0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Governments have a habit of covering things like that up and "radical" organisations have a habit of revealing some of the buried truth.
Whenever I see a picture of Greenpeace actions in my science book, I realize that they won. They met their goal.
Nelson Mandela was a radicalist and fought for black freedom and equality but part of that (ANC) fight also included bombings and killings in the name of the cause. Yet Mandela is now classed as a hero by most and the bombing accepted as part of the struggle.
Personall, i do not class Mandela as a hero. he was a terrorist and was responsible for the bombings and other atrocities carried out by the ANC. It really annoys me when he is paraded as a man to be respected and looked up to.I also get a bit miffed when i see students wearing their Che Guevara t-shirts.
The trouble is that your comments would apply equally to the father of almost any nation - whether it is George Washington, most of the early leaders of Israel or Ireland, or pretty much any nation (with only a very small minority of exceptions).What Mandela can be comended for is not what he did (and supported) during the years of violence; but the way he lead his country away from the path of vengeance and bitterness over its history in the years when the violence had ceased (this is in marked contrast to the show trials currently being undertaken in Iraq).
what i will say is that George Washington and Nelson Mandela are in now way the same. Washington engaged in open warfare, whereas Mandela used terrorism. planting bombs in shopping centres and massacres. they are not the same, does the end justify the means? Not in my book.
And as for the actions of his loathsome wife, all with the knowledge of the ANC...Yes Mandela distanced himself from her up on his release, but was this because he was appalled by her actions? or because he had to politically?
Are you talking about Mandela, or the ANC (who broadened their operations substantially subsequent to Mandela going to jail).
When the ANC was banned after the Sharpeville massacre in 1960, he (Mandela) was detained until 1961 when he went underground to lead a campaign for a new national convention. Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK), the military wing of the ANC, was born the same year. Under his leadership it launched a campaign of sabotage against government and economic installations. In 1962 Mandela left the country for military training in Algeria and to arrange training for other MK members.
...It was during this time that he, together with other leaders of the ANC constituted a new specialised section of the liberation movement, Umkhonto we Sizwe, as an armed nucleus with a view to preparing for armed struggle. At the Rivonia trial, Mandela explained : "At the beginning of June 1961, after long and anxious assessment of the South African situation, I and some colleagues came to the conclusion that as violence in this country was inevitable, it would be wrong and unrealistic for African leaders to continue preaching peace and non-violence at a time when the government met our peaceful demands with force.
Yes, Mandela was a terrorist, and it is for that reason that Mandela never obtained the support of Amnesty International (something that I commend Amnesty for).
But in the years when he was free, I am only aware of economic targets (power pylons, etc.), not direct personal targets; but he was there very much at the beginning of the ANC, not in the later years.
George Washington was actually condemned for not fighting in open warfare, but resorting to hist and run tactics – which was seen in the time as cowardly (today we would just regard this as modern warfare – but even today, we see George Bush claiming the Taliban are not legitimate soldiers, and thus not protected by the Geneva Conventions, because they do not wear legitimate uniforms, and are not under the command of a recognised Government).
But the armies under Washington did wear a uniform, he also engaged the British in 9 major battles, and lets not forget he was allied by the French...puh, and also engaged in naval battles and blockades.
When the war began, the Americans did not have a professional army or navy. Each colony provided for its own defenses through the use of local militia. Militiamen were lightly armed, slightly trained, and usually did not have uniforms. Their units served for only a few weeks or months at a time, were reluctant to go very far from home, and were thus generally unavailable for extended operations. Militia lacked the training and discipline of regular soldiers but were more numerous and could overwhelm regular troops as at the battles of Lexington, Bunker Hill, Bennington and Saratoga, and the siege of Boston. Both sides used partisan warfare but the Americans were particularly effective at suppressing Loyalist activity when British regulars were not in the area.After an American victory at Saratoga in 1777, France, with Spain and the Netherlands as its allies, entered the war against Britain. French involvement proved decisive, with a French naval victory in the Chesapeake leading to the surrender of a British army at Yorktown in 1781.