Wasn't he the guy who tried to end apartheid but ended up getting jailed for his protests? I thought he was a good guy.
In doing so, he took part in some guerilla activity I believe. Because terrorism is somewhat subjective, I believe the government then labeled him as part of a terrorist organization. I'd say he was good guy though.Ryan wrote:
Wasn't he the guy who tried to end apartheid but ended up getting jailed for his protests? I thought he was a good guy.
Mission accomplished.Braddock wrote:
To protect everyone else from me after I get disillusioned with life as a result of reading your posts and decide to go on a murderous rampage.Thorax wrote:
Then why are all of those police and military vehicles lined up on your street?Braddock wrote:
No.
Which law did he break? (lol)Thorax wrote:
He should have been left on the thing. If you conduct terrorist activities, you are a terrorist, no matter how well you sugar coat the shit to the world. Another example of the "I'm black and everyone is racist to me so it's ok to break the law and do stupid shit" kind of guy.
ƒ³
he was born african.
lol eh?oug wrote:
Which law did he break? (lol)Thorax wrote:
He should have been left on the thing. If you conduct terrorist activities, you are a terrorist, no matter how well you sugar coat the shit to the world. Another example of the "I'm black and everyone is racist to me so it's ok to break the law and do stupid shit" kind of guy.
Source: The State v. Nelson Mandela et al, Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division, 1963-1964, Indictment.
Two counts of sabotage, committing or aiding or procuring the commission of the following acts:
The further recruitment of persons for instruction and training, both within and outside the Republic of South Africa, in:
the preparation, manufacture and use of explosives—for the purpose of committing acts of violence and destruction in the aforesaid Republic, (the preparation and manufacture of explosives, according to evidence submitted, included 210,000 hand grenades, 48,000 anti-personnel mines, 1,500 time devices, 144 tons of ammonium nitrate, 21.6 tons of aluminum powder and a ton of black powder);
the art of warfare, including guerrilla warfare, and military training generally for the purpose in the aforesaid Republic;
Further acts of violence and destruction, (this includes 193 counts of terrorism committed between 1961 and 1963);
(iii) Acts of guerrilla warfare in the aforesaid Republic;
(iv) Acts of assistance to military units of foreign countries when involving the aforesaid Republic;
(v) Acts of participation in a violent revolution in the aforesaid Republic, whereby the accused, injured, damaged, destroyed, rendered useless or unserviceable, put out of action, obstructed, with or endangered:
----
go ahead and look it up and learn.
They deserved it. And they can stick their racist law up their white asses.
ƒ³
We've totally never trained native people of foreign nations how to do that.
Last edited by HurricaИe (2008-07-02 18:29:27)
I agree. But, it still is terrorism.oug wrote:
They deserved it. And they can stick their racist law up their white asses.
thats a lot of ammonium nitrate.
The cause is what matters. I'm fine with guerilla tactics (alternate term to avoid the knee-jerk reactions) as long as the cause is just.usmarine2 wrote:
I agree. But, it still is terrorism.oug wrote:
They deserved it. And they can stick their racist law up their white asses.
ƒ³
Just is a relative term my friend.
Yeah but what can you do... The parlance of our times...
ƒ³
no big lebowskie references here, please.
I love WalterGod Save the Queen wrote:
no big lebowskie references here, please.
Last edited by usmarine2 (2008-07-02 18:56:47)
Do you believe military action is automatically not terrorism just because it has been done by a Government and it's military arm?usmarine2 wrote:
I agree. But, it still is terrorism.oug wrote:
They deserved it. And they can stick their racist law up their white asses.
Not trying to turn this into a 'teh US are terrorists thread' but I'm just saying if Mandella killed a few civilians in the quest for 'greater good' what makes him any different to the US in any of their foreign conflicts over the last 60 years? Subjectivity is a bitch.
He is. He just threatened the cozy status quo between the US, Europe and S. Africa.Ryan wrote:
Wasn't he the guy who tried to end apartheid but ended up getting jailed for his protests? I thought he was a good guy.
The change in system and government and system might have hurt western countries profits. And we all know that's whats most important. Human rights come second to big business profits. Always have done.
I think it doesn't even matter if the US took him off the list; he was head of the UN, leader of the appartheid. Do you honestly think he gives a f*** if the US put his name on a piece of paper?
The guy is an icon, even if he did wrongs in his life what he stands for now is greater than the mistakes he made.
Want to define a terrorist? 50 men invading your home, your daughter is upstairs and so is your wife.
Now choose -> You blow yourself up, killing all 50 men, or try to talk them out of raping your family and slowly killing them...
The guy is an icon, even if he did wrongs in his life what he stands for now is greater than the mistakes he made.
Want to define a terrorist? 50 men invading your home, your daughter is upstairs and so is your wife.
Now choose -> You blow yourself up, killing all 50 men, or try to talk them out of raping your family and slowly killing them...
He admitted to human rights violations.oug wrote:
Which law did he break? (lol)Thorax wrote:
He should have been left on the thing. If you conduct terrorist activities, you are a terrorist, no matter how well you sugar coat the shit to the world. Another example of the "I'm black and everyone is racist to me so it's ok to break the law and do stupid shit" kind of guy.
You want to talk about sugar coated human rights violations?Thorax wrote:
He admitted to human rights violations.oug wrote:
Which law did he break? (lol)Thorax wrote:
He should have been left on the thing. If you conduct terrorist activities, you are a terrorist, no matter how well you sugar coat the shit to the world. Another example of the "I'm black and everyone is racist to me so it's ok to break the law and do stupid shit" kind of guy.
*cough* gitmo *cough*
ƒ³
If he went and intentionally killed innocent civilians, then yeah, he is worse than teh USA's, and he is a terroristBraddock wrote:
Do you believe military action is automatically not terrorism just because it has been done by a Government and it's military arm?usmarine2 wrote:
I agree. But, it still is terrorism.oug wrote:
They deserved it. And they can stick their racist law up their white asses.
Not trying to turn this into a 'teh US are terrorists thread' but I'm just saying if Mandella killed a few civilians in the quest for 'greater good' what makes him any different to the US in any of their foreign conflicts over the last 60 years? Subjectivity is a bitch.
Even if it was against a racist regime, actually if he's attacking civilians then it's not against the regime, it's against civilians...
It fucking pisses me off when the US (and other countries) get a free pass just because they "say" they never meant to kill innocent civilians during attacks. Granted, many deaths may be purely accidental, maybe even the majority of them but I'll bet my bottom dollar there are people discussing how many civilians might get killed and what collateral damage figure will be acceptable prior to every planned attack.Mek-Stizzle wrote:
If he went and intentionally killed innocent civilians, then yeah, he is worse than teh USA's, and he is a terroristBraddock wrote:
Do you believe military action is automatically not terrorism just because it has been done by a Government and it's military arm?usmarine2 wrote:
I agree. But, it still is terrorism.
Not trying to turn this into a 'teh US are terrorists thread' but I'm just saying if Mandella killed a few civilians in the quest for 'greater good' what makes him any different to the US in any of their foreign conflicts over the last 60 years? Subjectivity is a bitch.
Even if it was against a racist regime, actually if he's attacking civilians then it's not against the regime, it's against civilians...
I don't condone the killing of innocent civilians by any party but it pisses me off that the "goodies" get off the hook because we're supposed to always believe they never meant it.
There is a difference between intentionally targeting civilians and knowing that civilians will be hurt/killed striking a non-civilian target.
For instance, a terrorist targets a cafe. They don't hit it at night when it's closed because they aren't targeting the building/business, they are targeting the civilians inside the building/business.
In contrast, if the cafe had military value (C2 bunker underneath or something), the "goodies" would likely hit it in the middle of the night to ensure the smallest number of civilians were around.
That you (and others) don't understand the distinction is amazing to me.
For instance, a terrorist targets a cafe. They don't hit it at night when it's closed because they aren't targeting the building/business, they are targeting the civilians inside the building/business.
In contrast, if the cafe had military value (C2 bunker underneath or something), the "goodies" would likely hit it in the middle of the night to ensure the smallest number of civilians were around.
That you (and others) don't understand the distinction is amazing to me.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Well it is about intention really. I reckon going out there with the mindset to actually go and kill innocent people is worse than anything else in "warfare"
Good example was the aerial bombing of Baghdad back in 03, done at night when the streets were deserted, give or take a few people.FEOS wrote:
There is a difference between intentionally targeting civilians and knowing that civilians will be hurt/killed striking a non-civilian target.
For instance, a terrorist targets a cafe. They don't hit it at night when it's closed because they aren't targeting the building/business, they are targeting the civilians inside the building/business.
In contrast, if the cafe had military value (C2 bunker underneath or something), the "goodies" would likely hit it in the middle of the night to ensure the smallest number of civilians were around.
That you (and others) don't understand the distinction is amazing to me.