Nelson Mandela off U.S. terrorism watch lists

By refusing to renounce violence as a means to an end he associated himself with the actions of his group though, and this included the murder of many innocent people. This was a far cry from the original idea of blowing up symbols of Apartheid like post offices while ensuring that no one would get hurt.

JW, as I pointed out way back, Mandela was an advocate of peaceful change pushed into acts of violence by a brutal regime that sought to utterly destroy any black political voice at all. Why is it so hard for you to acknowledge that?

Does anybody have numbers to compare:

• Innocent people killed by Mandela + ANC?
• Innocent people killed by the apartheid regime?

This bastard de Klerk is still alive and an honorable member of a college association.
Luckily Pieter Willem Botha died, although be was 90.

Oh please.

So Nick you approve the aprtheid regime, right. There was nothing to be changed, everything was peachy in ZA.

Suggested thread for z-man99.

No, and I don't believe I ever said that.

I am simply saying that the way Mandela conducted himself whilst in the ANC was nothing short of terrorism.

So what should he have done to counter a violent repressive regime?

Asked nicely?

@nick60599

As Saddam Hussein was removed through the use of force where innocent civilians also died, does that mean you believe that the USA were also guilty of terrorism?

Nothing short of a terrorist eh Nick?


This was not a man seeking to create terror for revolutionary purposes. This was a man and an organisation utterly committed to freedom and tolerance pushed to use violence as a very last resort. And even then the intention was to sabotage the arms of the state WITHOUT the loss of human life.

As such they are synonymous with the resistance to Nazism in wartime Europe rather than with 'terrorists"

I mean Nick, would you call the French resistance terrorists too?

You are joking right!!!

Yes I can firmly say that before we went to war I did not believe anything that the US, British and Australian governments were saying. They were lying and that was demonstrated on several documented occasions, not least of which were letters to Colin Powell from one of the Australian UN Weapons inspectors (in Iraq at the time) regarding the US administration's use of completely misleading information.

Bumpy you've got any problems with my writing?
why would I want to read some f*cking thread with hundreds of postings

Mandela was in jail when his group was at its most violent so if anything we're talking about guilt by association. As I said before, I don't think he should carry the blame for the crimes committed by the MK, however I certainly don't think that he is worthy of the praise that is being heaped on his person. I am actually quite indifferent when it comes to Mandela, it's just that this guy isn't Gandhi.


What did the MK's bombings and the murder of innocent people actually achieve? The answer is nothing.
Didn't you just post on some other thread how Iraq would've magically changed thanks to changes from the inside had it not been for the US's invasion?


Do you see anyone kissing Bush's ass for having freed Iraq from Saddam though? No.


It may have been the intention, it wasn't the result. I also highly doubt that potential loss of life was taken into account when they carried out most of their bombings in the 80s.


What did the resistance movements in France concretely achieve thanks to their hit-and-run guerrilla tactics apart from jeopardizing the lives of civilians who bore the brunt of German reprisals? Churchill himself considered resistance groups in Europe dangerous as many were politically motivated, completely impossible to manage and produced negligible operational results in the field.

When states go to war it is a totally different situation, and you know it I think/hope.

Guilty of war crimes, maybe - I don't know enough about the law of war/international war to pass judgement. And I won't do the fashionable thing and start Ami-bashing with no evidence to back my claims up.


The goal is somewhat irrelevant - we all agree that it is a noble and just cause. The point is that they did use violence in order to achieve said goal.

I would say that any group that uses violence endangers itself to being called terrorists.

You could also say the ANP were terrorists, they used violence, intimidated opposing political parties etc. etc. for ideological/political views.

Terrorism

So you're saying that Iraq had more of a right to invade Kuwait, Indonesia had more right to invade East Timor and The USA had more right to invade Iraq than Nelson Mandela had to resist the oppressive Sth African regime.

That makes no sense...

States are governed by international law. Terror groups are a law of their own.

So please tell us how a population should rise up against a despotic government that answers any type of peaceful protest with violence, without being labelled as "terrorists".

By your logic, in Zimbabwe the Zanu-PF thugs are OK to beat up and kill the opposition because their actions are sanctioned by the government, but the opposition is not permitted to defend themselves with any sort of violence, or they would be "terrorists"

what about when the government is breaking the law itself and the so-called terrorists groups have no other legal means of stopping that? How could anyone ever internally rid their country of a dictatorship for example?

The international community should have done more. Thatcher was particularly idiotic when it came to this. If I had my way, I would pressure countries who currently have few forces in other major international operations (Iraq, Afghanistan etc.) to go into Zimbabwe and create law and order. Hearing stories and watching videos of the violence that is going on should provoke people into action.


With respect, absolute bollocks. I was talking about national sovereignty, not about internal problems.

Right, so a population has to wait until an outside force comes in to save the day?? Meanwhile the population just have to suck it in - even if they could do something themselves to overthrow their dictators. They still have to sit tight and wait for their knights in shining armour. What if nobody outside that country gives a shit? Then they have to put up with it forever or they're "terrorists".


So the human rights abuses that came with apartheid in South Africa was "national sovereignty", but the human rights abuses occuring in Zimbabwe are "internal problems".

With all due respect - what a load of crap.

I'll ask again - if a group now stand up to the Zanu-PF thugs in Zimbabwe and start to attack the government infrastructure (let's say the buildings where the government controlled media is produced) in an attempt to get Mugabe out, are they "terrorists"?

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

This is the statement that astounds me the most though:


Because if you really believe that only the international community should do something, and the local population may not, then you're saying that the Germans did the right thing when Hitler was in power. Those poor souls who risked (and usually lost) their lives in trying to assassinate or overthrow Hitler were nothing more than common terrorists. The Germans that did nothing and stood by and watched, waiting and hoping for the Allies to overthrow the government did the right thing...

And to think, they've carried so much guilt for that for so many years, when they actually did the right thing all along.

EDIT: Or maybe they could have organised a few peaceful marches or something

Quite nicely summarised.

It seems nick60599 may have backed himself into a corner there.

with countries like the US bending and shaping "International Law" to their liking, it seems the law is quite supple and bends at the will of nations, or at least those with the perceived power.

Hazza, if it is OK under natural law for a country's populace to overthrow a dictator, surely it is also OK for another country to do it under natural law. You also need to remember, as was pointed out earlier, that the state enjoys a legal monopoly on violence. Whether or not we agree with that in all or some circumstances is another matter, but that's what statutory laws say.

As for the use of violence by non-state actors, it can be reasonably foreseen that innocent people are likely to die if the non-state actors use violence to achieve political ends. The deaths of innocents is not in and of itself defensible, but let's not pretend that it is anything but inconsistent to excuse the unintentional murder of innocents by groups one supports, while condemning the unintentional deaths of innocents at the hands of those groups or countries whose actions one does not support.

It's a difficult matter to balance the prospect of ending the rule of a dictator with the likelihood of deaths by innocents, so let's not pretend that there are easy answers or choices.

Hazza, as for Iraq, within the context of natural law, you may not think the overthrow of Saddam was as justified as the overthrow of the Taliban was, but there will always be those who disagree. In a matter of opinion such as ´the topic of Iraq, who is to say who's right?

That exact sentence could apply to a "state actor"...


No one here is disputing the difference... I don't see anyone typing "Go Terrorists, Yay!, Yay!, Yay!..."


are you saying that those were the only choices?

Unlike non-state actors (a rather politically correct term) the state has the responsibility to defend its citizens as well as the aforementioned legal monopoly on violence. No country could carry out self-defense if it required of itself that no innocent party could suffer, or die or be wounded as a result- that is obviously too high and unrealistic a bar to set.


As regards ending the rule of Saddam, I would say it's hard to find too many other options as of 2003- internal uprisings (and there were many more than that of the Marsh Arabs in 1991) were invariably crushed by Saddam and sanctions didn't remove him, either.

This is just making excuses to allow one group to do what the other cannot.


There was no need to go into Iraq... There were other options apart from committing an act of aggression against Iraq.
For example not actually invading at all... especially with a plan that failed to look further than the idea of "let's bomb the shit out of them"...
In time it will be seen that America was an unjustified aggressor in regards to Iraq.
This unashamed defence of America's action in Iraq, even though you say you were opposed to it at the time is something relatively puzzling... or maybe it speaks volumes.

These comments exemplify why it is virtually impossible to discuss this sort of topic with you, Pleb. Read what each of us posted, and read for comprehension. Saddam was not going to be overthrown from within or by sanctions- is that clear, Pleb? Thus, if one wanted to see the end of that brutal dictator in power, it was going to have to be accomplished by an outside force. That's what I was saying. He also was not in compliance with the inspections process, and how other than the use of some force could he realistically be compelled eventually into compliance if there were already sanctions on Iraq?

As regards the use of American military personnel, I am, for various reasons, generally conservative about their deployment overseas. In the case of Iraq in 2003, I felt, given Saddam's known history of having and using WMDs and the UN resolutions/sanctions, intrusive inspections should be carried out, and for a longer period of time, as the chances of Saddam carrying out an attack with WMD would be extremely low if there were inspectors on the ground. If such inspections could not be carried out throughout Iraq without interference from Saddam, some use of force would have to be contemplated and carried out if necessary to compel cooperation.

Use of military overseas can be fraught with political difficulties, and is expensive, two reasons why I feel its use must be judicious. What you see as a "defense" of US action in Iraq is actually a matter of taking a 360° view of the sort policymakers have to do, rather than the peanut gallery attitude someone like you can have without any consequences. It was not a simple matter and as I have said, I felt a different path should have been taken. One other thing you need to consider is that once the US presidential cycle begins in earnest (in this case, late 2003) taking action of the sort that was taken in Iraq is generally not possible. Like it or not, that was a factor as well. You are also incorrect in your characterization of US plans for a post-Saddam Iraq, and it seems you conveniently ignore that Bush gave Saddam an ultimatum to leave Iraq, plus there were attempts to get some other countries to take him in prior to the invasion. Finally, to say there was no need to go into Iraq is a opinion, and there are other opinions on the matter, especially given Saddam's known brutality and violation of UN sanctions. You also cannot honestly claim that you knew Saddam did not have WMDs in light of his own history of using and possessing them.

As regards your claim of "...making excuses to allow one group to do what the other cannot", it's common sense, Pleb, unless you want anarchy and warlordism- it's not a matter of an "excuse" to see why that is the legal framework and to see the nuances between a democratic state acting within the democratic process and armed groups or dictatorships acting outside of it. Do you think that you would have been justified to start a guerilla war against the Australian government for its role in taking action in Iraq?

Of course, all this will be lost on you Pleb, since you hate the US government and simply assume the worst in all instances, even when it makes you a 9/11 conspiracy theory purveyor.

My god you write some absolute shit...

The points are not lost on me... it just makes my jaw drop that you can drivel such shit and remain serious whilst doing it. The options you are presenting were far from the only options available... not getting involved being one of them.

Your opinion is typical of the reason i can't fucking stand the US administration... you sound like a fucking fox news anchor or a member of the current US administration...

Oh yes but what an all rounded opinion you have... that's plain for all to see... very well rounded indeed.

You are repeating nothing but the propaganda you've been fed. Full stop!

"ooohhhh, we must go in and save the Iraqi people"... "they desperately need our help"... "they have the capability to attack us with weapons of mass destruction within a 45 minute time frame"

Drop the bullshit...

Once again, Pleb, you show that you don't want the US to be able to use military force for any reason. That's an absolutist position, as is your position on Saddam. As for propaganda, you (a conspiracy theorist on 9/11 and other topics) are the one that needs to avoid it- I see that you are unable to argue based on the facts. Please don't pretend that your opinion is some original thought of any coherence.

If you think there were other options for removing Saddam Hussein (which as I have pointed out more than once is what I commented on earlier with regards to use of military force) let's hear them. As for Saddam and WMDs, he should have cooperated with the UN inspectors, plus you cannot sit here with hindsight and claim you knew back then he did not have them- he had a proven track record of developing and using WMDs. There were UN resolutions, and he was not in compliance with them. Yet you claim in 2008 that simply nothing could have been done and everything would have been OK. That's a dangerous assumption, and one no policymaker with real responsibilities for defending his/her countrymen (unlike you) could have made back in 2002/2003. As for enforcing UN resolutions, the reality is that a use of force would have to be countenanced in the case of Saddam, especially given his history. Of course, a UN Security Council authorization of such use of force would have been best; however, we already know such things can get caught up in the geopolitical jockeying between members of the Security Council, and given Saddam's track record, he simply could not simply have been ignored as you wish.

It's clear you have nothing to offer but attitude, hysterics, and personal attacks on this issue, Pleb. Too bad.

Bullshit again...

You are juts repeating the lies over and over again...

That is what the US admin did when building the lie for war...

The same bullshit over and over and over again... repeated and bolstered by a lapdog media that did nothing but sit on their asses and pull a story off the wire from Reuters.

"Oh we had a hunch and so we went to war..." no they didn't have a hunch! They stated that they were sure of the weapon's existence and location... Bad intel my ass.

There is no need for you and I to debate any further. It is clear that we will never come to an understanding amongst polar opposites.

Pleb, I would hardly call your rantings "debate". All you have to do is calm down and use some common sense.

-Saddam had previously had WMD programs and had used chemical weapons.
-No one could claim for certain prior to the US taking action in Iraq that Saddam did not have WMDs.
-Saddam was not in compliance with the weapons inspectors (whose authority derived from the UN).

For the above reasons, I felt that the inspections should continue until some sort of definitive conclusion was reached by the inspectors or they were kicked out by Saddam prior to finishing their work.

Should Saddam not give full compliance in spite of the UN resolutions, those resolutions would need to be enforced, and perhaps not merely through diplomacy.

Pleb, you can insult others as much as you want and scream about lies as long as you like. No responsible person can claim that nothing should have been done about Saddam's noncompliance, and no sane person can claim that Saddam did not have a history of developing, possessing, and using WMDs. You might feel good about trusting a dictator with such a history, but no responsible person would.

Nobody I know of could sum it up better than Jon Stewart of the Daily Show:

Terrorist Watch List

Quote from their website:
Do you know the expression "kick ass and take names? Turns out, this country (the US) is really good at one of those"

I would hope that people defending this nonsense list would be ashamed and never ever agree with the current US government and their ridiculous homeland security efforts.
Who protects the world from terrorists called G.W. Bush and Dick Cheney?