Nelson Mandela off U.S. terrorism watch lists

Just read it on CNN.
What a joke this terror watch list really is. For those of you who have not read Mandela's biography, this man was imprisoned for 27 years by the Apartheit regime.

CNN on the Mandela terror suspicion

Nelson Mandela on Wikipedia

As time has gone by he's turned from black to brown-ish and the CIA have correctly identified that a lot of terrorists are brown. He probably owns a tea towel too. Et voila - he's a terrorist!

For guerilla/terror activities.

actually no. He was imprisoned for "leading workers to strike in 1961 and leaving the country illegally" after the south african security services had been tipped off by the CIA. Though, as Mandela was an intellectual powerhouse of the movement few could doubt that his incarceration for such a long time was primarily political.

At the Rivonia Trial of 1963-64 Mandela was found guilty of the following:

- Recruiting persons for training in the preparation and use of explosives and in guerrilla warfare for the purpose of violent revolution and committing acts of sabotage

- Conspiring to commit the aforementioned acts and to aid foreign military units when they invaded the Republic

- Acting in these ways to further the objects of communism

- Soliciting and receiving money for these purposes from sympathizers in Algeria, Ethiopia, Liberia, Nigeria, Tunisia, and elsewhere

How is that list a joke? You should read Nick's list.

I'm not surprised CNN didn't provide these details in their report.

Mandela is no angel and the way he is worshiped borders on the ridiculous in some cases, however he also fought against a system which caused more harm to South Africa and its people than the crimes that he committed himself, imho.

I'd call him a hero of great integrity forced by the system into acts of violence he hated and recanted. This, from the wikipedia article:


Though it doesn't surprise me that 'rightists' are so cynical about a hero of the left.

The miracle of personality cults... I apologize if I am not as fascinated by the texture of Nelson Mandela's shit as you are.

So according to Jules Winnfield, Nelson Mandela fighting against apartheid was "committing crimes", but Israel killing civilians is "self defence".

Interesting...

So just because I don't think that Nelson Mandela walks on water means that I implicitly agree with Apartheid! Sigh...

I really don't understand the parallels that you are drawing with the situation in the Middle East.

It has nothing to do with thinking that Mandela walks on water.

It's simple...

You said that Nelson Mandela has committed crimes. But all of those "crimes" were committed in the fight against apartheid. Innocent people were also killed in some actions of the ANC, but they were generally not targetted by them, they were "collateral damage".

Similarly, Israel has killed many innocent civilians in the occupied territories - usually they weren't targetted, but were "collateral damage". Yet you defend Israel's actions to the hilt and have never once agreed that Israel has committed any crimes.

I find that interesting, that's all...

A large portion of the world would describe Osama bin Laden the same way.

Why do you deliberately continue to regurgitate what I say in order to make me look like I am anti-Mandela? As I said, I just don't like personality cults, regardless of who the person is, and there are some aspects to his background in particular which I find questionable, especially if compared with the praise that is heaped on his person.

I defend Israel's actions when dealing with posters on Toytown who blindingly criticize the latter while hiding their heads in the sand when it comes to terrorist organizations that send suicide bombers onto buses and into markets. As far as I know, the IDF does not deliberately blow up Palestinian Authority government buildings which was what the MK mainly did.

no. Only a very small minority even in the most islamic countries would ever say that of Bín Laden depsite what Fox News shrieks at you.

And for the sake of completion so would a lot of people describe George Bush. I'm never one to miss an opportunity to criticise that fucker (I'm sure he cares, too) but when you start on this hero/terrorist debate it's purely a matter of opinion.

Errm, one promotes war and violence the other peace.

But they've both used violence to achieve their aims. Like Bushie. Where's the distinction?

Believe it or not, people can come to a certain conclusion without access to specific media. The adult thing to do would have been to point out that nick was mistaken, and perhaps post a link to recent opinion polling on Bin Laden in, say, non-Western countries, to illustrate.

What are Osama's aims?

Helles... yes or no, do you believe Bush specifically and deliberately targets non-combative civilians for death in order to achieve his goals?

Yes or no, does Osama target civilians as described above?

To make the entire world convert to be his particular flavour of Muslim or die as heretics. Read the papers. News about Osama is published in them from time to time.

Edit: TFL, No, of course not. But that wasn't the point about this thread was it. It was about the use or not use of violence. Fact still remains that violence is violence is violence be it long range 'pin-point' weapons (that occaisionally still hit somebody's embassy by mistake) or a terrorist or a freedom fighter using asymmetric means, or whatever the Pentagon calls them these days. Bush, Mandela and Bin-Laden all use(d) violence as a means to their ends.

Because:
1) You said you didn't understand my comparison to the Middle East, so I just explained it more clearly
2) Payback for you trying to continually make it look like I hated all Italians last week - see how easy it is to take one sentence and twist it...

Something significant that some posters are not acknowledging is that the state has rights to use force (let me stress that these are not unlimited rights) that international and national laws make clear are not the province of individuals. Some may want to take this right away from, for example, Israel, but it does have the right in law to defend itself.

Oh dear, you're in attack dog mode and you're still bringing up this Italian shit. I told you many times that I could not care less whether you like Italians or not, just that you should choose your language more carefully in some instances, and that it gets so repetitive that one wonders what your problem really is at the end of the day. Just because I am not anti-Mandela doesn't meant that I like him either. Just because you are not anti-Italian does not mean you like them either. Alles klar?

Interesting that there are 20+ posts on a topic that frankly doesn't matter for shit, yet the thread about Britain being the world's #1 arms dealer has only 8.

Biased much?

That's true Conquistador but as the thread yesterday about Bush hitting Iran shows the distinction is not black and white and Bush has deliberately blurred it so he can use the military without adhering to the international agreements you mention. Even if you accept Bush's 'war on terror' as justification for attacking Afghanistan and even Iraq which is a real stretch, there is nothing, anywhere, that allows him to deploy forces in Iran. So, if one can do it, why not the others?

Sadly I have to go to lunch now, but this could be an interesting thread.

@DW
I feel a lot of pathetic topic starter frustration there... So would you describe your childhood as having been a difficult time in your life?

But some individuals also have a right to stand up to oppressive regimes. Nelson Mandela standing up to the Sth African regime of the time is a good example. Maybe he was breaking national laws at the time, however, sometimes people have no choice.

Would you support the people rising up and overthrowing the North Korean government, even though that would be illegal by your standards? What if in overthrowing the government, some innocent people were accidentally also killed? Would that turn them into criminals? How about Zimbabweans rising up against Mugabe? Are they guilty of treason?

@ JW



Use the words "Bush" or "USA" in a topic title and you can expect hundreds of posts. Now replace the "USA" with "Britain," but otherwise retain the content entirely, and 10 posts will be about the max you can expect.

Glass houses, pot and kettle, etc., etc.

But that is a ridiculous and useless comparison. They also all used cars. Unless you are going to try to make a blanket statement that the use of any violence is inherently immoral, then you can't ignore the intention behind the violence, and therein lies the "distinction".

If you are going to argue that violence is always immoral, then you'll have a tough time I think. Consider the hypothetical: you are walking down the street, and see someone mugging a person. You could easily hit the mugger in the head and stop the crime. Is it moral to let the mugging proceed? If you stop it, are both you and the mugger "using violence to achieve goals"?

I hadn't seen that thread but have now posted my disgust to it

Very good argument TFL, and one I've had with some ultra-religious wacko relatives and used exactly the same point. Of course it's moral to intervene, and in some cases a citizen is almost obliged to do so. But still, the fact remains, that when taken to a state level it is much less easy to define what is moral, what is not, who is acting with honourable intentions and who not. It's almost always down to opinion and spinning the presentation to influence the population to support your goals.

There was an article yesterday in the Telegraph about African leaders viewing Mugabe as a hero. Not my opinion, but who's to say I'm right? Is it simply the fact that I've got a big military? _{ooer missus}

You're a liar. I watched you visit that thread the day it was posted.

Although I think I understand where you are coming from, I do not agree with you and I believe your opinion of moral equivalence is not accurate when discussing Bush and Bin Laden. With regards to Afghanistan, the Taliban was providing refuge for terrorists and pointedly refused to hand over Bin Laden (as well as terrorizing the Afghan people) after 9/11. Under the principle of self-defense, the US was entitled under international law to take action in Afghanistan. I certainly hope that you are not attempting to claim that the US has no right to defend itself against terrorist attacks, although given the above comments of yours, if you were the President of the US, how would you have reacted to the 9/11 attacks?

As for what was reported on Iran, we certainly don't have all of the information, but I ask you to consider the role of Iran in supporting or carrying out attacks on US troops in Iraq and US interests elsewhere (Khobar Towers, for example). Then I ask you what you feel would be appropriate action for the US to defend itself from these attacks, bearing in mind that international law gives the US that right.

Finally, your question, "if one can do it, why not the others" is a bit vague, but as I pointed out international law permits a state to defend itself (read:its people and territory). It does not permit individuals (to include terrorists) to use unlawful force. You can bring natural law into such a discussion, but the precepts of and codified international law is what says why "the others" don't have an automatic or unbridled right to do "it".

funny, I would have said that violence was his aim. What he considers to be the right kind of muslim seems to sometimes depend on what daz of the week it is.

To me the difference between Nelson and Osama is that one was a freedom fighter and the other is fighting to take that away. But neither of us have talked to either persons about their aims or what they were actually responsible for so its speculation on both parts. I dont take charges brought against people from an opposition party by political parties such as the ANP as absolute truth, Im of course not saying that it isnt either.


_{Bleedin eck, the letters on my keyboard seem to be jumbled up.}

Man, it's way too hot for popcorn today.

@Conquistador:
Moral equivalence? No, none whatsoever I'm just playing devil's advocate. Right for the US to hit Afghanistan? Almost certainly. To hit Iraq? Almost certainly not. Iran attacking the US forces in Iraq? Well now we know the US special forces are killing Iranians in their home country I can imagine the Iranians arguing they have the same right to go after the US who are based in Iraq. I don't support that view as being justified, but I can see how it can be made by Iranian politicians. The cycle of violence is now complete.

My points are more of a personal comparison between the approach, rhetoric, deceptions, and use of religious statute to justify action of Bush and Bin-Laden, and then also violence by Mandela. Bush does not have the required permission for much of his aggression, and that is a widely held belief even amongst friendly governments around the world.

Got to go, have fun...

His aim is not to be violent. He is violent in order to achieve his aims - reduction in Western influence in Middle East etc.

The word "freedom fighter" is the word used to describe terrorists whose aims your broadly agree with. This is indicative of the whole jist of the thread - it is all based on opinion and whether you sympathise with a terrorists cause.

You are arguing natural law here, and yes the apartheid regime had a lot of unjust and oppressive laws that violated the rights of black South Africans. What you and HA seem to miss is that does not mean that the ANC's use of violence was sanctioned by any law- and please do attempt to say that I am saying that the ANC should not have resisted the apartheid regime. If you are going to argue for the right to stand up to oppressive regimes, do you draw the line at the border's edge, or can other nations assist?

It should also be pointed out that the manner and extent to which the apartheid regime reacted to ANC violence is acknowledged as violations of human rights.


Your premise that it is "my standards" is gravely in error. I don't make laws; however, I think you would be hard-pressed to find an official legal basis for such a coup. Once again I stress it- I don't make these laws nor do I interpret them!

As for your examples of two dictatorships, I would be very happy if the long-suffering people of both countries overthrew Kim Jong Il and Robert Mugabe (although I would mourn the innocent people killed in the process) but since you are going for "what good for the goose is good for the gander", how about this: Saddam Hussein and the Taliban ran some awful and brutal dictatorships- perhaps Bush had no choice since Iraqis and Afghanis could not overthrow them by themselves. Why would Iraqis and Afghans had been justified in overthrowing the terrible dictators that oppressed them but not a third party?

As for your question of treason, it goes to whether the Zimababwean laws would be applied in a moral or immoral manner in charging someone with treason. We can safely assume the latter.

No one gets prosecuted for sucessfully overthrowing a dictator in a coup because it is obvious that the dicator's oppression gives just cause under natural law. That doesn't mean that there is a stautory justification or official condoning of it in national law.

One last thing (hypothetical question here, and I stress that no one should get any notion that any such thing should be done or actually countenanced), Hazza and HA, do you believe that if someone killed Bush citing his actions or sucessfully overthrew the US government for whatever reason or however it was accomplished, that those actions would be justified, or do you feel that the assassin(s) and coup participants should be punished under the law for their actions?

and as I said there, I genuinely have no memory of having seen it. I click on a lot of threads actually and take great exceptionb to being called a 'liar'

OK, that would mean that you would describe Mandela as a freedom fighter unless you disagree with what he was trying to achieve. So by that logic, if you call Mandela a terrorist, you would have to have been against the abolition of apartheid...

Indeed Hazza. I do see what you mean Nick, but would you also have called the guys who attempted to bomb hitler, terrorists? It seems to be a popular word at the moment, but I think its a real fuzzy area.

I didn't really explain it too well. Should have included agreeing with the means by which they try to achieve their goals.

I find that exceptionally hard to believe seeing that you were active on the thread, then were in mid-reply (and presumably thought better of posting and bumping the thread up the list), but it really makes no difference to me. If you take great exception to being called a liar on a web forum then your priorities are all out of whack.

I think a simple rule of thumb should be: Can we be fairly certain that our 3rd party assistance will make life better for the people we're trying to "help"? With Afghanistan, this was undoubtably the case (if followed through properly), with Zimbabwe it would also be pretty clear. Nth Korea would probably be a "no" at this stage. The war would be long and protraced, plus the brainwashing that the citizens have had wouldn't help.

With Iraq, it wasn't even the initial goal of the invasion, but came as an afterthought when no WMD were found - and so far life has been worse for them.

So yeah, it's a judgement call on whom you assist...but it's usually better to err on the side of caution. Many, many dictatorships have been brought down through (mostly) peaceful means and almost always from within it's own country. Better not to start wars to "save" people unless there is a large and immediate threat to the local population (Rwanda, but not Iraq)

We don't know for sure that US troops are killing anyone in Iran, and if they are, don't conveniently forget about self-defense and Iranian actions in Iraq. Common sense suggests that there would not be any US Special Forces insertion into if Iranians were not killing Americans in Iraq or assisting those who are.

There are some who will argue that Saddam's violations of UN resolutions justified the use of force against him, in addition to any self-defense concerns surrounding the WMD programs he was thought by everyone to have.

Too bad you weren't bold enough to say what you would have done as US President. It's a lot easier from the peanut gallery, isn't it?

Really?? I thought hardly anyone actually believed that despite the dishonesty of the US government, and that's why the "coalition of the willing" was more like the "coalition of the bribed", because that's all they could get.

If everyone had thought he actually had WMD, then there would have been a tad more support, wouldn't you think?

Come on, Hazza, even critics such as the French didn't try to say that he did not have them. Are you going to claim that you knew for sure in 2002/2003 that he did not?

BTW, interesting to see that you admit that there is a case for use of force against dictators beyond the letter of the law. BTW, even in cases where they go "peacefully" there is almost always outside pressure of some sort playing a role.

Example?


There were all sorts of contradictory reports on the issue and no one was 100% either way. Everything that is being said now on WMD, or the lack thereof, is 20-20 hindsight.