were arguments that some of the others shouldn't have been jailed and the jail sentences were very long.  I am not going to pretend he never ever did anything wrong because that would be ridiculous.  He did have some very good reasons for what he did.

Given the white on black killings at peaceful rallies previous to the formation of Spear of The Nation then responding with a campaign of sabotage doesn't really put him up there with Gerry Adams and Bin Laden.

His opposition to retribution given all the provocation from the years of apartheid; the many years of imprisonment; the deaths at peaceful marches; the deaths of some of his friends etc.  He had the power to reek his revenge, he chose not to use it, it is what makes him a bit of a hero to people like me. 

[Jon MW]

...

His opposition to retribution given all the provocation from the years of apartheid; the many years of imprisonment; the deaths at peaceful marches; the deaths of some of his friends etc.  He had the power to reek his revenge, he chose not to use it, it is what makes him a bit of a hero to people like me. 

That's what he was like after being incarcerated for so long - it wasn't relevant before that. And their aim was sabotage but he was on record as saying that casualties would have been acceptable - which is the standard language of war anyway.

He was a great symbol and great figure head - but he was at his most inspirational largely when he wasn't actually doing anything other than being in a prison; even his greatest actions after becoming president were to 'not' do things he could have. It's sad when anyone dies but I don't think I can recall a greater disparity between someone's actions and the subsequent deification after their death.

[rfgqqabc]

http://rt.com/news/mandela-sharp-quotes-media-860/
http://thebackbencher.co.uk/3-things-you-didnt-want-to-know-about-nelson-mandela/

No sources from the source ldo. Am I missing anything? Just a bit young for it all at a guess. He obviously did a lot of good things as well.

I saw someone quote this on facebook the other day too.  I don't know enough to know if it is true or not but given it is widely considered to have been a just cause I don't see how it lessens his acheivements.  One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter etc?

Why does the media get to choose who is the terrorist and who is the freedom fighter? Who got to choose whether his cause was just? I'm sure  most terrorists see their actions as fighting for a just cause, and obviously this is easier to acknowledge but plenty of governments have taken action that could result in attacks that could be argued as someone "just cause".  Mandela has a whiter than white reputation, and I'm really struggling to see why. If I renounce my actions afterwards that makes everything ok? The only way to judge these terrorist/freedom fighter situations is to say any violence is wrong, unless it perhaps prevents further violence, but this does lead us onto another slippery slope. This is making my head hurt. Everyone talks about his lack of bitterness post release from prison, but how can he be bitter if he was fairly incarcerated?  

edit: For someone praised as such a peaceful man, praising dictators doesn't seem too great.

I don't think it is really the truth.  Nelson Mandela helped found Spear of The Nation, which was the armed wing of the ANC.  The original aim was sabotage, and I don't think there were any deaths before he was imprisoned the year after.  Given he was imprisoned for sabotage then I think I am right here.  Blaming him for the subsequent change in strategy is obviously a big step that the article doesn't really explain.  That big step doesn't seem consistent with some of the statements attributed to Mandela.

He would be jailed in the UK for his offences, so I don't think there can be any complaint there.  There were arguments that some of the others shouldn't have been jailed and the jail sentences were very long.  I am not going to pretend he never ever did anything wrong because that would be ridiculous.  He did have some very good reasons for what he did.

Given the white on black killings at peaceful rallies previous to the formation of Spear of The Nation then responding with a campaign of sabotage doesn't really put him up there with Gerry Adams and Bin Laden.

His opposition to retribution given all the provocation from the years of apartheid; the many years of imprisonment; the deaths at peaceful marches; the deaths of some of his friends etc.  He had the power to reek his revenge, he chose not to use it, it is what makes him a bit of a hero to people like me. 

I'm just asking about the other side. One mans anti-apartheid revolutionary, another mans terrorist I guess. It does seem like he didn't directly take violent action but possibly contributed towards the policy change. You seem to imply I don't think he was a good man simply for asking questions. I plainly admit in the first post I don't know everything (anything).

[Acidmouse]

...

His opposition to retribution given all the provocation from the years of apartheid; the many years of imprisonment; the deaths at peaceful marches; the deaths of some of his friends etc.  He had the power to reek his revenge, he chose not to use it, it is what makes him a bit of a hero to people like me.  

That's what he was like after being incarcerated for so long - it wasn't relevant before that. And their aim was sabotage but he was on record as saying that casualties would have been acceptable - which is the standard language of war anyway.

He was a great symbol and great figure head - but he was at his most inspirational largely when he wasn't actually doing anything other than being in a prison; even his greatest actions after becoming president were to 'not' do things he could have. It's sad when anyone dies but I don't think I can recall a greater disparity between someone's actions and the subsequent deification after their death.

I do not see anything wrong in waging war against political ruling party that are killing people, oppressing the majority of the country based on their colour. Everyone in the world (apart from right wing racists)  apartheid was morally and politically horrendous. The problem was they could not jail him for killing people or terrorism, I am sure it was some treason charge that China and other corrupt governments are keen to use to shut up opposition.

Pretty much as soon as he entered jail he knew the battle had to be won with respect and non violence, he was already influencing inmates and the world with how he spoke, thought and how to proceed against apartheid. Don't think you can compare him to anyone else, freedom fighter, terrorist or politician. If you watch the History channel documentary on him leaving prison he was a supreme master at achieving peace on both sides and how it was to be achieved. Along with De Klerk they were pivotal in disarming the country's 6 nuclear weapons, putting the world as ease of any regime change and keeping the ANC happy under extreme pressure of right wing and black violence. He was a tough tough negotiator/politician when he first came out, he would not be steamrolled over by De Klerk and this gained him the respect he needed from his own people that negotiation was worth it and they could see a light at the end of the tunnel, 

If someone says he did nothing in prison they require an education lesson me thinks. I agree 100% its all i bit much the press it attracted but its a measure on his achievements of uniting a country on the verge of civil war into what it is today.  

[celtic]

There has to be a point at which you stand up and say enough is enough and I am willing to fight for what I believe in.  Sometimes these things can be done without violence but, throughout history, often change has been acheived through violence too.  That doesn't neccesarily mean that it is the preferred method of the perpetrator and it often takes courage.  Often, and in this case, it is a bigger crime to do nothing.

Should Gerry Adams have a Nobel peace prize then?

Depends what side of the fence you are on.

[TightEnd]

There has to be a point at which you stand up and say enough is enough and I am willing to fight for what I believe in.  Sometimes these things can be done without violence but, throughout history, often change has been acheived through violence too.  That doesn't neccesarily mean that it is the preferred method of the perpetrator and it often takes courage.  Often, and in this case, it is a bigger crime to do nothing.

Should Gerry Adams have a Nobel peace prize then?

Depends what side of the fence you are on.

Unless his pals have impaled one on it

[bobby1]

There has to be a point at which you stand up and say enough is enough and I am willing to fight for what I believe in.  Sometimes these things can be done without violence but, throughout history, often change has been acheived through violence too.  That doesn't neccesarily mean that it is the preferred method of the perpetrator and it often takes courage.  Often, and in this case, it is a bigger crime to do nothing.

Should Gerry Adams have a Nobel peace prize then?

Depends what side of the fence you are on.

absolutely, which is the point Rfg made about who decides who is a terrorist and who is a freedom fighter.

[The Camel]

So if Jews used violence against the Nazis in Germany they would be terrorists too?

It's a simple matter of right and wrong.

Apartheid was wrong, and any means were justifiable to smash it down.

[nirvana]

So if Jews used violence against the Nazis in Germany they would be terrorists too?

It's a simple matter of right and wrong.

Apartheid was wrong, and any means were justifiable to smash it down.

I mean, I get the sentiment, but it's not quite that simple. The ANC weren't necessarily only targeting the 'nazis' to use the analogy. A tad less discriminating than that

[The Camel]

So if Jews used violence against the Nazis in Germany they would be terrorists too?

It's a simple matter of right and wrong.

Apartheid was wrong, and any means were justifiable to smash it down.

I mean, I get the sentiment, but it's not quite that simple. The ANC weren't necessarily only targeting the 'nazis' to use the analogy. A tad less discriminating than that

I doubt the resistance purely targeted (or impacted) just the Nazis.

[nirvana]

So if Jews used violence against the Nazis in Germany they would be terrorists too?

It's a simple matter of right and wrong.

Apartheid was wrong, and any means were justifiable to smash it down.

I mean, I get the sentiment, but it's not quite that simple. The ANC weren't necessarily only targeting the 'nazis' to use the analogy. A tad less discriminating than that

I doubt the resistance purely targeted (or impacted) just the Nazis.

True true

[rfgqqabc]

So if Jews used violence against the Nazis in Germany they would be terrorists too?

It's a simple matter of right and wrong.

Apartheid was wrong, and any means were justifiable to smash it down.

Invading Iraq? The protection argument seems pretty weak when we fail to find the weapons. Although they definitely had them at some point as they were used against Iran years before. These issues are virtually never black or white, I suppose Apartheid is one of the clearest cases in favor of violent action.