skadistic
Caomhanach
Did I mention Arafat yet?
One Man's Terrorist Is Another Man's Freedom Fighter
- Thread starter nivi
- Start date
Did I mention Arafat yet?
Sharwood
Rich, doctor nephew
Nivi, this guy posted a thread about going to "Adolph parties" on Hitler's birthday. He probably had to change his pants.Wow, that must have been a great compliment for you.
Yes. Arafat has nothing to do with this topic. Comparing Nelson Mandela to Arafat is at best disingenuous. If you want to make a thread about how the Nobel Peace Prize is a political sham, go ahead. Let's get back to discussing the merrit of calling Mandela a terrorist, shall we?
skadistic
Caomhanach
Thats exactly what you meant. Once a terrorist retires or wins hes not a terrorist any more. All his past terror no longer maters. I guess if Mandela can no longer be called a terrorist then if Bin Laden retired tomorrow he would no longer be a terrorist either.
And before you say something stupid about the IRA. Yes every IRA terrorist is still an IRA terrorist. They always will be.
skadistic
Caomhanach
So one terrorist is different then another? I mean both were leaders of groups who launched terrorist attacks. Both have the blood of civilians on there hands. So how is it disingenuous to compare apples to apples? Ahhhh that's right you terrorist is a "freedom fighter". Talk about disingenuous.
Well you're calling Mandela a terrorist and lumping him in with Arafat
Spoiler :
when he was fighting a war against an enemy that was doing the same things, on a larger scale, for a longer time.
This situation (and really any situation) is often far more complex than one-word labels such as 'terrorist'
Mandela's armed wing, MK, did bad stuff. Mandela himself admits that. Reducing Mandela to 'terrorist, like arafat and bin Laden' muddies what a terrorist is to the point that you should consider basically any army on earth a terrorist organization.
What I meant was that if someone gives up terrorism as a tool for political change, and works to bring about the change they desired through peaceful channels, they are no longer a terrorist. If they broke the law in the past, they should still be held to account for breaking the law.
Name me an army that has seen conflict in the last 100 -- ever -- that didn't have civilian blood on their hands. Before you say 'but they were just in the way' look into the what MK was bombing. The Church Street Bombing (the one refrenced earlier, and I believe the deadliest) was an attack against the South African Air Force.
skadistic
Caomhanach
So Mandela was a terrorist. But you will excuse and explain it all away. Yup he's just another "freedom fighter". Can't call a spade a spade not when he has hero whoreship.
Arafat and Mandela both headed terrorist groups and both got peace prizes. Some people will call them "freedom fighters" depending on which side they are on. Some people are honest enough to call them both terrorists. But you excuse and explain away the actions of your hero. Do everything you can to avoid the fact that he was just like Arafat at one time. A terrorist. And he will always be a terrorist.
Arafat and Mandela both headed terrorist groups and both got peace prizes. Some people will call them "freedom fighters" depending on which side they are on. Some people are honest enough to call them both terrorists. But you excuse and explain away the actions of your hero. Do everything you can to avoid the fact that he was just like Arafat at one time. A terrorist. And he will always be a terrorist.
Other terrorists by your definition:
every army that has ever engaged in combat
So, as one terrorist supporter to another, my hats off to you. Keep up the good work.
skadistic
Caomhanach
So what exactly is my definition of terrorism. Since you know exactly what it is.
Maybe you can show me where every army is classified as a terrorist org.?
You can't do either can you.
Your definition of terrorism seemed to be any act that had avoidable civilian casualties, and a terrorist is anyone connected to the organization who committed said act.
The ANC's military wing did some bombings against mostly government targets two banks and once on a beach. Nelson Mandela had been in prision for 15 years before the Church Street Bombing happened; he had been in prision before any of the bombings started. Clearly it's all to do with him and it's all his fault.
No, but I can show you where basically any army has made mistakes -- er -- commited acts of terrorism.
AL_DA_GREAT
amour absinthe révolution
If I break in to your house and treat you like a pet and after a while I consider it home does that mean I can keep your house?
Isreal ofcourse. I am a big fan of Isreal
Wow, that must have been a great compliment for you.
Well the guys who introduced me to WN where Polish and English.
Arafat is being unreasnoble not like mandela
RalofTyr
King
See, what I don't understand is how a guy that uses a remote control bomb to blow up a military leader is a terrorist while a guy that drops a bomb from 10,000 to blow up a military leader is a hero.
Style points.
skadistic
Caomhanach
Right because those are the same thing.
What was that you were saying about disingenuous before?
skadistic
Caomhanach
That guy who uses a remote control bomb to attack a military target isn't a terrorist unless he has also targeted non-military. I can see why you don't understand.
amadeus
Apply directly to the forehead
Where are you getting this information? The ANC used to regularly plant bombs in shopping centers, supermarkets, and fast food restaurants. They also bombed a rugby stadium. The ANC also regularly used landmines, which ironically would kill black civilians rather than white government officials.
You also have to remember that the ANC attacked all sorts of "government officials." Many of those "officials" that the ANC attacked were black teachers and black school administrators; they'd usually follow them home and then throw grenades into their houses.
ANC use of torture was also widespread, and they were the most vicious to black dissenters; I'm sure you're familiar with "necklacing" and the Winnie Mandela connection.
Actually, Mandela became the head of the MK and then was arrested, so he was already engaged in terrorist acts by the time that he was arrested. (He was tried for treason five years earlier, but was acquitted.)
P.W. Botha offered to release Mandela under the condition that he renounced violence - Mandela, the "peace-loving" man, flatly refused.
He helped found the MK, the military - AKA, terrorist - wing of the ANC. They carried out numerous terrorist attacks that targeted innocent civilians. The South African government was horrible, but that doesn't justify blowing up innocent civilians.
He, and the ANC have reformed since then. Props for that. I don't see why he should be taken off of a terrorist watch list. When you have a man on that list who hasn't ordered bombings of civilian targets, I'll join you in being outraged. In the meantime, forgive me if I don't.
Right because those are the same thing.
An extension of the same principal.
A book on the apartheid. My impression was the ANC wasn't as bad as you just said. Granted it's not a neutral book, but I guess that means I'll have to find a Nationalist-slanted book.
He refused out of principal, not because he didn't wish to enter PW's contract.
skadistic
Caomhanach
No its you reaching to make a point that you can't with any semblance of honesty. But if you are so desperate as to need to cheapen your argument with that its ok by me. Only reflects poorly on you.
Not calling Nelson Mandela a terrorist reflects poorly on me? Okay.
Similar threads
