freedom fighter or terrorist?

Mr Nelson Mandela

  • freedom fighter

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    6
#1
Nelson Mandela has a statue unveiled in his honour this week in London.

My question is, did he, or did he not advocate violence in the form of the gun and bomb to achieve his aims? Did he, or did he not refuse to condone the said use of the gun and bomb to achieve his groups aims?

There is no question I believe that his aims were true and the government he was fighting were evil beyond scope, but surely his actions make him a terrorist, our government is therefore honouring a terrorist?
 
#2
chimp503 said:
My question is, did he, or did he not advocate violence in the form of the gun and bomb to achieve his aims? Did he, or did he not refuse to condone the said use of the gun and bomb to achieve his groups aims?

There is no question I believe that his aims were true and the government he was fighting were evil beyond scope, but surely his actions make him a terrorist, our government is therefore honouring a terrorist?
Sounds like Bomber Harris to me. Or can you not be classed as a terrorist if you have govenment backing?
 
#3
Chimp,

You might want to look at the reasons he was imprisoned in the first place...

msr
 
#4
Ghandi... yesterdays terrorist.
Kenyatta...... yesterdays terrorist.
ben Gurion.....yesterdays terrorist
Idi amin.... yesterdays Sgt Maj.....
but you get my point. Once a "terrorist" (or freedom fighter if you will) becomes the de justo as well as de facto head of state, real politik converts him to a statesman. Time and perspective change us all. That said, I really can't see the justification for kow towing to papa Mandela, save the fact that he was an icon to members of the present government and still has a "right on" aura to them.
 
#6
bobath said:
chimp503 said:
My question is, did he, or did he not advocate violence in the form of the gun and bomb to achieve his aims? Did he, or did he not refuse to condone the said use of the gun and bomb to achieve his groups aims?

There is no question I believe that his aims were true and the government he was fighting were evil beyond scope, but surely his actions make him a terrorist, our government is therefore honouring a terrorist?
Sounds like Bomber Harris to me. Or can you not be classed as a terrorist if you have govenment backing?
Good point bobath, Government backing is defo helpful not to be put in the terrorist bracket, but old Bomber Harris was at war which funnily enough is legite.
 
#7
msr said:
Chimp,

You might want to look at the reasons he was imprisoned in the first place...

msr
In what respect do you mean msr?
 
#9
It always has been and I suspect always will be the case that one mans freedom fighter is anothers terrorist. Was the resitance in Europe during WW2 terrorism or not. Perhaps we should look at it in another way is armed struggle against an authority ever justifiable, and if it is justifiable what tests should we apply to distinguish between good and bad.

Mandela certainly broke the law of SA at the time he was arrested, but on the other hand he has shown himself to be magnanamous in victory and willing to forgive those who oppressed him, and working hard for reconciliation.

Certainly Ghandi was never a terrorist, he was always only commited to non violent action and terrorism requires violence, as for Kenyatta, he also was able to be a gracious victor when the time came despite the attrocities committed in his name. Ben Gurion on the other hand never really changed from being a rabid Zionist and laid the foundations for todays problems in the region.
 
#11
maxi_77 said:
It always has been and I suspect always will be the case that one mans freedom fighter is anothers terrorist. Was the resitance in Europe during WW2 terrorism or not. Perhaps we should look at it in another way is armed struggle against an authority ever justifiable, and if it is justifiable what tests should we apply to distinguish between good and bad.

Mandela certainly broke the law of SA at the time he was arrested, but on the other hand he has shown himself to be magnanamous in victory and willing to forgive those who oppressed him, and working hard for reconciliation.

Certainly Ghandi was never a terrorist, he was always only commited to non violent action and terrorism requires violence, as for Kenyatta, he also was able to be a gracious victor when the time came despite the attrocities committed in his name. Ben Gurion on the other hand never really changed from being a rabid Zionist and laid the foundations for todays problems in the region.
Agreed, Ghandi could not ever be classed a terrorist, but the resistance falls under the war umbrella, though they used the same tactics it was a time of war between consenting governments and countries. Though I dont think the Germany army thought that when they caught any resistance fighters, they certainally were not covered by the Geneva convention
 
#13
I don't personally see the difference between freedom fighter and terrorist in the first place. Resistance, partisan, maquis, guerilla, whatever... employ terror tactics and you're a terrorist, end of story. The flip side applies too, however. Being a terrorist isn't necessarily a bad thing. If you're being occupied by foreign powers who have vastly superior numbers and firepower, you don't line up in the middle of a field with your small arms held proudly shouting "Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough!" You plant bombs, sabotage infrastructure, use snipers, etc. The French Resistance and the Russian Partisans did all this, were they terrorists? Hell yes they were. Does it matter? Course not. It's just a label.

"Anyone who finds himself in a fair fight didn't plan properly beforehand." I forget which leader said this, but he's right on the money. A commander's job is to make sure the fight is as unfair for the other fella as he possibly can. It's true on a large battlefield and even more true when you're a "freedom fighter" or whatever label gets slapped on you.

Do we wait for Johnny Raghead to assemble a modern army, navy and airforce before going out to patrol the streets because that's "fair"? Feck no. We beat him down with superior weapons, training and numbers and keep him down. And Johnny Raghead doesn't stick "Caution, Buried Explosives" signs on roadsides in the interests of a fair fight, either. Is he a terrorist? Of course he is. Would we be if the situation was reversed? Damn right we would too, and we'd probably be better at it.

Nelson Mandela a terrorist? Yes of course he was. Do I really give a shit? No I don't. He helped defeat an evil regime in the only way available to him, and the same way any of us would have done if we were in the same situation.
 
#14
vandyke said:
In 10 years time will we see McGuiness and Adams in the same way?
I think it will be much longer than 10 years, my memories of serving over there will last alot longer than that.
 
#15
bobath said:
chimp503 said:
My question is, did he, or did he not advocate violence in the form of the gun and bomb to achieve his aims? Did he, or did he not refuse to condone the said use of the gun and bomb to achieve his groups aims?

There is no question I believe that his aims were true and the government he was fighting were evil beyond scope, but surely his actions make him a terrorist, our government is therefore honouring a terrorist?
Sounds like Bomber Harris to me. Or can you not be classed as a terrorist if you have govenment backing?
Fcuk off. Mandela is'nt fit to lick Bomber's boots clean.

Harris was a professional military officer in the world's best Air Force. Mandela was a second-rate terrorist.

Harris helped save this country from the Nazi's. Mandela helped turn RSA into the corrupt, violent sh1t-hole it is today. :x
 
#16
Mr Brown hailed Mr Mandela as the "greatest and most courageous leader of our generation".

Bollocks the man was (and will always be a terrorist)......thats me feeling better. :x
 
#17
chimp503 said:
vandyke said:
In 10 years time will we see McGuiness and Adams in the same way?
I think it will be much longer than 10 years, my memories of serving over there will last alot longer than that.
Thats my point we still see those two for the murdering bastards that they really are and i am sure there is still a few in SA that still regard mandela as a terrorist.

one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#18
I think we need to be slightly more picky about the brand of terrorist we are talking about.

A terrorist seeks to cause terror in civilian populations in order to achieve their aims.

I don't think that those who fight an armed struggle against a military power, albeit covertly and using sneaky bombs could in all concience be called a terrorist.

The americans might call a group who bomb a military bases 'terrorists', but are they not in a slightly better league than a group that bombs pubs with civilians in?

We should call the first group something along the lines of 'Covert Armed Strugglists' or something, and the second group 'terrorists'.

The IRA were/are terrorists, and thus, the lowest form of pond life on this green earth.

If Nelson Mandela advocated/engaged in acts of sabotage against the military, police or state instruments (to include killing their members), history might not see him in such a harsh light. If he engaged in acts of terrorism against the (albeit white) civilians of SA, then he is also a criminal scumbag who should never be so honoured by the criminal scumbags who are in power in the UK at this time.

End of lecture.
 
#19
Werewolf said:
bobath said:
chimp503 said:
My question is, did he, or did he not advocate violence in the form of the gun and bomb to achieve his aims? Did he, or did he not refuse to condone the said use of the gun and bomb to achieve his groups aims?

There is no question I believe that his aims were true and the government he was fighting were evil beyond scope, but surely his actions make him a terrorist, our government is therefore honouring a terrorist?
Sounds like Bomber Harris to me. Or can you not be classed as a terrorist if you have govenment backing?
Fcuk off. Mandela is'nt fit to lick Bomber's boots clean.

Harris was a professional military officer in the world's best Air Force. Mandela was a second-rate terrorist.

Harris helped save this country from the Nazi's. Mandela helped turn RSA into the corrupt, violent sh1t-hole it is today. :x
I take it then you ticked the terrorist box. I think our government has got it wrong in honouring him, there are plenty of people who deserve to be remembered before he is even considered. Ken Livingstone is an arse for proposing it in the first place, he wanted it in Trafalgar sq, Nelson (Admiral) would have turned in his grave. Thank God the quango's turned it down at the planning permission stage.
 
#20
well what option did he have?
going to his mp sorry black didn't get a vote :cry:
considering when he got his hands on power it wasn't
kill a whitey day
although obviously not having mark thatcher hung is a black mark :evil: .
he's one of the few political leaders who does'nt come across as a kunt
 

Latest Threads

Top