Amazon.com Widgets
  • In a good way, he was just fighting Anglo-Saxon rule

    Yes, people seem to forget that Apartheid started under Anglo-Saxon rule, not Dutch rule. 1948. Anyways, Mandela was just fighting injustice. He was a terrorist in a good way. But I don't think he was a good leader. He has caused South Africa to go down the drain. But yeah. (Funny, Denmark didn't go against South Africa when it was Anglo-Saxon, but once it became a free Dutch country, they pose sanctions against them. Sounds like KKK racism to me).

  • Yes he was, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

    People in the West (America especially), have some sort of negative knee-jerk reaction to the word terrorist. You CAN be a terrorist, and be morally justified.

    Many colonialists were "terrorists" when fighting Britain. The Native Americans were "terrorists" when fighting colonials. Blacks were terrorists when fighting oppression in America. The French underground were "terrorists" against Nazi occupation. Many Arabs in the Middle-East are "terrorists" against foreign occupation, and Mandela was a "terrorist" against apartheid.

    That doesn't make ALL terrorism in the face of oppression justified, but the issue is more complicated then its frequently portrayed.

  • Mandela was a terriost

    The hero of the anti-apartheid struggle was not the saint we want him to be.

    The image of Nelson Mandela as a selfless, humble, freedom fighter turned cheerful, kindly old man, is well established in the West. If there is any international leader on whom we can universally heap praise it is surely he. But get past the halo we’ve placed on him without his permission, and Nelson Mandela had more than a few flaws which deserve attention.

    He signed off on the deaths of innocent people, lots of them

    Nelson Mandela was the head of UmKhonto we Sizwe, (MK), the terrorist wing of the ANC and South African Communist Party. At his trial, he had pleaded guilty to 156 acts of public violence including mobilising terrorist bombing campaigns, which planted bombs in public places, including the Johannesburg railway station. Many innocent people, including women and children, were killed by Nelson Mandela’s MK terrorists. Here are some highlights

    -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, 1988

    Tellingly, not only did Mandela refuse to renounce violence, Amnesty refused to take his case stating “[the] movement recorded that it could not give the name of ‘Prisoner of Conscience’ to anyone associated with violence, even though as in ‘conventional warfare’ a degree of restraint may be exercised.”

  • The results cannot be denied

    He did what he did out of necessity, but Dr.King didn't picked up weapons, allied himselfs with dictators and terrorists to accomplish his goals.

    Today South Africa is worse than before, he ended the segregation, but now people self segregate, like it was during Detroit, people are fleeing certain cultures. Corruption is through the roof, torture is now common in simple crimes, bribes are common, police doesn't answer calls. 400k+ women get raped a year and people don't think is a big deal.

    When you fight for reform you have to judge not only why he did it, or how he did it, but also his results. ANd his results are appalling.

    Posted by: N711
  • A person who employs terror, targets civilians and uses fear to achieve an objective.

    Esp as a political weapon. Nelson Mandela didn't blow trains or people up. He didn't disrupt or maim innocent citizens lives. A terrorist uses terror and fear to achieve an objective. He strived to do thing peacefully. He told followers to throw their guns into the sea. He faced his enemies head-on through speech and demonstrations, not through firing weapons and detonating bombs. A terrorist is a coward who uses violence and fear to achieve their aims.

  • Of course not.

    Nelson Mandela is definitely not a terrorist, no matter what conservatives would have you believe. Without him, it's entirely possible that even today black South Africans wouldn't be free. Arguments that Mandela was bad because he was Communist (technically he was a Democratic Socialist, not a Communist) are ridiculous, and are the kind of argument you'd expect during the 1950s, not the 21st century. Mandela was a South African hero, and a great man.

    (I meant to write this when I put up the question, but forgot :P)

  • Anyone who calls Mandela a terrorist is feeling threatened for all the wrong reasons

    After he was freed, Mandela supported nonviolent resistance to oppression. Before his imprisonment, he did participate and endorse some violent protests, but all in the name of peace and abolition of apartheid. Presidents such as Republican Ronald Reagan – who called the African apartheid state essential to liberty – put him on a terrorist watchlist.

  • Helping people in need

    A terrorist is a man who finds a way to use violence to get his way. Nelson Mandela however even after out of prison he did not result to fists, he did not fight the whites who did harm to him. He did not strike fear into the white people. He used words not fists.

  • I personally think that Nelson Mandela was a freedom fighter.



    I personally think that Nelson Mandela was a freedom
    fighter. I believe that he was fighting
    for a just cause. I must admit, at some
    points in his life, he used some of the tactics that a terrorist might
    use. But, I believe that the honor he
    was given after he was released from prison shows that he was a freedom
    fighter.


  • Mandela was a great man

    Mandela was no terrorist.He fought against minority white rule,under a REPRESSIVE regime that denied rights to blacks and limited their social, vocational, educational, economic lives in every way shape or form that could be imagined. Sure, he was a militant at some stage, as was the ANC that he so dearly fought for, but to call him a political terrorist is just not quite accurate. A socialist, yes, maybe, some might say. But just consider the impact that he has had on the world after spending 27 YEARS in jail for opposing the white-dominated government who forced "their" supposed idiosyncratic beliefs on an oppressed minority. You MIGHT disagree with his policies(as some do) but please don't call the man a terrorist!


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.