...Or so some who threadjacked the Jimmy Carter thread would have it. After getting wrapped (and rapt) in the argument, I thought I would present this to the history forum for consideration.

Was Mandela a peaceful dissident who through non-violent opposition and giving decades of his life to imprisonment for his beliefs brought about the end of a racist, para-fascist government, or was he a terrorist?

Opinions, reflections, LINKS, rolleyes smilies appreciated.

It all depends on what you consider the word "terrorist" to mean. You could call Paul Revere a terrorist, since he urged citizens to take up arms against the legitimate government. In Mandela's case, I don't really think that he could be considered a terrorist, as most of his struggle was spent in jail, and I don't believe he resorted to measures as extreme as al-Qaeda or Fatah.

which makes me wonder, what's the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter?

George Washington a terrorist?

I guess it all depends on which country is labeling you, the enemy or the ally

Yeah, he was a terrorist - he took part in violent actions aimed at overthrowing South Africa's facist government. However, AFAIK all his actions were directed at property, not people (he went to jail for plotting to blow up part of the national power grid).

There is a quote: One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

To me, Mandela was an oppressed man who undermined the South African government, a corrupt and racist institution. If he could indeed be called a terrorist by some, he is a freedom fighter to me.

Mandela was a terrorist so was Washington and most freedom fighters were or is. Al qaida is also fighting for freedom, in their point of view.

I'd guess that you could say that Mandela was as much a terrorist as the WW2 resistance movements were.

Originally posted by sabo10
which makes me wonder, what's the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter?

George Washington a terrorist?

I guess it all depends on which country is labeling you, the enemy or the ally

Very true. Like to the West, bin Laden is a terrorist, but to his own he is seen as a hero. (Note: I am not saying all Arabs agree. I know i'd proboly get flamed w/o the disclaimer)

I have seen this before, but let me say two things:

First, Washington was not a terrorist UNDER any circumstances.
The fact that modern day murderers call themselves "freedom fighters" does NOT mean that revolutionaires are terrorists.
Terrorists attempt, as their name indicates, to intimidate a government by killing it's undefended civilians.
If ANY of you can point to a SINGLE instance when George Washington EVER did this, then, AND ONLY THEN, can you say that, so don't repeat that here.
I find that EXTREMLY offensive, so bare that in mind.
Bannable offensive.

Second, the phrase "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter" is crock of you know what.
A terrorist, as I said, is a murderer who hides and murders.
Freedom fighters take up arms and fight.
Castro was a "freedom fighter", not a terrorist.
Ho Che Minn was borderline, as he sometimes allowed terrorist activity.
Bin Laden is 100% terrorist.

Mandela is in the shadow area, I have heard it said he condoned terror attacks against the SA government, but I have yet to see proof, his wife WAS a terrorist they say, but that doesn't make Mandela one.

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
I find that EXTREMLY offensive, so bare that in mind.
Bannable offensive.

ok sorry:( did not mean to ofend anyone.

Well, AoA, I just want to let you know that I hardly started this thread to elicit this kind of response. I started it because Simon Darkshade and rmsharpe were calling Mandela a terrorist in the Hooray for Carter thread. I expected they could move their argument here rather than threadjacking there, but they haven't come over.

So I don't object if you feel like closing this thread... I don't think anybody in their right mind would call Mandela, or George Washington, a terrorist (though the British did label Washington one at the time, and later).

I think the people who made the comparaison didn't mean to be offensive. Their point (and it's also mine) is if Mandela can be described as a terrorist then so is Wasington.

BUT by your definition (a murderer who hides and murders),
Madela isn't a terrorist so nor is Washington!

You are offensed by the comparaison and I understand that. But I'm pretty sure that most black african and vietnamieses would be offensed as well by your description of their respective leaders.

Well, certainly people should be offended at hearing Mandela touted as a terrorist- even relegating him to the "shadow area" is a bit of an insult but in these days getting a Nobel Peace Prize is the kiss of death...

Mandela did his utmost to pursue nonviolent measures... not that using violence to get out of that system wouldn't have been justifiable. If people like Mandela aren't respected, if situations like Tibet where non-violence has been advocated in a half century struggle against Chinese oppresion aren't addressed by the UN and the World Policeman, then you will see more people turn to the desperate tactics of terrorism.

Bin Laden- that is beyond terrorist, that is a supervillain in a category of his own...

I never said I agreed with Mandela being a terrorist.

As for Ho, this is proven, during the Tet offensive the Communists killed thousands of intelligensia in Hue city and other areas, this was terrorist activity, and it was murder, the victims were teachers, civil servantes, and the like.
The NLF would also often kill entire villages that refused to assist their side, this too is terrorist activity.

I'll close it if you like Sultan, but I would like to see this proof about Mandela, because I don't believe it.

I am extermly sensitive to the issue about Washington, of all of America's many leaders, this man was renown for his honesty and fairness, to even suggest he is a terrorist is an insult striking at the very core of what it means to be an American.
Maybe I'm over-sensitive on this point, but I have seen real terrorism, and it has claimed the lives of my friends, to see one of the greatest men in history called this, simply because evil men want to hide behind semantics just sickens me.
I hope you all understand about this.

Hmm... people who call Mandela a terrorist should ask themselves what if they were black oppressing in their own country without the right of voting, treat like slaves ? Darkshade and rms, you had absolutely no right to call Mandela a terrorist, since u never known Apartheid. I got a black father and a white mom, and under the SA apartheid regime, they couldnt have lived together thus I would not be there today, so I'm probably better placed than both of you, rms & darkshade, to talk about this. You don't know what you're talking about. If fighting apartheid was wrong, then why not put segregation and Jim Crow' laws back? Was MLK also a terrorist? U seem to have your own defenition of terrorist, a non-white organization that refuses to live under tyranny or something like that. South african regime was a terrorist regime itself since u seem to call those who agress civilians terrorists, remember Sharpeville? well I also «find that EXTREMLY offensive, so bare that in mind.» Thats a totally lack of respect for the suffering of the black south african people....I thought people minds were unless a bit more evolved...but when I read that...

AoA, i didnt mean that as an offensive. I clearly see the difference bewteen Washington's legit beef w/ England and bin Laden's crazed attacks. I was just pointing out that their are two sides to ANY ISSUE.

Welcome to CFC, "BloodyPepperoni" (youch on the choice of name!).
I assume from your comments that you have read here for a long time before posting. I hope you will post alot more. I am glad to see from your signature that the New Orleans classics get played up in Canada!

I will go and post a more direct link on the thread that got this one started, I guess we can keep this thread open long enough to see if the Mandela accusers feel like arguing about it.

AoA- I agree 100% about the founding fathers. The "Boston Tea Party" was the example used to call them "terrorists", but all it was was destruction of property. Of course, people call PETA terrorists for mere destruction of property. I like your definition of terrorism as the intentional targeting of defenseless civilians, it is alot clearer for the term than what is out there in general English.

Sultan- I signed Up today, and If I didnt post before, thats cuz my english is poor, as u have probably noticed. But when I saw people insulting Mandela, I couldnt stay inactive, and I felt really insulted so I came in this trhead and I told what I think
and yes I'd like to hear from the Mandela accusators now!

and look at my signature to know how I get inspired to choose that name...:mischief:
;)

First of all, bienvenue frère québécois!:)

I'm sure the people who think that Mandela is a terrorist will find this thread soon enough. While your all waiting here's another thread about the subject: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31891&highlight=mandela

@Bloody pepperoni- well that quote of yours is from a New Orleans jazz song...

Your English writing is fine, believe me much worse is on display in these forums. Hope you go on.

If you want to follow the subject so far, go to the Off topic forum and look at the Hooray for Jimmy thread to see what was presented as evidence.

yep I know that song very well believe me! but I think It's from mississipi-well anyway-
I've looked at the Jimmy topic but u said u created another thread about mandela/terrorist
so I came here

You're right BloodyPepperoni, it was Mississippi. Sure sounds like a New Orleans jazz song...

Originally posted by BloodyPepperoni
Hmm... people who call Mandela a terrorist should ask themselves what if they were black oppressing in their own country without the right of voting, treat like slaves ? Darkshade and rms, you had absolutely no right to call Mandela a terrorist, since u never known Apartheid.

More black Africans moved to South Africa during apartheid than those that ever left. The people that are being treated like slaves are the ones living in countries run by generals that take power in bloody coups d'Etat. Blacks under the National Party government had it a lot better than any commoner living in Congo or Rwanda.

I got a black father and a white mom, and under the SA apartheid regime, they couldnt have lived together thus I would not be there today, so I'm probably better placed than both of you, rms & darkshade, to talk about this.

I never tried to justify actions on the part of the South African government. I think many of the things that happened then were wrong. I was talking about the actions of Mandela. Perhaps you may believe in the end justifying the means, but I do not.

You don't know what you're talking about. If fighting apartheid was wrong, then why not put segregation and Jim Crow' laws back? Was MLK also a terrorist?

I never supported segregation. You're trying to put words in my mouth.

Civil disobedience (Ghandi, MLK) is different than an attempted armed revolution (Che, Mandela) and has also proven to be a much more effective tool.

Originally posted by rmsharpe


More black Africans moved to South Africa during apartheid than those that ever left. The people that are being treated like slaves are the ones living in countries run by generals that take power in bloody coups d'Etat. Blacks under the National Party government had it a lot better than any commoner living in Congo or Rwanda.

[/B]

I never tried to justify actions on the part of the South African government. I think many of the things that happened then were wrong. I was talking about the actions of Mandela. Perhaps you may believe in the end justifying the means, but I do not.

[/B]

I never supported segregation. You're trying to put words in my mouth.

Civil disobedience (Ghandi, MLK) is different than an attempted armed revolution (Che, Mandela) and has also proven to be a much more effective tool. [/B]

Both of them were killed in the process. While pacific manifestation can be effective sometimes, armed revolution are often necessary. Cuban, south african AND american ones were necessary.

Originally posted by rmsharpe


More black Africans moved to South Africa during apartheid than those that ever left. The people that are being treated like slaves are the ones living in countries run by generals that take power in bloody coups d'Etat. Blacks under the National Party government had it a lot better than any commoner living in Congo or Rwanda.

[/B]

I never tried to justify actions on the part of the South African government. I think many of the things that happened then were wrong. I was talking about the actions of Mandela. Perhaps you may believe in the end justifying the means, but I do not.

[/B]

I never supported segregation. You're trying to put words in my mouth.

Civil disobedience (Ghandi, MLK) is different than an attempted armed revolution (Che, Mandela) and has also proven to be a much more effective tool. [/B]


Black under national party were second class citezens...
Under the Carter topic, u said Mandela didnt desserved the nobel prize...then answer me: what would u have done instead of him? apartheid took place in 1948 (i think) and ended in the early-mid 1990s . thats nearly 50 years of segregation.....would u have peacefully try to negiciate during those 50 years? How would u have reacted? If the actions of mandela were wrong, then what could have been the right way to end segregation? if black african would have stayed passive then im sure apartheid would still exist today

Originally posted by tonberry


Both of them were assassineted in the process. While pacific manifestation can be effective sometimes, armed revolution are often necessary. Cuban, south african AND american ones were necessary.
:goodjob: I totally agree/je suis complètement d'accord avec toi!
thus cuban revlution can be a very controversial subject

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Civil disobedience (Ghandi, MLK) is different than an attempted armed revolution (Che, Mandela) and has also proven to be a much more effective tool.

Ghandi and his tactics are hugely overrated. The British pulled out of India because a) the country had become a net drain on Britain and b) the huge (and often violent) Indian nationalist movement was totally beyond their means to supress. Practical politicans like Nearu (sp?) did more to win independance for India then Ghandi.

Oh no! Ghandi bashing!

Ghandi was the last incarnation of God on Earth!

He focused the attention of billions (or was it only millions back then?) of people on a peaceful solution to colonialism. And he paid the British the ultimate compliment when he said "Passive resistence would only have worked against the British"... ie they were civilized enough to understand they were wrong.

I totally disagree on this one, Case. Ghandi remains the proof to today's pacifists that we aren't doomed to war forever, whatever the young (and not so young) fans of a certain military simulation turn based strategy might think. All the colonies were a net drain on Brittain, all the way... what Ghandi did was create the shadow of self- rebuke in Brittain.

Originally posted by BloodyPepperoni
Black under national party were second class citezens...
Under the Carter topic, u said Mandela didnt desserved the nobel prize...then answer me: what would u have done instead of him? apartheid took place in 1948 (i think) and ended in the early-mid 1990s . thats nearly 50 years of segregation.....would u have peacefully try to negiciate during those 50 years? How would u have reacted? If the actions of mandela were wrong, then what could have been the right way to end segregation? if black african would have stayed passive then im sure apartheid would still exist today

Do you know who Lech Walesa was? He led the end of communism in Eastern Europe, and there was never a shot fired, and believe me, I think that Poland and the Soviet Union were much worse in terms of human rights conditions than South Africa.

Originally posted by rmsharpe


Do you know who Lech Walesa was? He led the end of communism in Eastern Europe, and there was never a shot fired, and believe me, I think that Poland and the Soviet Union were much worse in terms of human rights conditions than South Africa.

The heirarchy was also crumbling on its own. The South African Apartheid regime was much stronger than the SU or it's satellite nations' regimes were circa 1991. Peaceful revolution sure is possible when its happening on it's own :rolleyes:.

I share AoA's concern about the opinions expressed in this thread. If people are so ignorant that they beleive that "taking up arms against a legitimate government" is terrorism, then we clearly need to pull out some lobotomy kits and get to work.

Mandela was, I think, initially a terrorist with a just cause behind him, and then - happily - he evolved. Washington did not attack civilian targets to achieve victory by demoralizing the civilian opposition. Mandela, the ANC and the Spear of the Nation did do just that, although he was very choosy in the targets he selected and so ranks as one of the least terrorist terrorists around. These were not people who walked into airline terminals and sprayed bullets into the air.

And, as I have said many times, that sentence about Washington fighting a "legitimate government" itself is pretty ignorant, since it can be argued (as many britons did at the time, that the Americans were not governed by a legitimate government since many civil rights accruing to British citizens (which the Americans largely were) had been unilaterally suspended in the colonies.

R.III

Originally posted by Toasty


The heirarchy was also crumbling on its own. The South African Apartheid regime was much stronger than the SU or it's satellite nations' regimes were circa 1991. Peaceful revolution sure is possible when its happening on it's own :rolleyes:.

No, it wasn't 1991, it was long before that - late 70's, I believe. Martial law was declared in Poland and he was imprisoned.

Originally posted by Richard III
I share AoA's concern about the opinions expressed in this thread. If people are so ignorant that they beleive that "taking up arms against a legitimate government" is terrorism, then we clearly need to pull out some lobotomy kits and get to work.

It wasn't the government that many of the ANC's acts were, many of them were deliberately on white South African civilians, not military or government officials.

If you want to be able to distinguish terrorist from regular revolutionary/partisan in the context of a (current) revolution or resistance to occupation, then running a checklist of the Geneva Convetion's (1947 one for conflicts NOT of an international nature) earmarks of a lawful combatant would be useful.

Originally posted by Richard III
I share AoA's concern about the opinions expressed in this thread. If people are so ignorant that they beleive that "taking up arms against a legitimate government" is terrorism, then we clearly need to pull out some lobotomy kits and get to work.

Mandela was, I think, initially a terrorist with a just cause behind him, and then - happily - he evolved. Washington did not attack civilian targets to achieve victory by demoralizing the civilian opposition. Mandela, the ANC and the Spear of the Nation did do just that, although he was very choosy in the targets he selected and so ranks as one of the least terrorist terrorists around. These were not people who walked into airline terminals and sprayed bullets into the air.

And, as I have said many times, that sentence about Washington fighting a "legitimate government" itself is pretty ignorant, since it can be argued (as many britons did at the time, that the Americans were not governed by a legitimate government since many civil rights accruing to British citizens (which the Americans largely were) had been unilaterally suspended in the colonies.

R.III

I would like to remake the point that I was just stating that the idea of Washington being a terrorist is held by some. In my personal opinion, Washington was NOT A TERRORIST. He should be a hero to any freedom loving person.

Originally posted by rmsharpe


No, it wasn't 1991, it was long before that - late 70's, I believe. Martial law was declared in Poland and he was imprisoned.

Still he wasn't the principal cause of the collapse of the governement. And be honest, if he would have led a successful armed revolution against the communist regime, you would have praise him with all your hearth.

Well, back on the Mandela thing - he may have been pretty benign in his direction of the struggle - no civilian targets etc but the organisation he ran did carry out some pretty nasty acts of repression etc in the refugee camps over the border in Mozambique, Zimbabwe etc. How much of the blame for this could be pinned on him is another question...

For twenty years he was a prison-filler.

Judging from what I could gather from rmshape's posts throughout the forum, I think to him everyone is a terrorist if he takes arms against
Americans and whites (if he isn't one). If someone takes up arms in the same ways against Communists or someone opposing said groups, he is a praiseworthy hero.