bibiking1:


SO SEUN the answer remains NO

Its like some of us seem to be having a big problem associating the great mandela with terrorism.

kaycrystal:

Its like some of us seem to be having a big problem associating the great mandela with terrorism.

That is to be expected. When individuals make it their place to judge, you get people who regard some as terrorists and those who regard them as heroes. There are tons of examples of those around the world today. We have the cheguavara's, the osama bin ladens, and maybe in the near future, we will have the monks in burma coming under the same rank if we are not careful. At the end of the day, under the broad umbrella, once they cross that line to gain their stand, they are terrorists but in the end, history writes it as the majority need it written.

But when you take a closer look at things as they should be, you will see that they could all be under the same umbrella.

Branding someone a terrorist depends on what side of the political aisle you are. Terrorism is everywhere today. It is not only when you fly a plane into some high rise buildings or when you detonate a bomb in the market place that you are classified as terrorist. We have economic terrorist, sex terrorist, moral terrorist, pyscological terrorist et al. There is terrorism going on in all spheres of our lives but because it is not violent does not mean they are not terrorism. History will classify our actions and inactions (passive terrorism) for what they are. Life is precious and should not be taken under any guise. Iraq war, Afghanistan, Sudan/Darfur, neo colonialism, foreign debts foisted on poor nations by rich nations, elected government of a nation that turn against the wish and the aspiration of its people, all these are terrorism unclassified. I think right now we need some divine intervention in this world to bring people back on the track of sanity. So help us God.

Aleksys:

Branding someone a terrorist depends on what side of the political aisle you are. Terrorism is everywhere today. It is not only when you fly a plane into some high rise buildings or when you detonate a bomb in the market place that you are classified as terrorist. We have economic terrorist, sex terrorist, moral terrorist, pyscological terrorist et al. There is terrorism going on in all spheres of our lives but because it is not violent does not mean they are not terrorism. History will classify our actions and inactions (passive terrorism) for what they are. Life is precious and should not be taken under any guise. Iraq war, Afghanistan, Sudan/Darfur, neo colonialism, foreign debts foisted on poor nations by rich nations, elected government of a nation that turn against the wish and the aspiration of its people, all these are terrorism unclassified. I think right now we need some divine intervention in this world to bring people back on the track of sanity. So help us God.

Yes. That is why George Bush is the number 1 terrorist alive today

According to the apartheid regime of South Africa, yes he was a terrorist; but from the black’s perspective, he was a courageous abolisher and a true liberator.

One man's terrorist is another --- -----? Feel free to fill the blanks.

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

nelson mandela is a freedom fighter

Seun,

NO, Mandela was not a terrorist. Anyone who has read NM's biography will lend credence to this.

It appears the appellation - terrorist or[i] ism [/i] - is not applicable to all the military acts of the West whether covert as in the many cases of the CIA, or overt as in the invasion of Iraq. As seen in the eyes of most people in the West, Mandela and the late Arafat were regarded as terrorists. In the misguided opinion of the West, they knew fully well they were fighting for a cause, and hence refused to acknowledge them as freedom fighters. Yet the West itself has committed far more atrocities the world over when compared with the activities of terrorists in general.

When acts of injustice is perpetuated by the West, do they expect a siddon and look approach all the time? Or do they expect the preferred method of peaceful demonstration by the late MLK?

I have never given due regard to the way the press in the West use cleverly couched phrases to describe certain nefarious acts of ethic minorities. For instance, during the French revolution (1789) and the Bolchevik Revolution (1917), I did not recall any time when the phrase "ethnic cleansing" was employed. Ah, but it will apply in Rwanda.

Another example. When a white person injures a black person, the headline will read "White man attacks Blackman". It reads further: A white man has since been helping the police regarding the incident.

If it is the other way round, it will read "Black man violently savages white man". Following the brutal and grievious attack, a blackman described as tall, with a thick accent has been arrested. He is due to appear in court soon.

In passing, the West twist words and meanings to suit their own purposes. Rather than admit to lying, they use the word - spin. And in order to be politically correct, rather than report that innocent people were slaughtered in the act of war albeit unintentionally, they will be referred to as collateral damage.

Blatant:

Yes. That is why George Bush is the number 1 terrorist alive today

Actually, the word you're looking for is "war criminal".

Seun:

Actually, the word you're looking for is "war criminal".

Even the definition of war criminal is relative.

You think the Nurenberg trial would have held, tried and convicted the people involved if the Germans had won the the WW11?

On the contrary, the much celebrated British and American war heros would have been on trial and would have been probably convicted of war crimes. Imagine trying Churchill, Ike Eisenhower, Patton, and others as war criminals?

Terrorist vs freedom fighter, war criminal vs war heros are simply same song on different variations.

pls allow that old man to die in peace

Life is quite simple but it is not fools that try to make it complicated. A terrorist is a person who inspires terror and since Nelson Mandela inspired terror this  makes him a terrorist, FULL STOP!

TerryWrist:

Life is quite simple but it is not fools that try to make it complicated. A terrorist is a person who inspires terror and since Nelson Mandela inspired terror this makes him a terrorist, FULL STOP!

Not so fast

TerryWrist:

Life is quite simple but it is not fools that try to make it complicated. A terrorist is a person who inspires terror and since Nelson Mandela inspired terror this makes him a terrorist, FULL STOP!

Between Mandela and the apaartheid goverment who 'inpired terror'?.If you can answer that I will allow you to put your FULL STOP

Nelson Mandela is not a terrorist, he's a patriotic hero who laid his life for his people/country.

There is no universally agreed defination of terrorism. Even the UN Security Council has been debating this content for decades.

Firstly, Mandela is a native-native of South Africa (like me). When the white settlers arrived in the Cape, they pronounced every black person as sub-human. That is something that does not deserve to live. What they did, they started to segregate us along the racial line. The goverment policy delebarations never took any black living being into consideration. That was exclusion at its best. In 1911, one-year after the formation of the British colony known as the Union of South Africa, Pixley ka Isaka Seme addressed the diminishing rights for blacks in the country, urging the people to form one national organisation, united against oppression. As a consequence, tribal Chiefs and heads of religious groups gathered in Bloemfontein in January 1912, forming the African National Congress, an organisation designed to promote the rights and freedoms of the African people. This was way before Mandela was born.

Even more crippling legislation followed. The 1913 Land Act stripped blacks of their rights to land that they already occupied and made it impossible for them to obtain land rights in anything other than impoverished areas demarcated by the government, while at the same time, forcing blacks to work in 'white' areas in order to pay taxes. This created a migrant labour system, and blacks outside of the demarcated areas were required to carry 'passes' indicated their lawful presence in white areas. In 1919, the ANC in the Transvaal region (now Gauteng) initiated a campaign against the pass laws. Mandela was one year old. The success of Mahatma Gandi's non-violent protests in South Africa led to conflict within the ANC, however, as some members advocated this approach instead of the most confrontational strike action. Appeals by ANC leaders to British leaders failed, however, as London continually ignored their protests.

As the ANC maintained its passive approach, organisations such as the Industrial and Commercial Workers Union and a number of other subsequent socialist-oriented societies began to gain ground as they addressed the needs of blacks, who had been increasingly forced into the mines and other menial jobs through legislation. JT Gumede, elected ANC President, urged alliances with these parties, advocating active opposition, but the conservative and elitist ANC leadership voted him out of office. In 1948, the Afrikaner-oriented National Party was voted in by the white-electorate, necessitating a new approach by the ANC. No longer could it afford to remain an elitist movement with a passive-opposition agenda and a new militancy and populism began to define the party. The ANC Youth League was formed in 1944 and this organisation was the primary mover behind the 1949 Programme of Action and the subsequent Defiance Campaign of the 1950's. Mandela was a founding member of the Youth League. This is where he begun to feature. The Defiance Campaign preached non-compliance with the savage apartheid legislation; the Group Areas Act and the Bantu Educations being two onerous examples. The campaign forced the hand of the apartheid government, who took to banning and arresting campaign leaders, white, black, indian and coloured and passing even stricted legislation.

Other organisations partnered the ANC in these acts of defiance, the SA Indian Congress, The SA Coloured People's Organisation, the predominatly white Congress of Democrats and the SA Congress of Trade Unions, all of whom passed the Freedom Charter in 1955. Tensions grew as increased resistance was met with greater force and even within the ANC, party members rejected the decision by leaders such as Nelson Mandela, Oliver Tambo and Govan Mbeki to partner with whites and indians whom they felt were 'settlers'. Consequently, a breakaway group, the Pan-African Congress (PAC) was formed. The Anti Pass Campaign precipitated the notorious Shareville massacre of 1960, an event that received widescale media coverage for the police opening fire on an unarmed crowd, killing 69 people and wounding 186. After this, the government banned a host of organisations, including the ANC and the PAC and declared a state of emergency.

In 1961, left with no other option, the ANC launched the armed struggle against the government.

The Military Wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe carried out over 200 acts of sabotage within an eighteen month period, prompting the government to make the Death sentence a competent verdict for sabotage. The leaders of the movement were arrested in 1963 and prosecuted during the Rivonia Treason Trial, perhaps the most famous of whom was Nelson Mandela, subsequently jailed until the early 1990's. The ANC was then forced to adopt a different strategy, appealing for international support and operating in a more covert manner within South Africa. An increasing number of strikes typified the 1970's and early 1980's, the Soweto Riots of 1976 in which police opened fire - and killed - unarmed schoolchildren included. As a result of international pressure and defiance by the people, the National Party introduced reforms to apartheid but these were merely token gestures designed to appease the black majority. The corner was turned in 1990 when President PW Botha was replaced as leader of the country by fellow-National Party member FW de Klerk.

As a consequence of increased internal destabilisation and external economic sanctions by countries opposed to apartheid, de Klerk unbanned a number of organisations including the ANC and the South Africa Communist Party in February of that year. Nelson Mandela was released, and soon elected president of the ANC who four years later swept to power with a 63% majority in the first free elections. Mandela was elected President of South Africa afterwards and succeeded by ANC leader Thabo Mbeki in 1997.

Mandela was Never a terrorist

WHAT'S the difference between a liberation movement and a band of terrorists? The simple answer - the one that most often influences policy decisions - is point of view. Consider the African National Congress (ANC). During the long struggle against apartheid, what the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) saw as a liberation movement, the racist minority government of South Africa labeled as terrorists. Ask one person in Washington and another in Riyadh today about Al Qaeda and you're bound to get the same diversity of opinion. But political agendas and legal definitions are two different things, and the distinctions matter. As defined by the OAU, national liberation movements are the organisations that fought for freedom from colonialism or apartheid: Swapo in Namibia; the MPLA in Angola; Frelimo in Mozambique; Zanu and Zapu in Zimbabwe; Kanu in Kenya; and the ANC. Armed oppositions that fought against their own repressive regimes - such as Paul Kagame's Rwandan Patriotic Front - do not meet this definition.

The 1960 UN Declaration on Decolonisation granted peoples the right to self-determination if they did not have their own state or were under colonial domination, alien occupation or racist rule. This right did not automatically legitimise violent means (or even secession), but subsequent UN General Assembly resolutions and declarations did condone the waging of armed struggles by recognised liberation movements. The UN also granted observer status to a number of liberation movements in the General Assembly. Defining terrorism is more problematic. Despite several international conventions against terrorism, there is, as yet, no agreement on what the term refers to. Scholars have found no less than 109 definitions used from 1936 to 1981. The one used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, for example, contains three elements: illegal use of force; intention to intimidate or coerce; and underlying political or social motives. The Security Council has never legitimised the use of force by any liberation movement, but it does have the authority to decide when force is legal under international law. Even then, however, not all acts committed in the course of an internationally recognised armed struggle would automatically be acceptable. Freedom fighters waging just wars still commit atrocities. Does that make them terrorists? Legally, no. But practically, the answer often depends on who holds the power to affix the label.

Remember, the aprtheid goverment was illegitimate to begin with. It has killed millions of black people all over the sprectrum. The US only managed to remove Mandela from terrorists watch list, just recently. Countries that supported the Apatheid govt were bound to label freedom fighters like nelson as such. The Americans had too much interests in SA.

I hope this gives a little enlightment of the whole situation.

Pray, what was PW Botha?

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.

this definitely makes Bush, Blair,Brown and Barrack combined terrorists

Kobojunkie:

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.

dont forget to agree that George Bush qualifies for the title of terrorist. at least from ur definition.

One mans terrorist is the other mans freedom fighter. The side of the fence you sit on depends on whether you are the oppressor or the oppressed.

Mandela handled guns, manufactured and laid bombs. What is more, he was the leader of ANC's armed wing (umkotho we sizwe); therefore all their armed activities were carried out on his orders.

Mandela did what he did to overthrow apartheid. He isn't a terrorist, he is a hero (like Henry Okah ).

According to the USA definition Mandela was a terrorist and African National Congress was a terrorist group,most of the ANC members where banned from going to state because they're terrorist,I think Winnie Mandela is still under that list,because she was refused visa two or three years ago,although after some negotiation her visa was approved she told them to go and shove it some where the sun don't come

So the answer is yes,if we use the USA definitions.But who cares?

Amazing how people are scared of simple terminology. Don't be brainwashed into the idea that all terrorists are monsters. It's simple. 'Terrorist' is a demonised term usually applied by those in power to those who violently struggle against them. Mandela struggled violently, so by most definitions he was a terrorist. However, many terrorists are justified in their struggle, so they shouldn't feel shy about it.

Contrast with the 'Shock and Awe' campaign carried out by the US in 1983, before they invaded, brutalised and occupied Iraq. If that wasn't the greatest state-sponsored terrorism act of all time (after bombing during Vietnam campaign, and atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima/Nagasaki), resulting in massive civilian casualties, then there has never been any terrorism anywhere.

All you denying that St.Nelson was a terrorist, have just swallowed European/US propaganda that the first requirements for terrorists is that they be evil people with no point. Not true.

The day the US is invaded by Mexico (perhaps trying to reclaim Texas and the other lands that the Americans stole), the patriotic American freedom fighters will all be terrorists according to the Mexican news.

Well, Ghandi was a racist, MLK was a nympho. surprised?

The world isnt what it seems to be. and what you think is true is a lie.

As far as i'm concern Mandella is no terrorist only a freedom fighter who fight to seek justice and freedom for the blacks,i believe if the whole of African nations had been directly under aparthied as it was in South Africa we would all have understood better. Those that came into another man's land to violently take him as slave and work him under harsh labor. Are they not the terrorist? Those who came into a man's land to deprive him of his fundamental human right on his own land and if he dares talk he'll be tortured or killed. Are they not terrorist? Long long list of atrocities. I believe the two words terrorist&freedom fighter are only use by those with the power depending on which side they take. Now suppose in the cause of police engage in gun fight with robbers innocent citizens were hit by stray bullet is that terrorism on the police side?

cdoffx:

As far as i'm concern Mandella is no terrorist only a freedom fighter who fight to seek justice and freedom for the blacks,i believe if the whole of African nations had been directly under aparthied as it was in South Africa we would all have understood better. Those that came into another man's land to violently take him as slave and work him under harsh labor. Are they not the terrorist? Those who came into a man's land to deprive him of his fundamental human right on his own land and if he dares talk he'll be tortured or killed. Are they not terrorist? Long long list of atrocities. I believe the two words terrorist&freedom fighter are only use by those with the power depending on which side they take. Now suppose in the cause of police engage in gun fight with robbers innocent citizens were hit by stray bullet is that terrorism on the police side?

In his auto biography, Mandela clearly states the reason for the formation of "Umkhonto we sizwe" translated as the spear of the nation. The armed wing of the ANC party. He stated that it was as a last resort and targeted mostly non civilian areas.

After his imprisonment  Umkhonto stepped up their assaults and targeted civilian  areas much like the IRA did in Ireland. Efforts were made to try to get Mandela to disown this wing of the ANC party as part of a deal to release him or at most move him to a half way prison house. He refused.

The reason he was so listed on US files as a terrorist was infact in relation to Diplomatic ties the US government had with the Apartheid govt in South Africa. The status was never changed even after the US switched gears against the Apartheid government.

morpheus24:

In his auto biography, Mandela clearly states the reason for the formation of "Umkhonto we sizwe" translated as the spear of the nation. The armed wing of the ANC party. He stated that it was as a last resort and targeted mostly non civilian areas.

After his imprisonment  Umkhonto stepped up their assaults and targeted civilian  areas much like the IRA did in Ireland. Efforts were made to try to get Mandela to disown this wing of the ANC party as part of a deal to release him or at most move him to a half way prison house. He refused.

The reason he was so listed on US files as a terrorist was infact in relation to Diplomatic ties the US government had with the Apartheid govt in South Africa. The status was never changed even after the US switched gears against the Apartheid government.

so from your point of view what would you call him?

cdoffx:

so from your point of view what would you call him?

A man fighting for an IDEAL!!!

morpheus24:

A man fighting for an IDEAL!!!

that's just a perfect point of view. And you know, an ideal could be right or wrong. I'm i correct?
Pls tell me did you study logic, philosophy or sociology

There's no such thing as terrorism.
All's fair in war, it seems. So, like Osama and all the other guys, Mandela is not a terrorist. He was a freedom fighter. Terror is a war tactic, so those people regarded as terrorists are pursuing a campaign against their enemies.

AjanleKoko:

There's no such thing as terrorism.
All's fair in war, it seems. So, like Osama and all the other guys, Mandela is not a terrorist. He was a freedom fighter. Terror is a war tactic, so those people regarded as terrorists are pursuing a campaign against their enemies.

When you specifically target non military civilians out of frustration you have broken rules of engagement. thats outside the realm of th concept of fairness in warfare.

morpheus24:

When you specifically target non military civilians out of frustration you have broken rules of engagement. thats outside the realm of th concept of fairness in warfare.

But it does happen. US Army Rangers in Afghanistan. The Israelis levelling Beirut in 2006.

Besides, It'd be hard to sell the Geneva convention to men like Osama, given that he had no input into the document