Oh, a head of state. Wasn't he a terrorist, too? --Wing Nut 14:38, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
- Quite right. The liberals are trying to cover that up.
- 4. We do not attempt to be neutral to all points of view. We are neutral to the facts. If a group is a terrorist group, then the label "terrorist" is used here but not on Wikipedia. (See Differences_with_Wikipedia)
- BillyBoy 14:43, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
If your definition of "terrorist" is elastic enough to include Mandela and the struggle for racial freedom in South Africa, it's elastic enough to include George Washington and the American Revolution. There are times when violence is the only available recourse in the pursuit of freedom. Apartheid - like "taxation without representation" was one of those times. Jacobin 17:51, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
Such rediculous comparisons are hardly benignant or applicable Jacobin. The ANC (speaking specifically in regards to Umkhonto we Sizwe, of which Mandela was head) was under all prexisting contexts a terrorist organization, and cocurrently, there was a reason Mandela was in prison in the first place. Killing Civilians, especially women and children to reach your goals is hardly an admirable nor honorable action of which you so hastily ignore under the pretext of persuing racial freedom. Willink 17:02, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
There is no mention of the Mandela's criticisms of Bush: a point that the liberal Wikipedia is not remiss in making. Conservatives would want to know what this man stands for. Jason 10:33, 03 May 2007 (EDT)
Mandela was convicted of terrorism
Nelson Mandela was convicted of terrorism by a court of law, it is irrelevant whether or not he is, in your personal opinion, a terrorist. He is a convicted terrorist, who was released prematurely for political reasons.
Some people don't consider Osama Bin Laden a terrorist, does that mean we should refrain from calling him one on his article?
- Alfred, I hope you'll find that your desire to use this wiki as a soapbox for the rehabilitation of apartheid will be met with a cold shoulder at best. Trying to compare Mandela with Bin Laden is inexcusable. Yes, the ANC used violence in the fight against apartheid - as well they had to, since apartheid--like all colonialism--was a violent state of affairs. AliceBG 09:59, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
I agree the National Party regime did use violence to control illegal protests and riots, but Mandela WAS convicted of terrorism, no matter how you look at it.
And since he was convicted of terrorism this should be included in his article.
I find you are being very unco-operative, talking of how you "hope" I will be met with a cold shoulder. This is not my soap-box for the "rehabilitation of Apartheid", I am merely editting articles to the best of my ability and knowledge.
All of the information I have put down has come from reliable sources, either newspaper articles or from history books. I have not fabricated anything.
Alfred123 11:30, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
You say they "had to", that is an opinion and has no place in an article, does it? I am not saying what should or shouldn't have happened, I am saying what did happen.
Just because you oppose a system, does it give you the right to use violence to change it? If so then by that rationale 9/11 was okay? I think not. Please do not attempt to defend terrorism in any form.
Alfred123 11:32, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
And since he was convicted of terrorism this should be included in his article. Convicted by a legal system that used an evil brand of racist ideology to maintain the position of the privileged few to the detriment of an oppressed minority. A system that was the object of universal scorn of virtually every country that it shared a continent with and most of the people of conscience in the rest of the world. Really, I have no interest in validating the apartheid regime by recognizing Mandela's conviction for anything more than it was: Part of a racially-motivated attempt to keep a people down. Just because you oppose a system, does it give you the right to use violence to change it? Sometimes yes. At the risk of invoking Godwin's law this early in the debate (though you already seized the moral high ground by evoking 9-11, so I feel okay with this)- was there any otther solution that violence to the evil of Nazi Germany? Colonialism IS violence. Read Fanon's "Wretched of the Earth," he put it more artfully than I could ever hope to. AliceBG 21:22, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
Opinions and more opinions. Evil brand of racist ideology, detriment of an oppressed minority (are you referring to the Cape Afrikaner oppression of the Boer nation when you speak of an oppressed minority?).
Conscience, who are you to say what a conscience is or is not?
So if I decide I oppose a system I can start blowing up buildings, shooting people and generally behaving like a terrorist thug, that's nice to know. I'll keep that in mind if I hear a certain candidate wins the election in America.
Nazi Germany is immaterial, because that was a case of countries engaging in a war, not in a band of self-styled "freedom fighters" like the ANC trying to overthrow an elected government.
Well Mandela was convicted and whether your recognise it or not is pretty irrelevant to this article. Nelson Mandela is, in my opinion an evil man, whom I wish had been dealt with much less pleasantly than he was, but that is my opinion and should not come into how I edit the article. Just like your opinion of him should not influence your editting of the article either.
The argument that violence is okay in some cases but not in others cannot stand up.
Alfred123 21:31, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
Colonialism? That was precisely what Dr.Verwoerd wanted to avoid, hence him granting Bantus their own countries and allowing White South Africa to become self-sufficient. So colonialism has nothing to do with Apartheid.
Alfred123 21:34, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
That is the same as saying Canadians should be allowed to vote in American elections, no they shouldn't because it is not their country. Similarly Blacks could vote in elections in their Bantustans.
Residency in a place is immaterial if you don't have citizenship.
Europeans were in Africa because they were, by enlarge, displaced people looking to start a new life. French Hugenots fleeing persecution following the Edict of Nantes and poor Frisians and Dutchmen.
Alfred123 21:43, 5 June 2008 (EDT)