Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,648 Year: 4,905/9,624 Month: 253/427 Week: 63/103 Day: 7/14 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Was Nelson Mandela a Terrorist?
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 31 of 77 (712907)
12-08-2013 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by DevilsAdvocate
12-08-2013 1:05 AM


Now, don't go painting with too wide a brush.
I don't believe I did.
I am sure our American ancestors could have answered similar questions about the British.
Really? Because I don't think most Americans have faced anything like the kind of oppression the apartheid regime routinely applied. What was our ancestors answer?
We might also ask our ancestors how to best respond to Native American attacks or to being fired upon by colored troops in an opposing army. I expect that the answers would be self serving and reprehensible to many of us, and yet others of us would readily understand and forgive those responses.
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?
Is 'the lesser of evils' really the way to judge? If that is the standard, then how can the question of whether Mandela was a terrorist be the least bit important? Why not just pick a side of the conflict and judge whether the results actions helped your side. Because only when the most important thing is who died, and not that humans died can 'the lesser of evils' be used to justify nuking two cities.
For this discussion, it is not necessary to decide on which was the lesser of two evils. If that choice is giving you difficulty, you are likely a decent human being. And a decent human being should at least accept that Mandela might have faced equally difficult choices.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-08-2013 1:05 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-08-2013 8:53 AM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 32 of 77 (712908)
12-08-2013 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Jon
12-07-2013 8:58 PM


Re: No.
Yenmor's just a criminal.
This statement, coming from a man who believes the Wilmington Massacre was pure 'democracy in action', is pretty close to laughable.
Since yenmor is a criminal why don't you tell us what would be appropriate punishment for his thought crimes.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Jon, posted 12-07-2013 8:58 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Jon, posted 12-08-2013 11:06 AM NoNukes has replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2603
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 33 of 77 (712915)
12-08-2013 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by NoNukes
12-07-2013 6:07 PM


NoNukes writes:
I don't honestly know what, if any violence is fairly attributed to or was endorsed by Nelson Mandela. But it would have to be pretty horrible if it dwarfed the bad karma generated from nuking entire cities or even some of our drone strikes. I highly doubt that Mandela has that kind of blood on his hands.
NoNukes channeling the Dronester??
Yeah!

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by NoNukes, posted 12-07-2013 6:07 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3187 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(1)
Message 34 of 77 (712918)
12-08-2013 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by NoNukes
12-08-2013 1:51 AM


Really? Because I don't think most Americans have faced anything like the kind of oppression the apartheid regime routinely applied. What was our ancestors answer?
I am actually in agreement with most of what you say. Our ancestors answer was armed insurrection.
We might also ask our ancestors how to best respond to Native American attacks or to being fired upon by colored troops in an opposing army. I expect that the answers would be self serving and reprehensible to many of us, and yet others of us would readily understand and forgive those responses.
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.
Is 'the lesser of evils' really the way to judge?
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.
If that is the standard, then how can the question of whether Mandela was a terrorist be the least bit important?
I am not saying it is as important as the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Because only when the most important thing is who died, and not that humans died can 'the lesser of evils' be used to justify nuking two cities.
What is the alternative? Should we have paid more lives to end the war? I don't know.
And a decent human being should at least accept that Mandela might have faced equally difficult choices.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by NoNukes, posted 12-08-2013 1:51 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by NoNukes, posted 12-08-2013 11:47 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 77 (712921)
12-08-2013 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by NoNukes
12-08-2013 1:55 AM


Re: No.
This statement, coming from a man who believes the Wilmington Massacre was pure 'democracy in action', is pretty close to laughable.
As is pretty much any civil war. But anyone who knows they can get the same results without the deaths of a whole bunch of people and yet chooses the route that ensures the deaths of a whole bunch of people is simply a vile and disgusting human being.
And when they promote such evil from the comfort of their first-world armchair, sipping coffee in their sweatshop pajamas, the immorality of their ideas is only made greater.
Since yenmor is a criminal why don't you tell us what would be appropriate punishment for his thought crimes.
My statement is clear enough for anyone who wishes to understand it. The word 'criminal' does not just refer only to law-breaking behavior; though I can see how a 'creationist at heart' might take it that way, and willfully refuse to accept the possibility of a less-than-literal interpretation of the term.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by NoNukes, posted 12-08-2013 1:55 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by NoNukes, posted 12-08-2013 11:56 AM Jon has replied
 Message 39 by yenmor, posted 12-08-2013 4:18 PM Jon has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 77 (712922)
12-08-2013 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by DevilsAdvocate
12-08-2013 8:53 AM


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.
I did not intend to question you about this. I don't see any problem with asking what Mandela did or did not do. You are not the villain here.
just determining what in past history we could have done differently to end Japanese aggression in the Pacific during WWII.
Perhaps that is a debate for another time. For this discussion, it would be a deep rabbit hole.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-08-2013 8:53 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 77 (712924)
12-08-2013 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Jon
12-08-2013 11:06 AM


Re: No.
The word 'criminal' does not just refer only to law-breaking behavior
Actually, that is exactly what the term was intended to mean. You can extend it beyond that yes. But to extend it to people who are simply discussing things they might do in hypothetical situations, is ridiculous. We do have other words that work quite well to describe people who don't think like you do.
But anyone who knows they can get the same results without the deaths of a whole bunch of people and yet chooses the route that ensures the deaths of a whole bunch of people is simply a vile and disgusting human being.
Not getting what you want doesn't justify violence. And Yenmor described a response to a lot more provocation than was involved in the Willmington Massacre. Perhaps you are the 'criminal'.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Jon, posted 12-08-2013 11:06 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Jon, posted 12-08-2013 12:30 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 77 (712926)
12-08-2013 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by NoNukes
12-08-2013 11:56 AM


Re: No.
Perhaps you are the 'criminal'.
How so?

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by NoNukes, posted 12-08-2013 11:56 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
yenmor
Member (Idle past 3742 days)
Posts: 145
Joined: 07-01-2013


Message 39 of 77 (712938)
12-08-2013 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Jon
12-08-2013 11:06 AM


Re: No.
Here's my take on this. When I read your posts and jar's and others' on here, I see the same thought process as the tea party rhetoric that we see. Same coin, different sides. Basically speaking, you can't stand others who disagree with you. At some point, you've come to a certain conclusion about something, and god forbids if anyone disagrees with it.
Regarding reconciliation and forgiveness, I simply refuse to accept that great evil has no consequences. I don't believe in god or heaven or hell. I fear for what comes in the unforeseeable future every time an evil doer is reassured by people like you that they can do all the evil they want to without any consequence at all if they lose.
That's my stance. Yours is one of liberal hippy forgive and forget. Since it's the popular thing to say and believe nowadays, I'm not surprised you're so bold with your words.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Jon, posted 12-08-2013 11:06 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Jon, posted 12-08-2013 4:35 PM yenmor has replied
 Message 46 by Son Goku, posted 12-09-2013 7:34 AM yenmor has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 77 (712940)
12-08-2013 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by yenmor
12-08-2013 4:18 PM


Re: No.
That's my stance. Yours is one of liberal hippy forgive and forget. Since it's the popular thing to say and believe nowadays, I'm not surprised you're so bold with your words.
It's really unfortunate that you feel this way.
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by yenmor, posted 12-08-2013 4:18 PM yenmor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by yenmor, posted 12-08-2013 5:41 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
yenmor
Member (Idle past 3742 days)
Posts: 145
Joined: 07-01-2013


Message 41 of 77 (712945)
12-08-2013 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Jon
12-08-2013 4:35 PM


Re: No.
What? No accusations of criminality or other tea party rhetoric? I'm shocked.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Jon, posted 12-08-2013 4:35 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 42 of 77 (713005)
12-09-2013 4:25 AM


Yes, he sure was in his young days.
I'm not a right wing fundamentalist at all; in fact, I've been accused of being a 'radical, left wing communist' on these forums before.
Ghandi was much, much more of a role-model: no violence allowed. From the beginning till the end.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-09-2013 5:47 AM Pressie has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3187 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 43 of 77 (713008)
12-09-2013 5:47 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Pressie
12-09-2013 4:25 AM


Yes, he sure was in his young days.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Pressie, posted 12-09-2013 4:25 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Pressie, posted 12-09-2013 5:52 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied
 Message 45 by Pressie, posted 12-09-2013 6:20 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 44 of 77 (713011)
12-09-2013 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by DevilsAdvocate
12-09-2013 5:47 AM


Sure.
uMkhonto we Sizwe - Wikipedia
Then also look at the official reports.
http://www.justice.gov.za/...port/finalreport/Volume%202.pdf
The overwhelming majority of political deaths were caused by MK; Nelson started MK. A very, very small percentage of political deaths were caused by the Government. That's the official figures by the TRC.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-09-2013 5:47 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-09-2013 1:06 PM Pressie has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 45 of 77 (713014)
12-09-2013 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by DevilsAdvocate
12-09-2013 5:47 AM


Sure can back it up with evidence.
Max Coleman's book called 'Apartheid; a crime against humanity' provides the figures. You can buy the book at Just a moment...
In it, the analyses of all deaths due to political violence from 1948 to 1994 in South Africa and Namibia are provided. Statistics were obtained form the TRC.
From there:
According to the HRC statistics, 21,000 people died in political violence in South Africa during apartheid - of whom 14,000 people died during the six-year transition process from 1988 to 1994.
The book also lists the number of incidents, dates, and those involved. This includes SA Defence Force actions, for instance the 600 deaths at Kassinga in Angola during the war in 1978.
Of those deaths, the vast majority, 92%, have been primarily due to Africans killing Africans -- such as the inter-tribal battles for territory: this book's detailed analyses of the period June 1990 to July 1993 indicates a total of 8580 (92%) of the 9,325 violent deaths during the period June 1990 to July 1993 were caused by Africans killing Africans, or as the news media often calls it, "Black on Black" violence - hostel killings, Inkatha Freedom Party versus ANC killlings, and taxi and turf war violence.
The activities of the Civil Cooperation Bureau as outlined by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, were also included in these figures.
The security forces caused 518 deaths (5.6%) throughout this period (1948 to 1994). This included Sharpeville (1960) and Soweto (1976). A much lower figure than the security forces under George W Bush managed to do in eight years.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-09-2013 5:47 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-09-2013 10:46 PM Pressie has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024