I stumbled upon this post on the Internet:

Nelson Mandela was a terrorist. He used arms struggle for making his point. He wanted the ruling British to talk with nationalist fighters – for peace. But British never agreed for a one-to-one dialog and the mayhem of anarchy, atrocity and violence continued for more than half a century.

- Was Nelson Mandela really a 'terrorist'?
- If so, does this mean being a 'terrorist' isn't such a bad thing?
- In the future, will people like Asari Dokubo be perceived as 'heroes', just like Mandela?

Wikipedia:

Guerrilla activities

In 1961, Mandela became the leader of the ANC's armed wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe (translated as Spear of the Nation, also abbreviated as MK), which he co-founded. He coordinated a sabotage campaign against military and government targets, and made plans for a possible guerrilla war if sabotage failed to end apartheid. A few decades later, MK did wage a guerrilla war against the regime, especially during the 1980s, in which many civilians were killed. Mandela also raised funds for MK abroad, and arranged for paramilitary training, visiting various African governments.

Mandela explains the move to embark on armed struggle as a last resort, when increasing repression and violence from the state convinced him that many years of non-violent protest against apartheid had achieved nothing and could not succeed.[6][2]

Mandela later admitted that the ANC, in its struggle against apartheid, also violated human rights, and has sharply criticised attempts by parts of his party to remove statements supporting this fact from the reports of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela

Terrorism, in the modern sense,[1] is violence, the threat of violence, or other harmful acts committed for political or ideological goals.[2] Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Many definitions also include only acts of unlawful violence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist

During the second world war,the french resistance group was considered terrorists by the germans,but for the frenchs the resistance group was something very good.
For me this is playing with the word "terrorist".

If that's true, then freedom fighters are over-rated. This has always been my belief,
but it never occurred to me to despise the famous Nelson Mandela as one of them. Sad.
Wasn't the struggle against apartheid won by non-violent means at the end of the day?

sometimes, conventional means do not suffice. also timing is essential.

naijaking1:

"One man' terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"

I may add that depending on the time and place, a terroristic could become a freedom fighter/saviour, or the reverse could also apply.

Terrorist is defined by the west to suit their interest

how do you explain invading a soverign nation into to IMPOSE democracy on them

is that not terrorism

if Nelson Mandela is a terrorist, then may be we should take another look at the definition again

I would say thats a superior team player! Different perspective, different people. Its an interesting place to be in(World).

Seun:

Wasn't the struggle against apartheid won by non-violent means at the end of the day?

That's not totally true.
Go through history and you will find out that Mandela's method contributed immensely. Besides, it was just time to give up the hate, even their white brothers abroad were becoming so ashamed of the whole thing.

The answer to this question will take nothing from Mandela's shine. Viva Mandela!

@ topic.

u need to define terrorism and also need to read nelson mandela`s biography.

mandela is not a terrorist, by every definition.

they applied arms struggle to sabotage (electric power supply) the apartheid regime. but if u read his biography, which he wrote over a period of 30years. u will understand his mind, thinking, reasoning and intellectual abilities. most appealing of all was his methods (intellectual panacea) of attaining peace, which was continuos dialogue.
and that only succeded because God destined it so.

mandela aint a terrorist.

naijaking1:

"One man' terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"

This is perhaps one of the most insidious and evil quotes of our time.
It's easy to spot terrorism and terrorists. The UN underlines any terrorist intent as that which deliberately targets civillians and unarmed non-combatants with the aim of achieving a political or ideological goal.

Nowhere in that article does it state that Mandela sought to use the ANC tro kill and maim white women and children. Guerillas strike stealthily at millitary installations, personnel and facilities. never deliberately against innocent men, women and children.

That's the distinction.

some ANC strikes were against restaurants which are considered civillian centers. the ANC did abandon millitant attacks after it realized how ineffective they were.

texazzpete:

It's easy to spot terrorism and terrorists. The UN underlines any terrorist intent as that which deliberately targets civillians and unarmed non-combatants with the aim of achieving a political or ideological goal.

This means the US army in Iraq are terrorists cos they have deliberately targeted iraqi civillians.

This means the US army in Iraq are terrorists because they have deliberately targeted iraqi civillians.

pls don't compare the actions of individual US soldiers(who were tried by the way) to the whole US army.

But they take Nigerians as 419ners or corrupt nations cos of the action of few citizens.
Tell me more pls.

But they take Nigerians as 419ners or corrupt nations because of the action of few citizens.
Tell me more please.

two wrongs don't make a right.

bawomol:

two wrongs don't make a right.

That is to say they are terrorist but they were wrong.
Please more insight.

That is to say they are terrorist but they were wrong.
Please more insight.

the goal of the american army is to fight enemy combatants not kill civilians.

nuzo:

That's not totally true.
Go through history and you will find out that Mandela's method contributed immensely. Besides, it was just time to give up the hate, even their white brothers abroad were becoming so ashamed of the whole thing.

I have to say I enjoy your contributions in here @Nuzo.

By the mere definition of the word, yes, Mandela was a terrorist. No one here can claim that violence was never used by the ANC and no one can definitively say that if all the ANC did was talk and talk that that war would have been won. These men used what they had to use to get what they wanted. And even though millions around the world praise him today, does not take change the fact that they did what they did and I am sure they would have done same today if they had to do it all over again. Time has nothing to do with it.

Now his cause was seen by the majority as a just one in the continent of africa and so not many consider the fact that his group also employed violence in getting their voices head.

ter·ror·ism (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

bawomol:

some ANC strikes were against restaurants which are considered civillian centers. the ANC did abandon millitant attacks after it realized how ineffective they were.

I am glad you at least did read of this. The ANC yes did use force at a time.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_National_Congress

Violent political resistance


Following the Sharpeville massacre in 1960, the ANC leadership concluded that the methods of non-violence such as those utilised by Gandhi against the British Empire during their colonisation of India were not suitable against the Apartheid system. A military wing was formed in 1961, called Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK), meaning "Spear of the Nation", with Mandela as its first leader. MK operations during the 1960s primarily involved targeting and sabotaging government facilities. Mandela was arrested in 1962, convicted of sabotage in 1964 and sentenced to life imprisonment on Robben Island, along with Sisulu and other ANC leaders after the Rivonia Trial.


During the 1970s and 1980s the ANC leadership in exile under Oliver Tambo made the decision to target Apartheid government leadership, command and control, secret police, and military-industrial complex assets and personnel in decapitation strikes, targeted killings, and guerilla actions such as bomb explosions in facilities frequented by military and government personnel. A number of civilians were also killed in these attacks. Examples of these include the Amanzimtoti bombing[2], the Sterland bomb in Pretoria[3], the Wimpy bomb in Pretoria[4], the Juicy Lucy bomb in Pretoria[3] and the Magoo's bar bombing in Durban.[5] ANC acts of sabotage aimed at government institutions included the bombing of the Johannesburg Magistrates Court, the attack on the Koeberg nuclear power station, the rocket attack on Voortrekkerhoogte in Pretoria, and the 1983 Church Street bombing in Pretoria, which killed 16 and wounded 130.

The ANC was classified as a terrorist [6] organisation by the South African government and by some Western countries including the United States of America and the United Kingdom.

During this period, the South African military engaged in a number of raids and bombings on ANC bases in Botswana, Mozambique, Lesotho and Swaziland. Dulcie September, a member of the ANC who was investigating the arms trade between France and South Africa was assassinated in Paris in 1988. In the ANC's training camps, the ANC faced allegations that dissident members faced torture, detention without trial and even execution in ANC prison camps.[7][8] In South Africa, the campaign to make the townships "ungovernable" led to kangaroo courts and mob executions of opponents and collaborators, often by necklacing.[9] [10]


As the years progressed, the ANC's attacks, coupled with international pressure and internal dissent, increased in South Africa. The ANC received financial and tactical support from the USSR, which orchestrated military involvement with surrogate Cuban forces through Angola. However, the fall of the USSR after 1989 brought an end to its funding of the ANC and also changed the attitude of some Western governments that had previously supported the Apartheid regime as an ally against communism. The South African government found itself under increasing internal and external pressure, and this, together with a more conciliatory tone from the ANC, resulted in a change in the political landscape. State President F.W. de Klerk unbanned the ANC and other banned organisations on 2 February 1990, and began peace talks for a negotiated settlement to end Apartheid.

Considering that the law of the land at that time and even now was against such acts and those caught were prosecuted, that is seen as terrorism.

Kobojunkie:

I have to say I enjoy your contributions in here @Nuzo.

By the mere definition of the word, yes, Mandela was a terrorist. No one here can claim that violence was never used by the ANC and no one can definitively say that if all the ANC did was talk and talk that that war would have been won. These men used what they had to use to get what they wanted. And even though millions around the world praise him today, does not take change the fact that they did what they did and I am sure they would have done same today if they had to do it all over again. Time has nothing to do with it.

that is to say Mandela is a TERRORIST. Ok cos he is not Bush or Blair.

texazzpete:

This is perhaps one of the most insidious and evil quotes of our time.
It's easy to spot terrorism and terrorists. The UN underlines any terrorist intent as that which deliberately targets civillians and unarmed non-combatants with the aim of achieving a political or ideological goal.
Nowhere in that article does it state that Mandela sought to use the ANC tro kill and maim white women and children. Guerillas strike stealthily at millitary installations, personnel and facilities. never deliberately against innocent men, women and children.
That's the distinction.

There you go again, demonstrating a 'wholesale ignorance' of World history.

When you say the UN, you stupidly assume that all people have always been adequately represented at all times.

The rulings and decisions of the UN is bye and large the will of the 5 permenet members.

Don't let me list the atrocious UN resolutions that were nothing but a propagation of the US,Russian, or British foreign policies.

I can't believe you'll be talking about the UN, given that no African nation is even a permenent member.

The UN or League of nations as founded by Woodrow Wilson is "just an idea", not a perfect solution for the whole World.

its like asking was Kenule Saro-Wiwa a Terrorist?
or was Wole Soyinka a Terrorist?

these are all based on principles and the clearly and generally accepted meaning of Terrorism!
the use of armed force is not in itself Terrorism!

so Mr. Seun the Answer is NO

The end ALWAYS justifies the means!

@bibiking1
thanks for the informed opinion.

bibiking1:
The end ALWAYS justifies the means!

naijaking1:

@bibiking1
thanks for the informed opinion.

You call it "informed opinion". I call it "terrorist manifesto".

@BIBIKING1

END ALWAYS JUSTIFES THE MEANS

so you justify the killing of innocent iraqis so as to give them DEMOCRACY

who will the democracy rule when they are all dead

TWO WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT and you do not break the law to keep a law

If the end justifies the means! does that make our dear militants terrorist or heroes in the making?

The "end always justifies the means" not to you, but to the specific group involved.

This is an age-old fact, which unfortunately can't be changed by individual or subjective views.

Our niger delta terrorists are appropriately labelled, but the main reason for their survival today is because some people in the area don't regard them as terrorist.

Remember, one man's terrorist is another man's hero.

(These are facts the government ought to be aware if they hope to win the fight against niger delta terrorists.)

@kaycrystal

Well, even if Mandela was a terrorist, he had his ideologies, future and focus of liberating and extricating the black race from the clutches of racism. And he (mandela) had a technical step by step approach and resorted to violence only when dialogue failed.

Our dear terrorist in d niger delta simply fight for their selfish glories, and personal interests, might interest u to know that they never even engage in any dialogue b/4 writing threat letters to d presidency. They're never heroes in the making, infact, posterity will not 4give them for the havoc they're causing innocent citizens because of selfish reasons

Joey82:

@kaycrystal

Well, even if Mandela was a terrorist, he had his ideologies, future and focus of liberating and extricating the black race from the clutches of racism. And he (mandela) had a technical step by step approach and resorted to violence only when dialogue failed.

Our dear terrorist in d niger delta simply fight for their selfish glories, and personal interests, might interest u to know that they never even engage in any dialogue b/4 writing threat letters to d presidency. They're never heroes in the making, infact, posterity will not 4give them for the havoc they're causing innocent citizens because of selfish reasons

point taken!

but u know ken saro wiwa follwed the ideological path! too bad he came at a wrong time i guess!

and also, the present day militants seem to lack the needed step by step approach and focus!

not to worry, history will always set things straight in spite of how much we try to distort the facts!

ndubest:

@BIBIKING1

END ALWAYS JUSTIFES THE MEANS

so you justify the killing of innocent iraqis so as to give them DEMOCRACY

who will the democracy rule when they are all dead

TWO WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT and you do not break the law to keep a law

I am sure you dont want to start a lenghty discussion as to the relevance of the Iraqi war on the world's economy? cos i can prove that it had a positive impact,,,,the lives lost were not from the hands of the Americans but the "TERRORISTS" we are trying to classify here
that aside, what do you think all these men who apply " controlled" and "realistically logical" force to their quest aim to get?
total annihilation? NO
when Wole Soyinka held a Radio station to ransom back in the days was he thinking of destroying human lives senselessly?
Was Kenule Saro-Wiwa hoping to write his name in blood like Osama when he ran his little group of freedom fighters?

the answer is NO!

But they had an aim, and to reach that point they needed to apply some degree of force. So to achieve that end, they used some queer "means".

At the end the END justified the MEANS,

SO SEUN the answer remains NO