skadistic
Caomhanach
What I'm saying is that I find it odd that the same people that elected Mandela as the Nobel Peace Prize Winner can also elect him to be a terrorist.
Did I mention Arafat yet?
What I'm saying is that I find it odd that the same people that elected Mandela as the Nobel Peace Prize Winner can also elect him to be a terrorist.
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.![]()
Did I mention Arafat yet?
If you want to continue to call Nelson Mandela a terrorist, feel free. Your inability to see both sides of the issue only hints at something deeper.Does it really? What exactly is this hint? Or is it something you made up in your head. You know right next to the part where you made up how I don't see both sides.
You know full well that is not what I meant.
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?
Does it really? What exactly is this hint? Or is it something you made up in your head. You know right next to the part where you made up how I don't see both sides.
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.
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.
I mean both were leaders of groups who launched terrorist attacks. Both have the blood of civilians on there hands.
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.
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.
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.?
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?Um....
Okay, so I was born here in the heartland of America. I know no other home. This is my land and I know it like the back of my hand. Are you actually suggesting that I be relocated to some foreign land that means nothing to me?
Isreal ofcourse. I am a big fan of IsrealYou just made our point for us. Neo-Nazis. So, where do you plan on putting those Jews, hmmm?
Wow, that must have been a great compliment for you.![]()
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.
Right because those are the same thing.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.seemed?
The ANC's military wing did some bombings against mostly government targets two banks and once on a beach. Two banks a beach. Not military targets are they?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.So he wasn't still the leader? He didn't set it up? It wasn't his military arm that did it?
No, but I can show you where basically any army has made mistakes -- er -- commited acts of terrorism.
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.
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.The ANC's military wing did some bombings against mostly government targets two banks and once on a beach.
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.)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.
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.
Right because those are the same thing.What was that you were saying about disingenuous before?
![]()
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.
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.An extension of the same principal.
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.