Mandela - Saint or Sinner?

[Scoobos]

More importantly, how would we feel about Mandela before he became a world leader and a figure that stands for all that is good and decent.

Its easy *now* to say what a great man he is, but I'm wondering how many of us would still hold Mandela in high regard whilst he was politically active and fighting for the cause, ie he was a "rebel"?

Lets not forget he was imprisoned for "terrorist activities" so why is he now considered a great man?

After all, the CIA did help to track him down tipped him off to the SA authorities.

Personally I think in todays world we need more people willing to fight and die for a cause, rather than conform, buy the next marketed "need" and blame everything on everyone else.

One guys rebel is always anothers freedom fighter - but I can't seriously see how anyone can say a man fighting against apartheid is a terrorist... Maybe I need educating though.

Bringing the US and the CIA into it as justification that he's a terrorist doesnt really help the cause to me. Both of those institutions are worried with one thing and one thing only and thats the economic interests of the US . Back then it was still a fundamentally racist country - its moved on a little now - its just fundamentally homophobic and a moderately racist.

[sunnysan]

Terrorist

More importantly, how would we feel about Mandela before he became a world leader and a figure that stands for all that is good and decent.

Its easy *now* to say what a great man he is, but I'm wondering how many of us would still hold Mandela in high regard whilst he was politically active and fighting for the cause, ie he was a "rebel"?

Lets not forget he was imprisoned for "terrorist activities" so why is he now considered a great man?

After all, the CIA did help to track him down tipped him off to the SA authorities.

Its Africa, the difference between a freedom fighter or a terrorist or a rebel is only relevant in the newspapers.

I think its important to remember that negotiations for his release where started quite a while before he was actually released.


The "terrorist activities" he was imprisoned for would not have been committed had South Africa had a representative government.


Its generally an open secret that the CIA worked covertly with the South African government at the time as their ambitions where aligned IE Stop the spread of Communism

Of course its easy to say he was a great man or a flawed man but its clear he was instrumental in the "relativly" peaceful transition from white to black power.

As an alternative analogy, Churchill was a great statesman who led Britain through the dark times of the second world war, or he was a firebrand alcoholic, who screwed the Poles over, trusted Stalin too much and was instrumental in allowing Eastern Europe to endure a 50 years of communist suppression.

Maybe he was just a figurehead, but he was an influential figurehead, and one of the only men at the time which had the political influence among the people of South Africa to prevent a bloodbath. IMHO anyway

[VectraMan]

One guys rebel is always anothers freedom fighter - but I can't seriously see how anyone can say a man fighting against apartheid is a terrorist... Maybe I need educating though.

It's a matter of opinion though. The catholics of Northern Ireland would say they were oppressed by those nasty British, and were never given the change to participate in democracy, at least not on the central question of the sovreignty of Northern Ireland, so does that mean they're not terrorists? Al Queda would certainly have a similar viewpoint. Anybody willing to kill random people to effect a change in the status quo is a terrorist, even if subsequently their objectives become morally acceptable.

[sunnysan]

Terrorism

One guys rebel is always anothers freedom fighter - but I can't seriously see how anyone can say a man fighting against apartheid is a terrorist... Maybe I need educating though.

I think defining terrorism shouldnt be by cause but by action. Blowing up a tube in London to further the agenda of Al Qaeda is terrorism as well as a guy blowing up a bar full of off duty policeman even though it could be argued that policeman are legitimate military targets. Maybe even blowing up a village full of people with a drone owing to intelligence that there may be a military target there could be called terrorism too.

If innocent people are killed and maimed in order for an ideal to be achieved, IMHO its terrorism, regardless of the nobility of the ideal.

[DodgyAgent]

I think FW de Klerk should thank Mandela for still alive. Remember what happened to Gadaffi after he thrown out of power. Apartheid rule for natives in SA was worst than that of Gadaffi.

What an extraordinary distortion of moral equivalence

[BrilloPad]

It's a matter of opinion though. The catholics of Northern Ireland would say they were oppressed by those nasty British, and were never given the change to participate in democracy, at least not on the central question of the sovreignty of Northern Ireland, so does that mean they're not terrorists? Al Queda would certainly have a similar viewpoint. Anybody willing to kill random people to effect a change in the status quo is a terrorist, even if subsequently their objectives become morally acceptable.

Agree Strongly. Furthermore as a member of fathers4justice I believe I am oppressed by the family court system and I am justified in any retribution I deem suitable on those involved.