Nelson Mandela R I P

[tojamie]

Silence for Few mins. Great Legend.

RIP.. Nelson Mandela

 

[paymentconsultant]

Did George Washington give any compensation, make any restitution to the victims and the families of the victims that he was responsible for killing? Remember the context, and the tendency of (hostile) factions to label people and things outside of the context. Violent opposition to an aggressor or occupying regime does not make one a mass murderer, or a "terrorist."

The old Funk & Wagnalls definition of terrorism stressed it was primarily terror and intimidation practiced by a government against its people, not as performed by individuals. While Mandela was hardly perfect, his actions basically fall under self defense. He did not have to "renounce violence" in the context of fighting state-sponsored repression, nor provide restitution for collateral damage, any more than General Washington did. The real issue some have with him is that he was not a US puppet, and tried to maintain independence from the West.

BTW, does the US avoid forming relations with dictators as it suits its interests? Considering the 27 year incarceration was the concoction of Western intelligence agencies, who needed to put a non-co-opted rebel leader out of the way, it was natural for Mandela to seek alliances elsewhere, to keep peace with his neighbors. The big picture is to note he moved South Africa towards a freer society with a stable market economy, regardless of his communist profession, while most dictators (who are aligned with the CIA) move their counties towards less freedom and capitalism, despite US democratic professions.

I agree with most of what you said, except that Washington was fighting a war whereas Nelson fought more of guerilla war so we can't really compare them. Nonetheless, there are always casualities in a war, civilians included. We may as well ask any country who ever fought a war for compensation for civilians loss on the opposite side.

RIP Nelson Mandela.

 

[zebrahat]

You are confusing things. It is one thing for 2 armies to clash and another thing to kill civilians to cause unrest and promote your cause.

Regarding Washington, I do not have time now to read about early American history, but he is not some kind of special exception. If he killed civilians, he is a bloody mass murderer like any other.

I am not confused. In the international conventions and the traditional rules of just war, a combatant fighting back against the aggressor party does not have to be a traditional "army" to be justified for their defensive use of violence, and it has to be established that civilian/non-combatant victims were intended to be attacked, as well as known to be such to be targeted. Neither condition has been established or proven with regard the non-combatants associated with Mandela's actions. Washington is indeed no exception---if his activity killed civilians, he is NOT "a bloody mass murderer like any other" if this result was inadvertant, not known to him or directed by him.

The point behind the conventions and rules is to neutrally define these terms with respect to aggression, as multiple sides of a conflict have a habit of describing the other parties as "terrorists" without regard to the context, or who started what, as seen in discussions like these. Otherwise, the country with the largest bullhorn or propaganda machine wins the infowar---this is notoriously the case with covert operations, where violent actions are instigated or false flagged to provoke violent responses, that can be then used to smear that response as "terrorism" or as a pretext to escalate the conflict.

My suggestion is to not fall for the MIC and company's labeling games. Think deeply--how many of these media hit pieces were CIA planted or influenced, then and now? Mandela was on the other side of its attempts to control South Africa just as it was, Apartheid warts and all. He survived their smear campaign, plus jail time, and became a symbol of how to lead a troubled country to an overall better place. The covert ops community lost control of the narrative, and are still trying to get it back, as evidenced by the remaining smear articles on Mandela.

 

[jazzc]

In the international conventions and the traditional rules of just war, a combatant fighting back against the aggressor party does not have to be a traditional "army" to be justified for their defensive use of violence, and it has to be established that civilian/non-combatant victims were intended to be attacked, as well as known to be such to be targeted.

We agree 100% on this.

Neither condition has been established or proven with regard the non-combatants associated with Mandela's actions.

Here 's the part we disagree. What would you call bombing a railway station, two shopping complexes, two courts, a movie complex and a bank? He pleaded guilty on those.

 

[Methuselah]

Here 's the part we disagree. What would you call bombing a railway station, two shopping complexes, two courts, a movie complex and a bank? He pleaded guilty on those.

Isn't that pretty much the textbook definition of a terrorist? Or Perhaps they were hiding a barracks between the clothes shops and cafes.

 

[zebrahat]

Isn't that pretty much the textbook definition of a terrorist? Or Perhaps they were hiding a barracks between the clothes shops and cafes.

You mean that's the modern, context-free, state-slanted definition of terrorism, the older one recognized other motives behind such attacks. The destruction of key infrastructure is intended to disrupt normal functioning of the regime until change results, NOT to necessarily create non-combatant casualties. It is legitimate to question how far to take this tactic (the US routinely destroy civilian power plants and water treatment facilities on week one of their invasions), but it is not automatically called terrorism when the state does it. And how many of those attacks were instigated by CIA plants within the anti-Apartheid movement, that Mandela nonetheless took responsibility for, as most organization leaders would?

 

[jazzc]

You mean that's modern, context-free, state-slanted definition of terrorism, the older one recognized other motives behind such attacks. The destruction of key infrastructure is intended to disrupt normal functioning of the regime until change results, NOT to necessarily create non-combatant casualties. It is legitimate to question how far to take this tactic (the US routinely destroy civilian power plants and water treatment facilities on week one of their invasions), but it is not automatically called terrorism when the state does it. And how many of those attacks were instigated by CIA plants within the anti-Apartheid movement, that Mandela nonetheless took responsibility for, as most organization leaders would?

Wtf? Are we going insane here? Since when is a shopping mall a key regime infrastructure? Are you saying the WTC towers were key infrastructure as well?

 

[Methuselah]

The definition of terrorism hasn't changed for a long time:

: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

 

[zebrahat]

The definition of terrorism hasn't changed for a long time:

Here's the 1946 version:



And again, the disruption of the population's normal routine through the destruction of the infrastructure is the intent behind the tactic (which is meant to create pressure from the public to bear on the regime about the source of the conflict, until resolved). That is a different agenda than terror. I am not saying it is a groovy tactic, just one that is different than necessarily pre-meditatedly targeting civilians (as the WTC false flag did). I'm just not letting government off the hook over similar behavior, if you insist on automatically calling it terror, especially as in that case it is the most common form of terror perpetrated upon a people.

One standard, here--the US has done the same thing in each of its invasion/occupations of recent years, leaving bomb craters where schools, churches, or TV studios used to be. The issue is the matter of degree (e.g., it can be argued the US's routine destruction of water treatment plants knowingly caused thousands of civilians to die from infection) that tuns this tactic from neutral to intentional mass murder. Setting aside the legitimacy of the wars themselves, if it is a permitted method for the US to perform in conducting war, it was legitimate for guerrilla combatants fighting back at a repressive regime.

 

[jazzc]

And again, the disruption of the population's normal routine through the destruction of the infrastructure is the intent behind the tactic (which is meant to create pressure from the public to bear on the regime about the source of the conflict, until resolved). That is a different agenda than terror. I am not saying it is a groovy tactic, just one that is different than necessarily pre-meditatedly targeting civilians (as the WTC false flag did). I'm just not letting government off the hook over similar behavior, if you insist on automatically calling it terror, especially as in that case it is the most common form of terror perpetrated upon a people.

One standard, here--the US has done the same thing in each of its invasion/occupations of recent years, leaving bomb craters where schools, churches, or TV studios used to be. The issue is the matter of degree (e.g., it can be argued the US's routine destruction of water treatment plants knowingly caused thousands of civilians to die from infection) that tuns this tactic from neutral to intentional mass murder. Setting aside the legitimacy of the wars themselves, if it is a permitted method for the US to perform in conducting war, it was legitimate for guerrilla combatants fighting back at a repressive regime.

You are misanthropist monster, a pathetic creature that feeds on human misery.

Killing people on a shopping mall is a legitimate guerrilla action? Bin Laden was a legitimate guerrilla leader when he brought the WTC towers down?

Excuses, excuses, excuses. As if humanity is defined in the dictionary. It 's simple - if one kills your mother while she 's walking on the street minding her business, that person is a murderer, no matter if he did it for money or a "holy" cause.

You utterly disgust me.

 

[madoctopus]

"the legitimacy of the wars" - WTF is that? since when is legitimate murder any different than illegitimate murder or plain murder? And since when is killing 100 people worse than killing 1 person? Yes, it is more but it is not worse, it is just as worse. Killing is terminal. It is not relative. It is a definitive thing. Even worse, it is not the worst thing that can happen to one, or that somebody who is in a position of power can do to somebody else.

The issue of killing and paybacks is old. It happens today and it used to happen thousands of years ago. An average Joe will turn into a terrorist or holy warrior (depending on your POV) if somebody kills his kid and he seeks revenge. Then Mr. Average Joe kills Average Mike's son in an act of revenge and Mike now becomes thirsty of revenge. And so on and so on that in a few generations nobody knows how it all started. But wars are not run by average Joe and Mike. Joe and Mike are just naive and not very smart. So they become pawns on somebody's chess table.

Even though many think we are a civilized world and all that, we are far from it. In a civilized world there is no need for laws, payback, prisons or weapons. True civilization means every single person in the world is above a certain minimum level of social and personal evolution. We are far from that minimum level. To be civilized and at that level of personal evolution you would have to be that even in (and especially in) a hardcore society. In other words, you would not relapse and become a brute even if you are given every single opportunity to become one.

Excuses and arguments come only from the weak. It doesn't matter what excuse you have for the crap you do. What matters is that you do it.

 

[Scurzo]

he is in a better place now...

 

[Nigel Farage]

You are misanthropist monster, a pathetic creature that feeds on human misery. < etc... > You utterly disgust me.

I don't think that's appropriate. He never said he endorsed the idea.

A guerrilla war is fought with the weapons that you have, and against the targets that are available. You can't shoot a bomber out of the sky with an AK-47. On the other side of the spectrum, there is straight-up terrorism. Shooting up the shopping mall is an example of that, and I cannot imagine the reasoning that justifies this kind of thing.

And yet, from what I've read, that's Mandela did.

It's wrong I think to honor this person. I think it exposes the ignorance and/or lack of humanity of those that do, and also those that allow it to happen unchallenged. It gives people permission to walk in his footsteps, to follow in his path with the belief that, after murdering innocent women and children, you can choose to "repent" and people will forgive and honor you, and say nice things about you after you are gone. Arafat was another example of this.

Zebrahat goes about drawing parallels between the "bad" terrorists and the means by which they kill, and the "good" terrorists (either guerrillas or government-authorized) and he seems to have some trouble drawing clear lines of distinction between them. And anyone with half a brain, that is not fully indoctrinated is going to have to pause and think about these things in order to make their own decisions. And that's a good thing. I suppose it also might make me a monster to consider whether or not the ends justify the means. There's no one that tries to honor Timothy McVeigh, and despite that he stands as a shining example of what one person can do if they really mean it. The triumph of the individual over the retarded will of the evil majority. I also note that the Federal Government thinks twice about shooting and killing american women and children.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge

 

[Nigel Farage]

Truly a great man who took his country from international isolation and pariah nation to the international table.

Quality of life for everyone has decreased and crime has increased. The fears and concerns of those that opposed the dissolution of apartheid have all come true. They knew it would and they did it anyways. The "respect" belongs to the people that voluntarily handed over power knowing that their quality of life and safety was going to be destroyed. The fact that something is moral does not mean that it is good. And all those self-righteous nations that do not have to endure the current and future burdens of the criminal, civil and economic consequences of the end of apartheid have no business doing the hootchie cootchie dance over the permanent loss of their culture, society and birthright. You can spell the word "respect", but it doesn't seem like you have much.

Why don't you back there, now, and live there, as in forever, and revel in all the glories that have been realized? Maybe you could get a job working for the government. The pay is good, and the expectations are very, very low.

Did he make mistakes, yes. Did he more than make up for that his whole life? Yes.

Easy to say that from the privileged position of a safe country where you do not have to worry about machete-weilding mobs breaking into your house and raping the women and killing the men.

 

[CPAchick]

Not arguing with anyone - if you ask me there is quite often too much time spent backwards and forwards when money should be being made.

I've paid my respects! Others hold other views, as is their right! Now I'm moving on with my thoughts and going back to making that dirty cash!

Quality of life for everyone has decreased and crime has increased. The fears and concerns of those that opposed the dissolution of apartheid have all come true. They knew it would and they did it anyways. The "respect" belongs to the people that voluntarily handed over power knowing that their quality of life and safety was going to be destroyed. The fact that something is moral does not mean that it is good. And all those self-righteous nations that do not have to endure the current and future burdens of the criminal, civil and economic consequences of the end of apartheid have no business doing the hootchie cootchie dance over the permanent loss of their culture, society and birthright. You can spell the word "respect", but it doesn't seem like you have much.

Why don't you back there, now, and live there, as in forever, and revel in all the glories that have been realized? Maybe you could get a job working for the government. The pay is good, and the expectations are very, very low.



Easy to say that from the privileged position of a safe country where you do not have to worry about machete-weilding mobs breaking into your house and raping the women and killing the men.

 

[johnbass]

Such a great great man. Your works will never be forgotten generations to come. May your gentle soul rest in peace Amen.

 

[jazzc]

I don't think that's appropriate. He never said he endorsed the idea.

But the way he defends it, I believe he actually does endorse it. Of course, I will fully apologise if he does not in no way endorse murdering non-combatants and he was just playing devil 's advocate.

 

[iHailz]

R.I.P. Nelson Mandela

 

[redrubies]

But the way he defends it, I believe he actually does endorse it. Of course, I will fully apologise if he does not in no way endorse murdering non-combatants and he was just playing devil 's advocate.

If someone said these same words to you "You are misanthropist monster, a pathetic creature that feeds on human misery," would you ban them? Just wondering because I have seen you ban for less harsh words said to you.

 

[zebrahat]

Excuses, excuses, excuses. As if humanity is defined in the dictionary. It 's simple - if one kills your mother while she 's walking on the street minding her business, that person is a murderer, no matter if he did it for money or a "holy" cause.

You utterly disgust me.

The Hague and the Geneva conventions, that spell these issues out, are not "excuses." My point was to precisely reject the excuses given for labeling Mandela's alleged actions or intent as "terrorist" regardless of circumstances, while actions of others are conveniently labeled something else, regardless of circumstances. What is certain and simple is that, if one sticks to one set of rules of war, that does not selectively neglect context, Mandela is not guilty of aggression, period. I in no way endorse murdering non-combatants, but simply presented a different reason why a government (or a combatant group) would attack infrastructure, other than for murdering non-combatants.

As for the mother, if she got shot dead from a ricocheted bullet coming from a cop firing at a suspect, is the cop a murderer? If you have a heart attack while driving and then run her over, are you a murderer? If a CIA plant infiltrates a group and plants a bomb that kills the mother, is the leader of the group a murderer? Simplicity is not so simple. Context matters, and intent matters, even if it does not change the same bad result. The selective avoidance of that fact is what is disgusting.

Finally, Bin Laden did not bring the WTC down, for according to the WTC superintendent (William Rodriguez), and the Deputy Director of the Emergency Services Department for the New York City Housing Authority (Barry Jennings), bombs were already in place in the buildings, and it was detonations from that source that brought those buildings down. FBI translator Sibel Edmonds has testified in federal court that she translated communications revealing US intelligence was passing instructions to Al-Qaeda the day of 9/11. The crashed hijacked planes simply provided cover for what was a US/MI6/Mossad intelligence controlled false flag. This is why one must dig below the surface, as most of what is going on or spun at that level is for propaganda effect.