14 ms·

Just until July 2008 Nelson Mandela was on the USA TERRORIST list (link). Do you know who the Nelson Mandelas of our time are? Do you support them? https://en

by Ihmahr 13y ago

Just until July 2008 Nelson Mandela was on the USA TERRORIST list (link). Do you know who the Nelson Mandelas of our time are? Do you support them? https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela_taken_off_US_terrorist_list https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela_taken_off_US_ter...

SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
Margaret Thatcher too, called him a terrorist. They (Thatcher and her party) were on the wrong side of history then.
- davidgerard 13y ago
  Margaret Thatcher almost makes me wish Hell existed.
  - gadders 13y ago
    And here we have the left's equivalent of the Westboro Baptist Church.
    - moocowduckquack 13y ago
      The left sounds exceedingly reasonable then, because the right's version of the Westboro Baptists is the Westboro Baptists.
      - cobrausn 13y ago
        They are only right wing if you subscribe to an extremely simplistic and binary view of politics.
        moocowduckquack 13y ago
        Yeah, but the joke is responding to a post that is saying that davidgerard is the left wing equivalent of them, so to include more nuance would have made it less funny.
- a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
  But he was involved in terrorist activities. He was a terrorist.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
    The lesson is that the difference between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" is not as well defined as you might think. He was a great leader.
    - k-mcgrady 13y ago
      "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
      - sparkzilla 13y ago
        To paraphrase James Bond: "Some Freedom Fighters are not interested in anyone's freedom"
        SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
        I'm not sure where you're going with that. Nelson Mandela was the opposite of that; he cared deeply about everyone's freedom.
  - Crito 13y ago
    Would you call the French Resistance terrorists? They certainly performed acts that could justify the label, but would you call them terrorists?
    - moocowduckquack 13y ago
      They called themselves terrorists. Terrorisme was the state terror and was not an accusation, but rather a boast by the Jacobins. edit - oops, as splat points out, I got the wrong end of the stick there by a country mile.
- dhughes 13y ago
  I'd say if you're an Irish person Thatcher could be seen as a terrorist.
  - northernmonkey 13y ago
    Half of England agrees with you
    - gadders 13y ago
      Yes, she was so unpopular she won three elections on the bounce. Yeah, yeah, popular vote blah blah blah.
      - northernmonkey 13y ago
        I'm guessing you know how daft you sound. She frequently registered the lowest ratings in opinion polls of any PM. Ever. She was for much of her time despised by the majority, regarded as dangerously idiotic by the civil service and as an embarrassment by her own parliamentary party. Do not fool yourself into thinking she won on her own volition. She won because of external influences, at least some of which were the fault of her opposition.
        dhughes 13y ago
        For example, the same political system, we here in Canada have Harper there is no way he is popular but he keeps winning elections.
        gadders 13y ago
        She won, like any other politician, because she was the best choice for the people at the time. I don't think what the civil service thinks of you is of particular relevance. She may have been despised by the majority of people in the North of England, but she was (and is) revered across most of the Sourth.
- vowelless 13y ago
  Terrorist is a loaded term. http://blogs.reuters.com/reuters-editors/2007/06/13/when-does-reuters-use-the-word-terrorist-or-terrorism/ http://blogs.reuters.com/reuters-editors/2007/06/13/when-doe...
tptacek 13y ago
The US was actively opposing apartheid at the same time as the ANC was added to the watch list, during the Reagan administration. Reagan has a weird relationship with apartheid; he vetoed the comprehensive anti-apartheid act, but his veto was overridden by his own party in the Senate. It's worth knowing that the ANC was implicated in violence in South Africa --- or, rather, splinter groups of the ANC. Having Nelson Mandela implicated in "terrorism" is obviously stupid, as was having the entire ANC listed as a "terrorist organization", but it would be misleading to suggest that the US Government was supporting apartheid based on this fact; it was a complicated time period during which the government was to greater and lesser extents working to oppose apartheid.
- Ihmahr 13y ago
  The US government was not at all opposing apartheid, but had to react to pressures. They could easily have imposed a boycott and collapsed the regime way before it did. Instead they send military support to the oppressors. And sure Mandela was a terrorist, to some... He terrorized the dictators. Now seriously, Who is a Nelson Mandela today and do you support him/her?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - tptacek 13y ago
    I have no idea what it means for a representative democracy to "not oppose" something but rather "react to pressures". Whatever that pressure was, it caused the Republican-controlled Senate to override the veto of a Republican President. If it's helpful for you, here's the law, which not only opposed apartheid but also banned imports from the South African state and cut off aid; it also stated the sense of Congress that the US should meet with... wait for it... Nelson Mandela. http://uscode.house.gov/statutes/1986/1986-099-0440.pdf http://uscode.house.gov/statutes/1986/1986-099-0440.pdf
    - mturmon 13y ago
      Here and elsewhere in this thread you are giving a misleading impression of the GOP's and Reagan's relationship to sanctions legislation. They fought it tooth and claw, and were eventually shamed into doing something, which turned out to be as little as possible, too late to matter. That's what the parent comment is trying to get across. I have no idea why you're failing to see the distinction between legislators genuinely working on an issue vs. being dragged by public opinion. The background is that most of the GOP leadership (political and think-tank) rejected sanctions against the apartheid government of SA during the 1980s. Similar to other muddles today, a cloud of confusion was thrown up to stop or delay passage of US sanctions. ("Sanctions would hurt the poorest most", etc.) It was all just a BS rationale to keep from implementing sanctions against a government considered a US ally (the ANC was associated with Communism), but it was all taken seriously at the time. Vintage Cold War logic. A watered-down bill eventually passed the Democratic House, and went to the GOP-controlled Senate, where it was diluted and barely passed. Reagan had not anticipated this, and vetoed the bill. And it was then over-ridden. His administration never went along with the sanctions implementation. By the time the GHW Bush administration took over and did somewhat better, the jig was up. The Berlin wall fell in 1989, removing the "bulwark against communism" rationale for US support of apartheid, and Mandela was released from jail in 1990. * I have some attachment to the issue because my roommates were involved in sit-ins, a tent city, and other political organizing at the time. It was a defining issue of the mid-1980s.
Theodores 13y ago
He may well have been seen as a terrorist by Our Great Leaders, however, he could also count on a lot of support from people all around the world that wanted an end to Apartheid. This support was wide ranging - words, weapons, money and organisational support. Currently we are in a struggle against totalitarianism, the privatised war machine and the outsourced surveillance state. This enemy has global reach and the only countries that are not aligned with it are places like Cuba. What countries do we have outside our borders to go to for practical help from the system of oppression we find ourselves in? What external support can we get? Nelson Mandela came out of retirement to tell the likes of Bush and Blair exactly what he thought of them. This was not the plan, he wanted to enjoy time with his grand children rather than have to continue working. He was not best pleased with general stewardship of life on planet earth. I doubt that he had a complete grasp of how insidious the current situation is but I am sure he had the general idea. It is sad that he should be departing from the world when things are going 'Dark Ages' rather than 'Enlightenment'.
mason240 13y ago
That is such a blatantly illogical statement I'm shocked to see it on board where the userbase deals in applying logic for living. AM is an A. B is an A. Therefore B = AM.
- JackFr 13y ago
  Are you new here?
aestra 13y ago
They never taught me in school the FBI and the NSA wiretapped and had excessive surveillance on Martin Luther King Jr. to 'neutralize' him as an effective civil rights leader. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.#FBI_surveillance_and_wiretapping http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.#FBI_sur...

by Ihmahr 13y ago

SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago

Margaret Thatcher too, called him a terrorist. They (Thatcher and her party) were on the wrong side of history then.

davidgerard 13y ago
Margaret Thatcher almost makes me wish Hell existed.
- gadders 13y ago
  And here we have the left's equivalent of the Westboro Baptist Church.
  - moocowduckquack 13y ago
    The left sounds exceedingly reasonable then, because the right's version of the Westboro Baptists is the Westboro Baptists.
    - cobrausn 13y ago
      They are only right wing if you subscribe to an extremely simplistic and binary view of politics.
      - moocowduckquack 13y ago
        Yeah, but the joke is responding to a post that is saying that davidgerard is the left wing equivalent of them, so to include more nuance would have made it less funny.
a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
But he was involved in terrorist activities. He was a terrorist.
- SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
  The lesson is that the difference between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" is not as well defined as you might think. He was a great leader.
  - k-mcgrady 13y ago
    "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
    - sparkzilla 13y ago
      To paraphrase James Bond: "Some Freedom Fighters are not interested in anyone's freedom"
      - SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
        I'm not sure where you're going with that. Nelson Mandela was the opposite of that; he cared deeply about everyone's freedom.
- Crito 13y ago
  Would you call the French Resistance terrorists? They certainly performed acts that could justify the label, but would you call them terrorists?
  - moocowduckquack 13y ago
    They called themselves terrorists. Terrorisme was the state terror and was not an accusation, but rather a boast by the Jacobins. edit - oops, as splat points out, I got the wrong end of the stick there by a country mile.
dhughes 13y ago
I'd say if you're an Irish person Thatcher could be seen as a terrorist.
- northernmonkey 13y ago
  Half of England agrees with you
  - gadders 13y ago
    Yes, she was so unpopular she won three elections on the bounce. Yeah, yeah, popular vote blah blah blah.
    - northernmonkey 13y ago
      I'm guessing you know how daft you sound. She frequently registered the lowest ratings in opinion polls of any PM. Ever. She was for much of her time despised by the majority, regarded as dangerously idiotic by the civil service and as an embarrassment by her own parliamentary party. Do not fool yourself into thinking she won on her own volition. She won because of external influences, at least some of which were the fault of her opposition.
      - dhughes 13y ago
        For example, the same political system, we here in Canada have Harper there is no way he is popular but he keeps winning elections.
      - gadders 13y ago
        She won, like any other politician, because she was the best choice for the people at the time. I don't think what the civil service thinks of you is of particular relevance. She may have been despised by the majority of people in the North of England, but she was (and is) revered across most of the Sourth.
vowelless 13y ago
Terrorist is a loaded term. http://blogs.reuters.com/reuters-editors/2007/06/13/when-does-reuters-use-the-word-terrorist-or-terrorism/ http://blogs.reuters.com/reuters-editors/2007/06/13/when-doe...

tptacek 13y ago

The US was actively opposing apartheid at the same time as the ANC was added to the watch list, during the Reagan administration. Reagan has a weird relationship with apartheid; he vetoed the comprehensive anti-apartheid act, but his veto was overridden by his own party in the Senate. It's worth knowing that the ANC was implicated in violence in South Africa --- or, rather, splinter groups of the ANC. Having Nelson Mandela implicated in "terrorism" is obviously stupid, as was having the entire ANC listed as a "terrorist organization", but it would be misleading to suggest that the US Government was supporting apartheid based on this fact; it was a complicated time period during which the government was to greater and lesser extents working to oppose apartheid.

Ihmahr 13y ago
The US government was not at all opposing apartheid, but had to react to pressures. They could easily have imposed a boycott and collapsed the regime way before it did. Instead they send military support to the oppressors. And sure Mandela was a terrorist, to some... He terrorized the dictators. Now seriously, Who is a Nelson Mandela today and do you support him/her?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- tptacek 13y ago
  I have no idea what it means for a representative democracy to "not oppose" something but rather "react to pressures". Whatever that pressure was, it caused the Republican-controlled Senate to override the veto of a Republican President. If it's helpful for you, here's the law, which not only opposed apartheid but also banned imports from the South African state and cut off aid; it also stated the sense of Congress that the US should meet with... wait for it... Nelson Mandela. http://uscode.house.gov/statutes/1986/1986-099-0440.pdf http://uscode.house.gov/statutes/1986/1986-099-0440.pdf
  - mturmon 13y ago
    Here and elsewhere in this thread you are giving a misleading impression of the GOP's and Reagan's relationship to sanctions legislation. They fought it tooth and claw, and were eventually shamed into doing something, which turned out to be as little as possible, too late to matter. That's what the parent comment is trying to get across. I have no idea why you're failing to see the distinction between legislators genuinely working on an issue vs. being dragged by public opinion. The background is that most of the GOP leadership (political and think-tank) rejected sanctions against the apartheid government of SA during the 1980s. Similar to other muddles today, a cloud of confusion was thrown up to stop or delay passage of US sanctions. ("Sanctions would hurt the poorest most", etc.) It was all just a BS rationale to keep from implementing sanctions against a government considered a US ally (the ANC was associated with Communism), but it was all taken seriously at the time. Vintage Cold War logic. A watered-down bill eventually passed the Democratic House, and went to the GOP-controlled Senate, where it was diluted and barely passed. Reagan had not anticipated this, and vetoed the bill. And it was then over-ridden. His administration never went along with the sanctions implementation. By the time the GHW Bush administration took over and did somewhat better, the jig was up. The Berlin wall fell in 1989, removing the "bulwark against communism" rationale for US support of apartheid, and Mandela was released from jail in 1990. * I have some attachment to the issue because my roommates were involved in sit-ins, a tent city, and other political organizing at the time. It was a defining issue of the mid-1980s.

Theodores 13y ago

He may well have been seen as a terrorist by Our Great Leaders, however, he could also count on a lot of support from people all around the world that wanted an end to Apartheid. This support was wide ranging - words, weapons, money and organisational support. Currently we are in a struggle against totalitarianism, the privatised war machine and the outsourced surveillance state. This enemy has global reach and the only countries that are not aligned with it are places like Cuba. What countries do we have outside our borders to go to for practical help from the system of oppression we find ourselves in? What external support can we get? Nelson Mandela came out of retirement to tell the likes of Bush and Blair exactly what he thought of them. This was not the plan, he wanted to enjoy time with his grand children rather than have to continue working. He was not best pleased with general stewardship of life on planet earth. I doubt that he had a complete grasp of how insidious the current situation is but I am sure he had the general idea. It is sad that he should be departing from the world when things are going 'Dark Ages' rather than 'Enlightenment'.

mason240 13y ago

That is such a blatantly illogical statement I'm shocked to see it on board where the userbase deals in applying logic for living. AM is an A. B is an A. Therefore B = AM.

JackFr 13y ago
Are you new here?

aestra 13y ago

They never taught me in school the FBI and the NSA wiretapped and had excessive surveillance on Martin Luther King Jr. to 'neutralize' him as an effective civil rights leader. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.#FBI_surveillance_and_wiretapping http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.#FBI_sur...