Mandela's dead

[patches70]

I wish I were single. I'd like to tickle women.

I just email the link to this very post to your wife.....

Happy anniversary!



Just kidding

[oVo]

95 year old man dies shocker

Captain Obvious! I don't mourn his passing,
but I do celebrate his life.

[2dimes]

It doesn't matter how old somebody is, if you like them and yep they die it sucks.

If it was not a huge hassle to tickle my wife I suppose I'd scratch that itch.

[mrswdk]

Ironically, that was Zuma's defense in his rape trial, he was just tickling the woman

I wish I were single. I'd like to tickle women.

[BigBallinStalin]

Never let a few facts get in the way of proper hero worship.

The South African government with their apartheid policies killed more civilians including women and children in a single incident putting down a peaceful protest for citizen rights than all the bombings combined. It is one of the events that unified the world against the South African government. Global industries had tolerated the racist regime because they didn't want to disrupt the flow of raw materials out of Africa.

Mandela spent nearly three decades in prison and upon his release didn't seek revenge or retaliation against his captors and even incorporated members of that same regime in the post apartheid government.

Just because an oppressive government falls doesn't mean all the problems of a country will dry up and blow away. I'm not calling Mandela an angel, but I also cannot deny his impact on the World we live in and the sacrifices he made to accomplish this change.

Nelson Mandel was exactly as awesome as I think he is.

Is this a justification for killing innocent civilians?

[Lootifer]

Tell me Patches, have you read long walk to freedom?

Second question. Do you celebrate what Nelson Mandela and Frederik Willem de Klerk achieved together?

Third question. Do you think that Nelson Madnelas approach to Rugby and the Springboks was a hugely valuable gesture/strategy for the whole of SA?

Final question. If you answered yes to all of the above why are you being so antagonistic in this thread?

Yes Mandela made mistakes/very poor decisions. Yes ANC/Zuma et al is a corrupt rotten organization/group. Yes SA had, and still has, many serious problems in the wake of apartheid. None of these things make me not want to celebrate the man.

[patches70]

Final question. If you answered yes to all of the above why are you being so antagonistic in this thread?

I'll answer your questions if you go back and answer mine. No one wants to answer those though, so why should I answer yours?

The OP is pretty much just a troll. But if you look at the second post of the OP, look at that antagonism. Agent 86 took great offense that it could even be suggested that Mandela was a terrorist. That offense in unwarranted.
A view of history shows that it is quite fair to call Mandela a terrorist. At least he was. That he turned away from violence once his goals are reached is true as well.
So did Arafat and he could still (fairly) be called a terrorist as well.
It's not my fault you all miss that point of mine, which is really my only point and for some reason a matter of contention when there shouldn't be any contention if one were actually honest with themselves.

I don't have anything against Mandela. He accomplished great things. But I don't celebrate violence or violent people. Sorry, can't help it. Mandela did what he had to do I guess. It's not easy overthrowing a government and often enough it gets violent. Mandela certainly could be considered a great man but he's no Ghandi or even close.

The way people talk about Mandela you'd have think he'd risen from the dead by now.

It's fine and dandy that many of you can separate Mandela from the ANC. I am not one of those though, the two are linked forever. Mandela wouldn't be who he is thought of without the ANC and the ANC wouldn't be in power without Mandela.

I mean, how many children is it alright to kill to accomplish a noble goal? How many innocent civilians is it acceptable to have die to reach one's ends? And does the killing of innocents affect the nobility of the goal?
Once one accepts that it's worth it to shed innocent blood for a worthy cause then one can't complain because another decides on a "worthy cause" that in another's view might not be so worthy. <shrugs> It's a messed up world. It's like that in war, innocents and civilians die, should we celebrate that?

Mandela is a man like any other. He is not head and shoulders above all others, not even close in the way of a Mother Theresa who deserves much more praise than should ever be given to Mandela. The ANC and Mandela's war against Apartheid was brutality vs brutality. And because after he won and said he wasn't going to be brutal anymore I should bow down and hero worship him and shout down any criticism of him at all?

Naw, that doesn't seem right to me. And the ANC's brutality survives even if Mandela tried to separate himself from it with a well designed, well executed PR effort.
So, celebrate away and don't think too much about how the goal was accomplished, only that the goal was accomplished. That's fine by me if you wish to do that.

The ideology of The Ends justify the Means leads to terrible events and blurs the lines of good and evil, right and wrong. But apparently, two wrongs do make a right.
<shrugs> Whatever dudes.

But don't take my indifference to Mandela as outright condemnation of him either. I understand that overthrowing a government is dirty business that often enough takes dirty men and deeds to accomplish. Not always mind you, but often enough it's a messy thing.

I'm not happy he's dead, I'm not sad he's dead. And I'd just as soon let him rest in peace and hope that someday the mess he helped create gets fixed. But to say that SA if better off because "democracy rawr!" is far too simplistic IMO. I don't know it it is or not. Apartheid ended is a good thing. The ANC in charge is a bad thing. Either way people are getting screwed over. I'm not one to pick who it is that gets screwed over.
Democracy ain't all it's cracked up to be after all.

Is ending Apartheid a worthy cause? Sure!
Does it matter how that cause is achieved? You betcha!

[BigBallinStalin]

Will strict adherence to such absolute moral standards lead to beneficial changes?

e.g. Suppose we're deciding on starting a revolution in order to establish a more democratic government within 'our homeland' (wherever that may be). There is some chance that innocent people will get killed (e.g. as consequences of our assassinations, bombings, government reprisals, etc.). Since our chances of adhering to the Patches' Good Boys Morality Standard is very low, should the democratic project be canceled (so we'll do nothing violent about living under the less democratic government)?

[Agent 86]

How does one define a "terrorist"?
Different definitions by different people. The terrorist himself doesn't view himself as a terrorist, he views himself as a freedom fighter. As does all who are sympathetic with his cause.

If one defines a terrorist as someone who uses violence* to achieve political goals, then Mandela certainly fits the bill completely.

Then almost every political leader would be labelled a Terrorist

Mandela himself admitted that the ANC had indeed violated human rights in their struggles against Apartheid. Mandela was the leader of the ANC military wing and carried out attacks which killed not only government personnel but also civilians. The killing of civilians to achieve political goals is indeed a criteria for being labeled a "terrorist", is it not?
And Mandela was the leader of the faction that carried out those attacks.

So to you Mandela was a freedom fighter, but to those who were killed or relatives of those killed would certainly (and legitimately) disagree with you and would certainly view Mandela and the ANC is terrorist and terrorist organization.

Mandela was no saint. Freedom fighter has certain connotations that don't quite fit right with Mandela's and the ANC's actions.
It comes down to "do the ends justify the means?" If one answers "yes" to that question, then there is no such thing as a terrorist at all. Including people like Bin Laden. Because if the ends justify the means then it's perfectly legitimate to use planes flying into buildings to attempt to reach political goals. The killing of civilians is perfectly acceptable, because the ends justify the means.

Was it worth ending Apartheid if it meant that 1 in 4 women of the entire population were to be raped?

It just doesn't do justice to the horrible events in South Africa to say- "Mandela was a freedom fighter, simple as that!" It's not that simple, not by a long shot.
One can certainly make the legitimate argument that Mandela was a terrorist. Simply dismissing the argument does absolutely nothing to actually evaluating history at all.

Like I said, I like to believe that Mandela didn't intend for all those terrible things to happen under his watch by the organization he created. But the fact remains that terrible atrocities did happen under Mandela and under the thumb of his political party. It does no justice to the victims of the past or the future victims by ignoring those atrocities.

Mandela stood up for what he believed and changed South Africa for ever, the future will see that although it hasn't been exactly how he envisioned South Africa no longer has racial segregation.

*Violence using non uniformed, unconventional tactics an/or targeting civilians. War between two opposing, uniformed armies apparently doesn't consist of terrorism, though often enough the results are the same.

Great quote this one, absolves all past and current Presidents of the U.S.

[patches70]

Will strict adherence to such absolute moral standards lead to beneficial changes?

It worked for Ghandi. Of course, a lot of Indians died under British guns, but it was the British who were doing the killing. Of course, Ghandi was then later murdered by more violent prone Indian factions, so I guess whoever is the meanest dog on the block ends up ruling the neighborhood.

But when the British committed such acts it showed the British people the error of their ways. They were ashamed at what was done and that in turn led to Indian's Independence.
It is when we ignore the reality of what we are doing is how atrocities just keep on coming.

Then almost every political leader would be labelled a Terrorist

Yeah, pretty much. Don't you remember? Bush was a terrorist, Obama is a terrorist, so on and so on. Legitimate labels? I suppose it matters on who you are asking.
So in Mandela's case, who are you asking? No one apparently, you wouldn't even take a moment to understand.

Mandela stood up for what he believed

So did Timothy McVeigh, is he to be commended? Celebrated?

Great quote this one, absolves all past and current Presidents of the U.S.

You seem to not have guessed at why I used the word "apparently" in my quote and pointed out the hypocrisy. Take a look at the quote again-

*Violence using non uniformed, unconventional tactics an/or targeting civilians. War between two opposing, uniformed armies apparently doesn't consist of terrorism, though often enough the results are the same.

I absolve current and past Presidents of nothing. Not sure why you take this line.



Look, armed struggle against governments often gets violent. During the fight against Apartheid atrocities were committed on both sides. Mandela's and the ANC's tactics were absolutely terrorist attacks by pretty much every standard generally accepted.

That the terrorists attacks were committed in the effort toward something you consider worthy, you do not consider them to be terrorist acts.

Can you see how that thinking is part of the reason why there are terrorists?


Agent 86, just name a single terrorist. Someone whom you would consider absolutely, an unequivocal terrorist. Once you do now look at those who support that person's efforts. Those people do not consider that person as a terrorist. By your suggestion of that person being a terrorist in the eyes of his supporters, you would be attacked just as you are attacking me.

Your blind worship of Mandela makes you one of those people who simply turns a blind eye to inhumane acts so long as those acts are in efforts you support.

And that's ok, everyone has to choose sides I suppose, but just at least be honest with yourself exactly what you are.

Why get angry at people who are simply challenging your belief system? Considering your reaction to me you have no ground what so ever to challenge anyone else on their beliefs. Unless you don't mind being a hypocrite.

Mandela did what he thought he had to. That's fine, one should always be true to themselves. But don't try to sugar coat what one did. Mandela had a chance to go before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and he didn't. part of the reason was that the ANC wouldn't allow him to because that would have seriously caused some problems for the image that was created for Mandela. Mandela would have certainly received amnesty for his actions, but he would have had to of acknowledged his actions in front of the world.

I'm sorry that you and others can't accept that Mandela did plan, co ordinate, acquire funding and all other support to fund and carry out bombings that killed and crippled not only those guilty of abuses under Apartheid, but also innocent women and children. That's absolute fact.
You can at least say that is an unfortunate consequence of what had to be done. That it was "collateral damage" not intended (which doesn't really fly when bombs are placed in strictly civilian areas, but that's beside the point), but at least acknowledge it for what it was.
That's what honest people do who actually think for themselves.

Hell, had I been in Mandela's position I could easily have found myself in the same position. I can understand that. But I wasn't in that position. I have the luxury of being apart from it and able to see more sides, as you should be able to as well. And in doing such, I'm not obligated to feel the same way you do about Mandela.

Yes he changed SA. Yes he helped end Apartheid and that's a good thing. Yes he killed innocent people including women and children. Yes he thought he had to. And yes there is a cult of personality around the name of Nelson Mandela. Some of it justified, some of it complete hogwash.

Thus I find Mandela but a mere typical human being no better than the average person and in some ways, worse than the average person in other ways.

[Agent 86]

Blind worship, not at all. Think Mandela did more good than bad that's all.

:Mandela stood up for what he believed

So did Timothy McVeigh, is he to be commended? Celebrated?

With this crap that you are posting it is end of our discussion. Comparing apples with oranges..just stupid ( McVeigh )

On another note,

Honoring the man who inspired his political career, President Obama today hailed Nelson Mandela as the "last great liberator of the 20th century" and urged the world to continue his life's work for justice and equality. Comparing him to the great leaders who came before him, Obama likened Mandela's legacy to that of Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Abraham Lincoln.

Peace out 86

[patches70]

Yeah, here's Obama at Mandela's memorial happily taking a selfie-



I give his wife, Michelle props. At least she's classy enough to stay dignified.....

[Fewnix]

Agreed.

Blind worship, not at all. Think Mandela did more good than bad that's all.

:Mandela stood up for what he believed

So did Timothy McVeigh, is he to be commended? Celebrated?

With this crap that you are posting it is end of our discussion. Comparing apples with oranges..just stupid ( McVeigh )

On another note,

Honoring the man who inspired his political career, President Obama today hailed Nelson Mandela as the "last great liberator of the 20th century" and urged the world to continue his life's work for justice and equality. Comparing him to the great leaders who came before him, Obama likened Mandela's legacy to that of Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Abraham Lincoln.

Peace out 86

[AndyDufresne]

Yeah, here's Obama at Mandela's memorial happily taking a selfie-



I give his wife, Michelle props. At least she's classy enough to stay dignified.....

No harm, no foul. Celebration, foo'.


--Andy

[patches70]

I stand corrected! Michelle Obama is a real stick in the mud. She should get with the program. On a different note, did anyone else catch Flavor Flav there :38 into the video?

[Lootifer]

I don't have anything against Mandela. He accomplished great things. But I don't celebrate violence or violent people. Sorry, can't help it. Mandela did what he had to do I guess. It's not easy overthrowing a government and often enough it gets violent. Mandela certainly could be considered a great man but he's no Ghandi or even close.

Thats effectively all I was asking for, and I agree almost completely.

But then referring to McVeigh seems over the top...

You are right though, its mostly the OPs fault.

[patches70]

I don't have anything against Mandela. He accomplished great things. But I don't celebrate violence or violent people. Sorry, can't help it. Mandela did what he had to do I guess. It's not easy overthrowing a government and often enough it gets violent. Mandela certainly could be considered a great man but he's no Ghandi or even close.

Thats effectively all I was asking for, and I agree almost completely.

But then referring to McVeigh seems over the top...

You are right though, its mostly the OPs fault.

Oh I didn't mean to compare Mandela with McVeigh at all. Agent 86 said one of the criteria for be celebrated is because Mandela "believed in his cause". Well, all kinds of scum bags believe in all kinds of causes and being a true believer doesn't make one actions somehow right when they are wrong and morally repugnant. Even if circumstances somehow make it so that such terrible things must happen.
Ending Apartheid? Good cause IMO.
Killing children to achieve that cause? Morally repugnant at best.

McVeigh was his own kind of sociopath. Mandela is another type all together (not that is always a bad thing, a sociopath is a good thing to have in a fight and there are certainly way worse sociopaths in the ANC that far exceed Mandela....)

Moral relativity, sociopaths are good at rationalizing the pain they inflict. Again, it may be necessary considering the fight one is in but it's still repugnant.
All agent 86 has to say is that it was a necessary evil that innocent women and children had to die to end Apartheid. That he can't admit it shows something. Not sure what, but it does lead to other more interesting questions one should approach in their world view IMO. And it's not just Mandela, it's the whole cult of personality that is rife with hypocrisy.
Such as some who call(ed) Obama a "peacemaker" (he won the Nobel Peace Prize after all) and yet signs off on drone killings that have killed large numbers of civilians including women and children and continue to do so. (Bush did that! Bush did that! Yeah, so does Obama, what's the point?)
I can only shake my head in wonder at the ethic hoops someone must jump through to get such contradictory things to somehow go together.

Maybe I'm just incapable of understanding is all. That's possible I suppose. But I still don't see any credible reason to get angry at someone who labels Mandela as a terrorist. It's a fair label (not that I personally would label him such, I can just see that point of view and it has validity is all).

That's just my thoughts is all, people can think as they wish. And the OP is just a troll. I'm just having fun working through the thinking is all. I don't care if I'm called racist, right winger or anything else. Such ad hominem doesn't mean a thing. I'm just trying to get straight answers to difficult questions that the hero worship can't answer. I have yet to get any answers, I'm just called names.
Oh well.

[oVo]

I agree, the OP is a troll.

[mrswdk]

So a guy's not allowed to express an opinion any more?

[Lootifer]

So a guy's not allowed to express an opinion any more?

Just calling a spade a spade. Aint like its going to get moderated.

[Fewnix]

People are allowed to express their opinion in a wide variety of forums- but that doesn't guarantee people are going to take their opinion seriously. Someone arguing Mandela should be considered a terrorist because the US government listed him as a terrorist I find funny, not an opinion I can take seriously.


.

So a guy's not allowed to express an opinion any more?

[Phatscotty]

Yeah, here's Obama at Mandela's memorial happily taking a selfie-



I give his wife, Michelle props. At least she's classy enough to stay dignified.....

[mrswdk]

People are allowed to express their opinion in a wide variety of forums- but that doesn't guarantee people are going to take their opinion seriously. Someone arguing Mandela should be considered a terrorist because the US government listed him as a terrorist I find funny, not an opinion I can take seriously.

I never argued that. I consider him a terrorist because he orchestrated bombing campaigns. To give him office is to legitimize his actions, like they were acceptable political activism. He's no different to Gerry Adams (ex-IRA), and I'm against Adams' role in politics too.

There is a line between being a political activist and a criminal, and Mandela crossed it when he resorted to violence to further his cause. Gandhi he is not.

[AndyDufresne]

Gandhi he is not.

This is mrswdk's new t-shirt / bumper sticker slogan.


--Andy

[oVo]

George Washington was a terrorist.

Could be your next thread.