Was Nelson Mandela a Terrorist?

Not sure exactly where to start this topic.I have a relative who is espousing that Nelson Mandela is a terrorist, communist and basically the devil incarnate. I admit I am not the most adept at this piece of history and would like to see hard core evidence of exactly what he was or was not responsible for. Some call Mandela a terrorist others a freedom fighter.This relative claims that Nelson Mandela was a culprit in the Church Street Bombings and other terrorist activity in South Africa even while he was in prison. They claim that he stated in his book "Long Walk to Freedom" that he acknowledged to signing off on this terrorist event. However I have never seen a page number or quoted paragraph affirming this. I also pulled up the book on Google book and looking for various keywords such as "sign", "church", "bomb", etc could not find the reference described above. Most of the websites I did find were white supremacist related however.From a website The Backbencher - Gossiping about politics and politicking about gossip since 2012 it lists the following terrorist activities attributed to Mandela, all while he was in prison:-Church Street West, Pretoria, on the 20 May 1983
-Amanzimtoti Shopping complex KZN, 23 December 1985
-Krugersdorp Magistrate’s Court, 17 March 1988
-Durban Pick ‘n Pay shopping complex, 1 September 1986
-Pretoria Sterland movie complex 16 April 1988 — limpet mine killed ANC terrorist M O Maponya instead
-Johannesburg Magistrate’s Court, 20 May 1987
-Roodepoort Standard Bank 3 June, 1988I acknowledge that Mandela was no saint, and earlier in his life advocated violent insurrection against the South African Apartheid government. He himself even admits this. However, my question is, did Mandela advocate terrorism against unarmed civilians?I am just curious if anyone has heard of these accusations and what is the ground truth in this matter. Please keep the discussion to facts based in reality not in baseless accusations. Back up all discussion with verifiable evidence. Appreciate anyone's help with discovering the truth on this.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Yes. I am looking for the truth in the matter. I would like to find evidence which disproves that he was responsible in the bombings and terrorist activities of innocent people as given in the list in my OS. That is my initial statement based on looking for keywords. However, not having read the book myself I cannot confirm that 100%. I will probably purchase the book and read it online in the near future to validate this. Yes but I haven't found any yet. I have but either find the two extremes on the internet, either glorifying everything he did or blaming him for all the violence that has occurred in South Africa. In other words most of what I find on the internet concerning Nelson Mandela claims his innocence or culpability without backing up these claims with verifiable evidence (his own writings and statements, others writings and statements, reports, etc). That is the truth I am after. However as in science, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Do you have legitimate sources that confirm this? Trust me, my relative is not a white supremacist. I don't think he even knows where the stuff he comes from probably originates from. That is why I am trying to engage him on this. However, I would like some evidence to counter his baseless claims. That is my goal in this.

AZPaul,Awesome, thank you for the reference. I am reading this now.I agree that there can be a fine line on what considers freedom fighting and terrorism. However, I think the distinction is that true freedom fighters do not intentionally use violence to kill innocent civilians in their fight for freedom (however, unintentional casualties in this struggle can and do occur); whereas terrorist whole-hardheartedly and intentionally use this technique to further their cause.Americans would be liars and hypocrites if they said there was no distinction between freedom fighting and terrorism. That statement would in itself undermine the basis for the American government established by the American war for revolution in the 1700s. Innocent lives were certainly lost when the American colonists fought against the repressive regime of Great Britain. In fact the American colonists had much more rights and freedoms than the blacks of South America. I think it is tragic and ironic that these same people who claim to uphold the traditions and philosophy of the American founding fathers at the same time denounce those who advocates and activists in bringing equality and freedom for all people in their country like Nelson Mandela. Just my two cents in the matter. Am I wrong on this?Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

I am sure our American ancestors could have answered similar questions about the British. Now, don't go painting with too wide a brush. There are enough of us out there with critical thinking skills to keep them in check, at least for now. Being a military member it is hard to comment on these as few see what the alternative could have been. What is the lesser of evils? Should we have let the war in the Pacific run its due course and let millions of more people die? Probably risking the eradication of the entire Japanese population in carpet bombing and a full scale invasion of Japan? I don't know the answer to this. No one does. One can only speculate. However, Japan's ultra-zealous military leaders would not even back down after the first atomic bomb was dropped. So that should tell you the level of commitment they had to not surrendering and the lethality of their own population that would have been committed to fighting against an allied invasion. You think D-Day was bad. That would have been child's play compared to an American invasion of the home turf of Japan with every Japanese civilian brainwashed to kill Americans.I agree that Mandela does not have that level of blood on his hands. I think the only thing negative you can say about him, besides that he was sympathetic with communist causes was that he was at the time married to a women who most likely had much more blood on her hands than he with the ANC sanctioned terrorist acts in the 1980's, while Mandela was in prison. Mandela could have turned into an Idi Amin but he did not. He led South Africa out of the repressive apartheid and into peaceful white and black co-led government with minimal bloodshed. He should be applauded and commended for his heroic effort in minimizing bloodshed in his country.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Thanks for the links!

I am actually in agreement with most of what you say. Our ancestors answer was armed insurrection. I do not accept nor forgive the responses of why the white Europeans tried to eradicate American natives or believe that manifest destiny was a legitimate reason for pushing Native Americans off their lands and destroying their way of life. Probably not, but what is the alternative? I am not trying to judge, just determining what in past history we could have done differently to end Japanese aggression in the Pacific during WWII. I am not saying it is as important as the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What is the alternative? Should we have paid more lives to end the war? I don't know. I agree. Hitler went to prison for insurrection against the government and came out full of hate. We all know the consequences of that hate. Mandela went to prison for insurrection against the government and came out determined to find a way to change the government peacefully. Mandela could have been another Idi Amin, but he wasn't. He led his people and his country to peaceful change by putting away bitterness and hate. Because of that there was never a bloody revolutionary war like in Zimbabwe (Rhodesia) and the Congo.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Can you back this up with evidence? I asked in the OS to provide evidence not just unsubstantiated statements. And no, a link to someone else saying he was a terrorist does not count. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Interesting because the TRC report you provide above was presented to then South African President Mandela in 1998.Even though Nelson co-founded MK, when he was in prison he was not involved in its violence in the 1980s (no evidence has yet been provided that he guided or approved of MK acts of violence while he was in prison), and sought peaceful solutions to reducing the violence including the establishment of the TRC through the "Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Acto of 1995" while he was president. Bullshit, that a "very, very small percentage of political deaths were caused by the Government".The Apartheid government certainly has much blood on their hands with the oppression and denial of civil rights of non-whites:Native Lands Act of 1913, 1936 Development Trust and Land Act, 1936, 1937 Unbeneficial Occupation of Farms Act, 1946 Coloured Persons Settlement Act, etc)
- reduced percentage of land that could be owned by non-white native inhabitants to less than 7.3% of total South African land (similar to what the U.S. did with Native Americans). Black South African's were 61% of the population at that time. Black South African's were relegated to be tenant farmers of farms solely owned by white South Africans. Africans are allowed to be on white land only if they are working for whites. Blacks are fired from jobs which are given to whitesForced removals of hundreds of thousands of blacks occurred in the 1940s and 1950s, including over 60,000 from Johannesburg under the Western Areas Removal Scheme. Areas they previously lived in before removal were bulldozed and white suburbs were errected in their place. The same thing occurred in Capetown when 50,000 were forced to move. Overall more than 3.5 million black South Africans (over 15% of all black South Africans) lost their homes and were forced to relocate from 1961-1994.In 1951, the Bantu Homelands Act is enacted. Through this law, the white government declares that the lands reserved for black Africans are independent nations. In this way, the government strips millions of blacks of their South African citizenship and forces them to become residents of their new "homelands." Blacks are now considered foreigners in white-controlled South Africa, and need passports to enter. Blacks only enter to serve whites in menial jobs.A "Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act 55" of 1949, prohibited the marriage between whites and people of other races. Blacks were not allowed to run businesses or professional practices in areas designated as "white South Africa" unless they had a permit. Segregation was official policy. Trains, hospitals and ambulances were segregated. Blacks were excluded from living or working in white areas, unless they had a pass, nicknamed the dompas ("dumb pass" in Afrikaans). In the 1970s the state spent ten times more per child on the education of white children than on black children within the Bantu Education system (the education system in black schools within white South Africa).The Abolition of Passes and Coordination of Documents Act is enacted in 1952. This misleadingly-named law requires all Africans to carry identification booklets with their names, addresses, fingerprints, and other information. (See picture at right.) Africans are frequently stopped and harassed for their passes. Between 1948-1973, over ten million Africans were arrested because their passes were "not in order."The majority of blacks were denied the right to vote. The 1936 Representation of Voters Act weakens the political rights for Africans in some regions and allows them to vote only for white representatives. In order to limit contact between the races, the government established separate public facilities for whites and non-whites, limited the activity of nonwhite labor unions and denied non-white participation in national government. Non-whites cannot attend white universities.Violence by the Apartheid government:
a. African Mine Workers' Union strike- In 1946, African mine workers are paid twelve times less than their white counterparts and are forced to do the most dangerous jobs. Over 75,000 Africans go on strike in support of higher wages. Police use violence (batons, bayonets, and gunfire) to force the unarmed workers back to their jobs. Over 1248 workers are injured and 9 are killed.b. A group calling itself the Congress of the People adopted a Freedom Charter in 1955 asserting that "South Africa belongs to all who live in it, black or white." The government broke up the meeting and arrested 150 people, charging them with high treason.c. Sharpeville Massacre - In March 1960 police fired upon a crowd protesting against the pass laws in Sharpeville, killing at least 69 people and injuring over 187 others. This is followe by the government declararing a state of emergency and responds with fines, imprisonment, and whippings.d. Under apartheid's various terrorism laws, 131 government opponents were executed. The state claimed that many others committed suicide in detention. At least some of these were tortured to death.e. Soweto Uprising- A series of protests led by high school students in South Africa in 1976. People in Soweto riot and demonstrate against discrimination and instruction in Afrikaans, the language of whites descended from the Dutch. The police react with gunfire. 575 people are killed, many school children, and thousands are injured and arrested by South African police. Steven Biko is beaten and left in jail to die from his injuries. Protesters against apartheid link arms in a show of resistance.e. In 1983, the SAP formed C1, a counter-insurgency unit commanded by police colonel and former Koevoet operator Eugene de Kock. C1 was run out of a secluded farmhouse called Vlakplaas from until 1994. C1 functioned as a paramilitary hit squad, capturing political opponents of the National Party government and either "turning" or executing them. C1 was also responsible for several fatal bomb attacks against anti-apartheid activists, including members of the African National Congress. The Vlakplaas farm became the site of multiple executions of political opponents of the apartheid government.I am not saying that the MK did not commit its own acts of sensless violence. They did. However, don't white-wash and absolve the despicable South African Apartheid government of its crimes.I asked for facts that proved Mandela personally committed or approved of acts of terrorism. Co-founding an anti-Apartheid militaristic organization in 1961 and being arrested a year later before any violent acts were committed does not count as terrorism.Sources: http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/discrim/race_b_at_print.aspJustice/HomeApartheid In South Africa: Laws, End & Facts - HISTORY PROMOTION OF NATIONAL UNITY AND RECONCILIATION ACT, 1995 [Act 95-34, 26 July 1995] http://upload.wikimedia.org/.../en/1/13/Hector_pieterson.jpgSoweto uprising - Wikipedia Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

I did a search of the book and did not find the figures you say exist. Please provide page numbers for these claimed statistics.Even if these figures are correct, they don't come any where near the more than 850,000 dead (nearly 2% of the total population) caused by white on whites during the United States Civil War. That is compared to your 8580 black-on-black deaths out of 33,000,000 South African population or 0.026% of the total population. That is a hundred fold difference between white on white violence and black on black fatalities during two country's civil wars. Should we start adding up all the white on non-white fatalities? The figures would certainly put your pitiful statistics to shame. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

All at the hands of the Apartheid regime not ANC. I don't see where it says that 7000 were by actions of the ANC. Please provide an exact page number for this number. Not saying they didn't happen but the 7000 deaths directly caused by ANC is not found in Coleman's book, the SAPA report, or the Truth and Reconcilliation report that I have found.I looked in your sources. I found where the 80,000 detentions, etc came from here: http://www.justice.gov.za/trc/media/1997/9705/s970527b.htm
However, nowhere does it say these deaths were caused by the ANC. These figures support the opposite of what you are saying. These figures support apartheid repression.I think it is ironic you are using reports which claim the opposite of what you are stating and these reports were given at the direction of Mandela as the then South African President himself. Mandela's administation set up the South African Human Rights Commission and the Truth and Reconcilliation Commision.I am not saying that the ANC was without its violent history or there was no black-on-black violence (aka necklacing and other attrocious events). There certainly was. However, this violence virtually stopped when Mandella was released from prison and started taking the political reigns of his country. Does South Africa still have problems. Sure it does, just as many urban areas in the U.S. It will take decades to reverse the destruction caused by the Apartheid regime and provide equality for all people.I still have not seen any evidence tieing the ANC bombings of the 1980s with Mandella. All I see from you is statistics that point the opposite to what you are claiming.

Please provide direct page number, because I just did a search and do not see the number 7000 listed anywhere in there.And I am still waiting for evidence that Mandela orchestrated the MK bombings in the 1980s. So you are tying vigilante deaths to the ANC? Why is ANC any more culpable than the Apartheid run government for vigilante deaths?Here is what the TRC reports says about South African vigalentism Pretty clear to me where the brunt of the blame of vigilantist violence lies.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Provide evidence. Just saying the majority of vigilante deaths were caused by the ANC does not make it so. Referring to statistics with no attribution to exactly who caused them does not evidence make.The sources that YOU cite (whether they are correct or not) make the opposite claim than what you are claiming. Your sources claim that the majority of deaths were directly or indirectly caused by the Apartheid government (whether that is true or not). So provide evidence to back up YOUR claim that the majority of these deaths were caused by ANC and anti-Apartheid groups.I am not claiming that ANC does not have blood on their hands. They do as well as others. However, the Apartheid government and their oppresive regime instigated and spurred this violence on as shown numerous times through all the reports you cite.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.