Rest in peace Nelson Mandela

"

LostForm wrote:

RIP , he was one of the good guys. Nobody should be subject to the conditions that he was striving to change.

in response to RayCheetah's extremely racist view of the events, a time line of Mr. Mandela's life: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/nelson-mandela/10145496/Nelson-Mandela-interactive-timeline.html?utm_source=tmg&utm_medium=TD_US&utm_campaign=MandelaTimeline

The government tried to bribe Mandela with release from prison by denouncing the violence by the group trying to overturn the oppression of apartheid, which Mandela declined.

WOAH there.

They are not at all Racist views.

They are just his views. He chooses to take into consideration the fact that Mandela was part of a Militant Resistance force that is responsible for the Death of innocent people.

And whether you agree with that point of view essentially boils down to: Do you think the End justifies the Means?

But it's not Racist, just because Nelson Mandela was Black doesn't mean that anyone who doesn't think the Sun shines out of his Ass is a Racist.

Go view the timeline:

1960: A pivotal year in Mandela's life. Police shoot dead 69 black people in the Sharpeville massacre on 21 March. The government formally bans the ANC and Mandela goes underground to avoid arrest. The events of 1960 convince Mandela that only "armed struggle" will topple apartheid.

Before this massacre the protests were non-violent.

In the case of apartheid, I would definitely say the ends justified the means. Apartheid was vicious and violent oppression of the majority of the country by the minority ruling class. All means of non-violent protest were stamped out with extreme acts of violence and police activity.

Not to mention Mandela had been in prison for a good 25 years when the acts on Ray's link happened.

"

LostForm wrote:

Go view the timeline:

1960: A pivotal year in Mandela's life. Police shoot dead 69 black people in the Sharpeville massacre on 21 March. The government formally bans the ANC and Mandela goes underground to avoid arrest. The events of 1960 convince Mandela that only "armed struggle" will topple apartheid.

Before this massacre the protests were non-violent.

In the case of apartheid, I would definitely say the ends justified the means. Apartheid was vicious and violent oppression of the majority of the country by the minority ruling class. All means of non-violent protest were stamped out with extreme acts of violence and police activity.

Not to mention Mandela had been in prison for a good 25 years when the acts on Ray's link happened.

"

‘Brothers and Sisters, Learn from Mandela’ In his book Long Walk to Freedom Nelson Mandela wrote that as a leading member of the ANC’s executive committee, he had “personally signed off” in approving these acts of terrorism, the pictures and details of which follow below. This is the horror which Mandela had “signed off” for while he was in prison – convicted for other acts of terrorism after the Rivonia trial. The late SA president P.W. Botha told Mandela in 1985 that he could be a free man as long as he did just one thing: ‘publicly renounce violence’. Mandela refused. That is why Mandela remained in prison until the appeaser Pres F W de Klerk freed him unconditionally. The bottom line? Nelson Mandela never publicly renounced the use of violence to further the ‘cause of freedom’.

Reading comprehension: Not just for people accused of being racists, just because the terrorist in question happens to be black.

Apartheid in South Africa was a terrible injustice, and its end was a triumph. But to blindly lionize a man guilty of heinous crimes, simply because he became part of mainstream politics after his side won - That is the height of folly and willful ignorance. Mandela was in command of the militant faction of the ANC, oversaw the brutal and deliberate murders of civilian targets from his prison cell, and then refused to renounce his acts of terror.

NOT one of the "good guys." ='[.]'=

there is a saying that if you can't be like Jesus, be like Paul. Remind me what Paul did?

Part of you hyperlink is black-racism/terrorism/nelson-mandela-the-bombing. Yes I wonder about the viewpoint of the people who wrote this.

"

Raycheetah wrote:

"

LostForm wrote:

Go view the timeline:

1960: A pivotal year in Mandela's life. Police shoot dead 69 black people in the Sharpeville massacre on 21 March. The government formally bans the ANC and Mandela goes underground to avoid arrest. The events of 1960 convince Mandela that only "armed struggle" will topple apartheid.

Before this massacre the protests were non-violent.

In the case of apartheid, I would definitely say the ends justified the means. Apartheid was vicious and violent oppression of the majority of the country by the minority ruling class. All means of non-violent protest were stamped out with extreme acts of violence and police activity.

Not to mention Mandela had been in prison for a good 25 years when the acts on Ray's link happened.

"

‘Brothers and Sisters, Learn from Mandela’ In his book Long Walk to Freedom Nelson Mandela wrote that as a leading member of the ANC’s executive committee, he had “personally signed off” in approving these acts of terrorism, the pictures and details of which follow below. This is the horror which Mandela had “signed off” for while he was in prison – convicted for other acts of terrorism after the Rivonia trial. The late SA president P.W. Botha told Mandela in 1985 that he could be a free man as long as he did just one thing: ‘publicly renounce violence’. Mandela refused. That is why Mandela remained in prison until the appeaser Pres F W de Klerk freed him unconditionally. The bottom line? Nelson Mandela never publicly renounced the use of violence to further the ‘cause of freedom’.

Reading comprehension: Not just for people accused of being racists, just because the terrorist in question happens to be black.

Apartheid in South Africa was a terrible injustice, and its end was a triumph. But to blindly lionize a man guilty of heinous crimes, simply because he became part of mainstream politics after his side won - That is the height of folly and willful ignorance. Mandela was in command of the militant faction of the ANC, oversaw the brutal and deliberate murders of civilian targets from his prison cell, and then refused to renounce his acts of terror.

NOT one of the "good guys." ='[.]'=

Became part of the politics after his side won? He was one of the moving forces in getting apartheid overturned. He devoted his whole life to fighting back against great injustice. He was apart of the politics before it was politics.

He is lionized for his unwillingness to accept oppression. He is lionized for his dedication to serving a larger cause than himself. He is lionized because he did not overtly hate white people, he hated the oppression of the majority of the South African populous.

His refusal to renounce the violence of the upheaval in exchange for his personal freedom is one of the very reasons he is admired by people of all walks of life. He chose to fight oppression, the South African government chose his means by which to do it. They chose to not allow the protests, they chose to drive the ANC to militarize through major atrocities committed against the South African people, and by outlawing their peaceful voice.

I would expect the same to happen here in America. We fight for equality. We rebel agaisnt tyranny and oppression. Just because the man was black does not mean his actions were any different than what we ourselves did as a country to gain our equality.

To say he was a terrorist and needed to renounce his stance against apartheid is to say that the SA government was right, that apartheid was the natural order and just. In my opinion you are a sick sick guy. For you to say it was an injustice after it was over, but the means used to fight it are acts of terror is very much the height of folly and willful ignorance.

not all 'good guys' are white you dummy.

"

magree wrote:

there is a saying that if you can't be like Jesus, be like Paul. Remind me what Paul did?

Part of you hyperlink is black-racism/terrorism/nelson-mandela-the-bombing. Yes I wonder about the viewpoint of the people who wrote this.

Shooting the messenger? Or just flailing for a straw-man?

Yes, I knew someone would point out the URL and immediately imply that it invalidates the information.

Refute the points made with facts, not by pointing fingers at the place they were posted. Or did you even bother to read the article, before dismissing it out of hand? What Mandela did is part of the historical record, the good, and the evil. I'm not disputing his part in ending apartheid. Are you disputing his part in ANC terrorism? ='[.]'=

"

LostForm wrote:

"

Raycheetah wrote:

"

LostForm wrote:

Go view the timeline:

1960: A pivotal year in Mandela's life. Police shoot dead 69 black people in the Sharpeville massacre on 21 March. The government formally bans the ANC and Mandela goes underground to avoid arrest. The events of 1960 convince Mandela that only "armed struggle" will topple apartheid.

Before this massacre the protests were non-violent.

In the case of apartheid, I would definitely say the ends justified the means. Apartheid was vicious and violent oppression of the majority of the country by the minority ruling class. All means of non-violent protest were stamped out with extreme acts of violence and police activity.

Not to mention Mandela had been in prison for a good 25 years when the acts on Ray's link happened.

"

‘Brothers and Sisters, Learn from Mandela’ In his book Long Walk to Freedom Nelson Mandela wrote that as a leading member of the ANC’s executive committee, he had “personally signed off” in approving these acts of terrorism, the pictures and details of which follow below. This is the horror which Mandela had “signed off” for while he was in prison – convicted for other acts of terrorism after the Rivonia trial. The late SA president P.W. Botha told Mandela in 1985 that he could be a free man as long as he did just one thing: ‘publicly renounce violence’. Mandela refused. That is why Mandela remained in prison until the appeaser Pres F W de Klerk freed him unconditionally. The bottom line? Nelson Mandela never publicly renounced the use of violence to further the ‘cause of freedom’.

Reading comprehension: Not just for people accused of being racists, just because the terrorist in question happens to be black.

Apartheid in South Africa was a terrible injustice, and its end was a triumph. But to blindly lionize a man guilty of heinous crimes, simply because he became part of mainstream politics after his side won - That is the height of folly and willful ignorance. Mandela was in command of the militant faction of the ANC, oversaw the brutal and deliberate murders of civilian targets from his prison cell, and then refused to renounce his acts of terror.

NOT one of the "good guys." ='[.]'=

Became part of the politics after his side won? He was one of the moving forces in getting apartheid overturned. He devoted his whole life to fighting back against great injustice. He was apart of the politics before it was politics.

He is lionized for his unwillingness to accept oppression. He is lionized for his dedication to serving a larger cause than himself. He is lionized because he did not overtly hate white people, he hated the oppression of the majority of the South African populous.

His refusal to renounce the violence of the upheaval in exchange for his personal freedom is the one of the very reasons he is admired by people of all walks of life. He chose to fight oppression, the South African government chose his means by which to do it. They chose to not allow the protests, they chose to drive the ANC to militarize through major atrocities committed against the South African people, and by outlawing their peaceful voice.

I would expect the same to happen here in America. We fight for equality. We rebel agaisnt tyranny and oppression. Just because the man was black does not mean his actions were any different than what we ourselves did as a country to gain our equality.

To say he was a terrorist and needed to renounce his stance against apartheid is to say that the SA government was right, that apartheid was the natural order and just. In my opinion you are a sick sick guy. For you to say it was an injustice after it was over, but the means used to fight it are acts of terror is very much the height of folly and willful ignorance.

not all 'good guys' are white you dummy.

Read my post again. Became a part of mainstream politics. The difference in what I wrote, and how you interpret it, should be clear. Mandela could just as easily have been just another ex-freedom fighter, but as the leader, the responsible individual behind the victory over apartheid, was elevated to the status of hero, and entered mainstream politics, his violent past conveniently ignored by a world eager to embrace a hero.

As for what you say:

"

He chose to fight oppression, the South African government chose his means by which to do it. They chose to not allow the protests, they chose to drive the ANC to militarize through major atrocities committed against the South African people, and by outlawing their peaceful voice.

That is the sheerest nonsense. Take another look at those photos, if you need a reminder. Mandela and the ANC chose to murder those people, both white and black, largely at random. Nobody else chose to plant those bombs; they did. And when, after the political battle was won, Mandela refused to renounce those murders, not the fight against apartheid.

You want to glorify Mandela? Fine, go ahead. I imagine you probably think Che Guevara was a righteous dude, too. Those who act as apologists for evil partake of it, themselves.

But this discussion is NOT about race; only a "dummy," or someone so intellectually lazy that that is all they see when one of the figures involved isn't white, would say that. It's about the truth, and how some people would prefer to believe that their heroes are paragons of human virtue, when they demonstrably are not. ='[.]'=

"

Shooting the messenger? Or just flailing for a straw-man?

Yes, I knew someone would point out the URL and immediately imply that it invalidates the information.

Refute the points made with facts, not by pointing fingers at the place they were posted. Or did you even bother to read the article, before dismissing it out of hand? What Mandela did is part of the historical record, the good, and the evil. I'm not disputing his part in ending apartheid. Are you disputing his part in ANC terrorism? ='[.]'=

I've read it. It just doesn't make sense.

You and I have had debates before on guns laws and Zimmerman and the rights of freedom. How can you say what he did and stood for is any different than what the USA was created from?

"

President PW Botha offered Mandela his release provided that he renounced violence.

this is the part that is left out.

"

Mandela responded urging that Botha should first abandon the violence of apartheid.

"

During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die

look hEs not completely innocent, no one is, specially politicians and Mandela was no different. You mention the USA, how many people have you seen scream from the rooftops that the USA is full of evil gun toting capitalist pigs who kill for oil ignoring everything good the country has done, what your doing is no different except in this case your the american defending your countries actions and ray is everyone else :P

Its like Obi-Wan said. The truth greatly depends on ones own perspective and history as they say is written from the perspective of the guys who win. Maybe Mandela did actually believe all he said, maybe he saw no other option at the time and thought it was justified, who knows whats the man really thought.



Just because it doesn't fit your viewpoint is no excuse to just write it off as "racism" you sound like every other lazy intellectually devoid dorm room liberal calling republicans racist misogynist pigs in an attempt to vilify the opposition to avoid actual debate. don't let your ego(people sometimes have a hard time admitting even to themselves their belief could be wrong, something we are all guilty of from time to time) get in the way of the truth.



edit: i dont mean to pick sides here just some food for thought, the world isnt black and white you know its depressingly gray...

"

Just because it doesn't fit your viewpoint is no excuse to just write it off as "racism" you sound like every other lazy intellectually devoid dorm room liberal calling republicans racist misogynist pigs in an attempt to vilify the opposition to avoid actual debate. don't let your ego(people sometimes have a hard time admitting even to themselves their belief could be wrong, something we are all guilty of from time to time) get in the way of the truth.

I have never called anyone a racist in this post or any other post. Does he and I have prejudices against certain things? Yep. We come from different background and I respect that. That does not mean I have to believe or think that everything he or anyone says is truth just because it was said.