4 ms·
> I mean, so is Nelson Mandela if you apply the same standard (terrorism targeting civilians by the ANC). It also requires equating the ANC with the uMkhonto w
by freeflight 5y ago
> I mean, so is Nelson Mandela if you apply the same standard (terrorism targeting civilians by the ANC).
It also requires equating the ANC with the uMkhonto we Sizwe [0], making wrong claims about their targeting, and embezzling how the creation of the uMkhonto we Sizwe was a direct reaction to getting massacred when initially attempting peaceful, non-violent, protest [1].
Not to mention how the US's role in Cambodia is in not at all analogous with the role of the AMC in Apartheid Africa. Even attempting this comparison, to argue for some kind or ethical nihilism, is something very weird to do.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMkhonto_we_Sizwe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMkhonto_we_Sizwe
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharpeville_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharpeville_massacre
- refurb 5y agoLike Sinn Fein and the IRA. Politically expedient “distance”.
- freeflight 5y agoPartly, but also the vastly different power dynamics of these situations. To most honest observers there usually is a side here fighting for a more "humane" cause, like opposing their own enslavement, or opposing the colonialization of their country by another for some semi-enslavement. Wouldn't you agree these are generally "good" causes, unless you are the aggressor in that situation? The inherent asymmetry of these conflicts, particularly in military power, leaves the "insurgent" side usually not much more choice than use cruder weapons and go for targets of opportunity that may involve a higher risk of civilian collateral. Which is not a new dynamic, it's a very old dynamic that many militaries throughout history had to deal with when occupying populated territories hostile to them.