Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Le THudd. (U1029)
posted 1 minute ago
Mandela was a Liverpool fan
---------------------------------------------------------------------

comment by Ilori - Papadopoulos vs Sakho (U18764)
posted 6 minutes ago
South African police statistics indicate that, in the period 1976 to 1986, approximately 130 people were killed by what the source calls 'terrorists'. Of these, about thirty were members of various security forces and one hundred were civilians. Of the civilians, 40 were white and 60 black

------
Right, the statistics reported at the time by an armed faction of the racist state.

You do realised he founded the UmKonto right?

Are you denying he was involved or again just being facetious for the sake of it?

Cal - I'm not even sure of your point? I'm not even blanket anti Mandela, merely looking for a little perspective.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

What are you talking about? He was founder and leader of the UmKhonto!! They were about killing and spreading terror. I don't know the names of the people.

Are you denying he was involved?

Ilori

Bluedroog

If you want to be technical, any person or organisation that have used violence to enhance a political/social cause is a terrorist. That includes all armies including our own. So all it really comes down to is the moral justification of the actions, if you are saying the ends don't justify the means then by default you are on the side of racial apartheid

Could of started a petition

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Ilori, your embarrassing yourself now

No, that is your opinion. I'm saying that isn't not that case, so you are wrong, that is a fact.

Your definition is wrong, which is crucial.

People get too caught up in the details, who is called what doesn't matter a jot, the facts remains the same.

Anyway, my bed time. Whether you agree or disagree with me that is fine by me, that is just my opinion, not to denounce Mandela, purely to offer balance and try and put his good along with the full picture.

None if us where there or know the full story.

It was interesting debating with you.

Good night.

Nelson, I hope you rest in peace.

Kayal, by the same argument, you are a supporter of all terrorists and their actions.
Or isn't it that simple?

So am is

BsmLew

I said goodnight but can't resist, I'm an easy bite!

This argument has come up a few times now 'if you are against Mandela you are for apartheid'

What a load of rubbish, again we are not anti Mandela, just offering perspective as an antidote to the blanket gushing praise. And also it is about the method, not the cause.

Anyway, goodnight all.

Bluedroog

That's the dictionary definition of terrorism:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism

So, on that judgement Churchill was a terrorist

Not at all DundeeSpur, I was talking about the moral ends justifying the means of the violent actions. The violence was necessary at that time for things to develop the way they did, otherwise the apartheid government would have stayed in power to subject millions to their evil.

Needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few

Churchill a terrorist

Blue

If you regard the actions he took as immoral to the point where they are unable to be justified, that means you must fall on that side of the fence, by default. If he didn't take the course of action he did, he would never have been able to do what he did further down the line, meaning he wouldn't have ended apartheid.

Again, the details in terms of definitions are just deviations from the real issues. It doesn't change what happen, I really don't care what it is called, or who else you can label the same thing based in a dictionary.

The facts remain.

That doesn't mean I support apartheid! I don't and never have supported apartheid, there, your theory is wrong.

Ilori, thank you for proving me right by completely missing the fooking point

Was sjust a shīt example

I'm not arguing against facts. I know what happened and I am stating that the end more than justified the means.

Saying what he did was unjustifiable, is saying that he shouldn't have done it. In that case the apartheid regime would never have been over thrown and millions would have suffered and died at the hands of fascists.

I'm not saying everything he ever did was right and he was this holier than thou figure, but the ends more than justified the means.

Calling him a terrorist in the way you are implying it is wrong. Unless you mean the dictionary definition of a terrorist, in which case that label is put on anyone that has ever killed for a cause. If you describe Mandela as a terrorist then Churchill, Roosevelt, Lincoln must all be classified as terrorists too.