4 ms·

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.
  - splat 13y ago
    I think Crito was referring to the French Resistance during WWII, not the French Revolution.
- ErrantX 13y ago
  I'm sure the Germans would have. Which is the point really; terrorism vs freedom fighter, war vs cou, revolution vs insurgency. It all depends which side your on.
  - Crito 13y ago
    I get that, which makes me wonder about somebody who claims that Mandela was a terrorist. What does choosing that terminology say about them? What side they are on?
- refurb 13y ago
  Doesn't terrorism have to be again the civilian population? If the French resistance were attacking the German Army or the Vichy Regimes troops, it wouldn't really be terrorism.
  - Crito 13y ago
    They derailed their fair share of trains. There was little shortage of civilian casualties, and if they were operating in Germany, where civilians were more likely to align with the opposition, you can bet your ass there would have been more.
lambda 13y ago
Were the American Revolutionaries also "terrorists"? Where do you draw the line between revolutionary armies and terrorism?
- a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
  I don't know where the line is exactly, but I don't think Sam Adams blew up a school bus or dozens of passers by in downtown Pretoria with a car bomb.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    Since school busses, cars, and downtown Pretoria didn't exist when Sam Adams was alive, that's probably a good bet.
  - shrikant 13y ago
    Neither did Nelson Mandela, if that's what you're implying. To wit, the Church Street bombing (which is presumably what you're referring to by the Pretoria car bomb) by the MK happened in 1983. That's 20 years after Mandela was imprisoned. Unless you have some credible evidence that he was somehow the kingpin behind all the violent activities of the ANC and/or MK during the time that he was in prison, I think it's fair to say you're wrong.
  - lambda 13y ago
    I believe the car bombing you are referring to was the Church Street bombing, which took place in 1983 while Nelson Mandela was in jail and Oliver Tambo was leading the ANC. I'm not sure you can really say that he bore responsibility for that attack. Before Mandela was jailed, when he was actively leading the ANC, he was careful to target only infrastructure and economic damage, not civilians. When Nelson Mandela was arrested, they were in the process of moving from that type of sabotage toward actual guerrilla action against the military, but were still not targeting civilians. Hmm. Escalating from boycotts and economic attacks to guerrilla warfare against the military; not too different than what Sam Adams did. What the ANC did after while he was jailed did escalate beyond that, but as far as I can tell, what he did and advocated never went much beyond what the American Revolutionaries did. From the Truth and Reconciliation report http://www.justice.gov.za/trc/report/finalreport/Volume%202.pdf http://www.justice.gov.za/trc/report/finalreport/Volume%202.... volume 2 page 326-7: In the course of the armed struggle, a number of military actions took place which resulted in the death or injury of civilians, and where gross violations of human rights can be said to have been committed, despite ANC policy to avoid unnecessary loss of life. Police statistics indicate that, in the period 1976 to 1986, approximately 130 people were killed by ‘terrorists’. Of these, about thirty were members of various security forces and one hundred were civilians. Of the civilians, forty were white and sixty black. A total of 130 civilian deaths is quite low for a violent conflict over that long of a period. That's far lower than the number of civilian casualties caused by the US in Iraq and Afghanistan. Heck, per year the US has killed more civilians in Afghanistan than the ANC killed in that entire period. I don't endorse attacks like the Church Street bombing at all; I find them quite abhorrent. But you need to keep some perspective on this. "Terrorist", in many cases, is just a convenient label for particular people who we want to judge more harshly than we judge ourselves.

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.
- splat 13y ago
  I think Crito was referring to the French Resistance during WWII, not the French Revolution.
ErrantX 13y ago
I'm sure the Germans would have. Which is the point really; terrorism vs freedom fighter, war vs cou, revolution vs insurgency. It all depends which side your on.
- Crito 13y ago
  I get that, which makes me wonder about somebody who claims that Mandela was a terrorist. What does choosing that terminology say about them? What side they are on?
refurb 13y ago
Doesn't terrorism have to be again the civilian population? If the French resistance were attacking the German Army or the Vichy Regimes troops, it wouldn't really be terrorism.
- Crito 13y ago
  They derailed their fair share of trains. There was little shortage of civilian casualties, and if they were operating in Germany, where civilians were more likely to align with the opposition, you can bet your ass there would have been more.

lambda 13y ago

Were the American Revolutionaries also "terrorists"? Where do you draw the line between revolutionary armies and terrorism?

a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
I don't know where the line is exactly, but I don't think Sam Adams blew up a school bus or dozens of passers by in downtown Pretoria with a car bomb.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  Since school busses, cars, and downtown Pretoria didn't exist when Sam Adams was alive, that's probably a good bet.
- shrikant 13y ago
  Neither did Nelson Mandela, if that's what you're implying. To wit, the Church Street bombing (which is presumably what you're referring to by the Pretoria car bomb) by the MK happened in 1983. That's 20 years after Mandela was imprisoned. Unless you have some credible evidence that he was somehow the kingpin behind all the violent activities of the ANC and/or MK during the time that he was in prison, I think it's fair to say you're wrong.
- lambda 13y ago
  I believe the car bombing you are referring to was the Church Street bombing, which took place in 1983 while Nelson Mandela was in jail and Oliver Tambo was leading the ANC. I'm not sure you can really say that he bore responsibility for that attack. Before Mandela was jailed, when he was actively leading the ANC, he was careful to target only infrastructure and economic damage, not civilians. When Nelson Mandela was arrested, they were in the process of moving from that type of sabotage toward actual guerrilla action against the military, but were still not targeting civilians. Hmm. Escalating from boycotts and economic attacks to guerrilla warfare against the military; not too different than what Sam Adams did. What the ANC did after while he was jailed did escalate beyond that, but as far as I can tell, what he did and advocated never went much beyond what the American Revolutionaries did. From the Truth and Reconciliation report http://www.justice.gov.za/trc/report/finalreport/Volume%202.pdf http://www.justice.gov.za/trc/report/finalreport/Volume%202.... volume 2 page 326-7: In the course of the armed struggle, a number of military actions took place which resulted in the death or injury of civilians, and where gross violations of human rights can be said to have been committed, despite ANC policy to avoid unnecessary loss of life. Police statistics indicate that, in the period 1976 to 1986, approximately 130 people were killed by ‘terrorists’. Of these, about thirty were members of various security forces and one hundred were civilians. Of the civilians, forty were white and sixty black. A total of 130 civilian deaths is quite low for a violent conflict over that long of a period. That's far lower than the number of civilian casualties caused by the US in Iraq and Afghanistan. Heck, per year the US has killed more civilians in Afghanistan than the ANC killed in that entire period. I don't endorse attacks like the Church Street bombing at all; I find them quite abhorrent. But you need to keep some perspective on this. "Terrorist", in many cases, is just a convenient label for particular people who we want to judge more harshly than we judge ourselves.