Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I noticed that a lot of people on the right(and often the same people who vehemently say that they need the 2nd Amendment to fight tyranny) call Nelson Mandela a terrorist because he used violence against a system that oppresses both him and his people. Sure, he and his party may have done a lot of violence that killed a lot of people, but isn't rebelling against an unjust system is what the second amendment designed for(according to such people)? Sure you may not agree with their politics, but the 2nd Amendment doesn't exclude communists, socialists, Christians, Muslims or anything.

You just lumped an entire group of people together (The "Right") brought up Terrorism, AND the 2nd amendment all in in the OP!

This is going to be a great thread!

Nelson Mandela? What about the terrorist Washington? It wasn't enough that he started a war with another country, but when his rightful government requested the colonies pay a portion of the costs in fighting that war on their behalf, he lead an insurgency against them!

Google broken?

ATXMILEY wrote:
I noticed that a lot of people on the right(and often the same people who vehemently say that they need the 2nd Amendment to fight tyranny) call Nelson Mandela a terrorist because he used violence against a system that oppresses both him and his people. Sure, he and his party may have done a lot of violence that killed a lot of people, but isn't rebelling against an unjust system is what the second amendment designed for(according to such people)? Sure you may not agree with their politics, but the 2nd Amendment doesn't exclude communists, socialists, Christians, Muslims or anything.

Mandela committed acts of violent resistance. There's actually a lot of room to consider exactly where violence is justified in combating an unjust regime, and then further conversation on whether such resistance is effective. Afterall, Mandela made most of his achievements once he turned towards peace and legitimacy, but it's hard to know if that would have been so effective if he hadn't used violence in the first place, and other violent elements still existed, giving the Apartheid government reason to deal with Mandela instead.

But you won't find any of that conversation to be had among people who like to lead with words like terrorist as if they have any useful meaning in this context, or with people who think private ownership of guns is a sensible check on government. Honestly, probably the best thing is just stop reading and arguing with people who make those kinds of silly arguments... but then me telling you that is definitely do as I say, not as I do. Afterall, I argue on dakka.

Depending on your ideology the line between freedom fighter and terrorist is thin, look at the struggle in Belfast it really depends on which side of the fence you are.

 Sasori wrote:
You just lumped an entire group of people together (The "Right") brought up Terrorism, AND the 2nd amendment all in in the OP!

This is going to be a great thread!

I didn't say all of the right, I said a lot(which does not necessarily mean most)

Didnt he try to blow up a power station in the 50's?

Nelson Mandela's political mystique began only after he was imprisoned on terrorist activities and was arranged by proxy.

Thankfully he lived up to the hype and brought reconciliation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Washington wasn't a terrorist because armed rebellion had different contexts then. He also conducted open campaigns of violence with uniformed combatants where possible.

Actual terrorism was rarer prior to the Anarchist movement in the later 19th century. Which is why Guy Fawkes is of particular note.

Hey... I'm Those People™ from the right.

Do I think he was a Terrorist? Nah... Nowhere in the same league as OBL.

Do I think he was in the right? Sure!

Could things be different w/o bloodshed? Absolutely!

Are these things simple Good vs Bad? Nope.

As Zedd said in the Sword of Truth: "Nothing is ever easy."

I know it's semantics... but I find it hard to be oppressed when you're dead. (then again, me not being dead, I cannot verify the level of oppression that they are in)

Who is still oppressing Mandela and "his people"??

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


Who is still oppressing Mandela and "his people"??

Rampant poverty and inequality is still a problem in South Africa for blacks, which is very difficult to ignore when they make up 85% of the population.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


Who is still oppressing Mandela and "his people"??

Rampant poverty and inequality is still a problem in South Africa for blacks, which is very difficult to ignore when they make up 85% of the population.

As I said, it was semantics, the OP is writing as though Mandela is still alive.

And, if SARU is anything to go by, the whole country is still all kinds of fethed up. South Africa Rugby Union is instituting a sort of Affirmative Action program, starting with school boy rugby, and working it's way all the way up to the Springboks. The end state, as stated by SARU is that they want, literally, 50% of ALL "National" teams (U-19s, Blitzboks, Springboks, etc) to be black/indian players.

Beyond that, much of what I've heard of the country has been anecdotal evidence of a system still heavily bent against black people.

Jefffar wrote:
Nelson Mandela? What about the terrorist Washington? It wasn't enough that he started a war with another country, but when his rightful government requested the colonies pay a portion of the costs in fighting that war on their behalf, he lead an insurgency against them!

He was kinda the O.G.

As an American who believes strongly in the 2nd amendment for a number of reasons, I do not consider Nelson Mandela to have been a terrorist. The violence against people didn't start until after he was imprisoned and he all too often gets stuck with the blame for that. Really, the big thing is that he was associated with communist groups and to some people in the US that's just unforgivable and automatically means he's responsible for everything bad that happened.

 Sasori wrote:
You just lumped an entire group of people together (The "Right") brought up Terrorism, AND the 2nd amendment all in in the OP!

This is going to be a great thread!

yeah... no kidding...


what a bunch of stereotyping clap trap,
"lots of" sure... whats that mean? 1% 2% 49%?

ones persons terrorist is generally someone elses freedom fighter, hence why some people take each position on mandela.

I am "glad" to see that people like sebster didnt waste any time in linking people who think mandela was terrorist (or heck, anyone who thinks he went over board with violence or even brings up the fact that he was violent at all) to 2nd amendmant supporters, and outright telling us we should dismiss all of these people out of hand.

Because its CRAZY TALK to think that armed populations do any good at all!

The irony that this is exactly what mandela was (an armed civilian trying to over through a repressive government)

Which makes those assertions of armed citizens being "worthless" "unnecessary" ect so obviously wrong, and shows that people who dismiss the concept dont seem to grasp reality.

"armed civies have no purpose"

"mandela was an armed civvy with a purpose, not a terrorist"

I love how some people can hold those two ideas in their head without exploding.


the vast majority of people who support the 2nd support mandelas actions.

it is a TINY miniority who would call him a terrorist, just as many anti gun people would call him a terrorist.

 Vaktathi wrote:
As an American who believes strongly in the 2nd amendment for a number of reasons, I do not consider Nelson Mandela to have been a terrorist. The violence against people didn't start until after he was imprisoned and he all too often gets stuck with the blame for that. Really, the big thing is that he was associated with communist groups and to some people in the US that's just unforgivable and automatically means he's responsible for everything bad that happened.

IIRC, wasn't he put in prison for plotting/advocating "Terrorist actions" but never actually did them himself? (Or, at worst, was the mastermind behind some violent acts, but never really himself participated) I know that, pre-imprisonment he wasn't really an advocate of peaceful resolution, but afterwards became a very big advocate of peace and forgiveness, as well as "fixing" the problems of the day.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
As an American who believes strongly in the 2nd amendment for a number of reasons, I do not consider Nelson Mandela to have been a terrorist. The violence against people didn't start until after he was imprisoned and he all too often gets stuck with the blame for that. Really, the big thing is that he was associated with communist groups and to some people in the US that's just unforgivable and automatically means he's responsible for everything bad that happened.

IIRC, wasn't he put in prison for plotting/advocating "Terrorist actions" but never actually did them himself? (Or, at worst, was the mastermind behind some violent acts, but never really himself participated) I know that, pre-imprisonment he wasn't really an advocate of peaceful resolution, but afterwards became a very big advocate of peace and forgiveness, as well as "fixing" the problems of the day.

He had a hand in the creation of Umkohnto we Sizwe, which did carry out attacks, but on stuff like power stations and the like, sabotage attacks on infrastructure, not on people, before his arrest, it wasn't until after he'd been imprisoned for a while that violence against people broke out. He was very instrumental in keeping SA from tearing itself apart in the 1990's.

Unsure if the OP is baiting......labeling the Right...trolling...

Maybe the "Right" in South Africa consider him a terrorist.
I just knew, along with a crap load of others in the US, knew Apartheid had to go (the rest didn't care because it didn't concern us)

Well, he was a terrorist. He was a complicated man. There are many examples of terrorists later becoming political figures, and leaving their violent pasts behind. He was a complicated man, and not unambiguously virtuous, like most men.

The word "terrorist" has been so abused since 9/11 that it has begun to lose all meaning. A terrorist is often a bad person, but terrorism is a complex subject. A terrorist fighting an unjust government might be seen as a "freedom fighter", but his or her tactics would still be terrorism by most definitions.

 Da Boss wrote:

The word "terrorist" has been so abused since 9/11 that it has begun to lose all meaning. A terrorist is often a bad person, but terrorism is a complex subject. A terrorist fighting an unjust government might be seen as a "freedom fighter", but his or her tactics would still be terrorism by most definitions.

We do kind of definition creep "-isms" until they only meaning that they seem to portray is "I don't like you and don't want your ideas to spread".

Terrorism is one of those things that doesn't automatically mean that the goal is bad.

We do kind of get it in our head that the majority of the time there is a nice split in actions and goals:

Terrorists -->want bad things -->don't represent the majority-->bad result.
Resistance-->want good things-->represent the majority-->good results

But not everybody fits nicely into those two categories.

So you can have people who have good goals and who want the best for their people and have a legitimate reason for doing what they are doing, but who end up using tactics that we would consider terrorism.

People can do bad things for "good" reasons.

 easysauce wrote:

ones persons terrorist is generally someone elses freedom fighter, hence why some people take each position on mandela.

Which is kind of lazy thinking, because the line isn't really as thin as some people make it out to be. Tactics play a certain role, but I think the biggest indication of terrorism vs. freedom fighter, even if you agree or disagree with the person/group in question is who and what is being targeted. Is the civilian population and civilian infrastructure being deliberately targeted in order to terrorize and cause fear? Good chance it's terrorism.

Is the group trying to avoid killing the civilian population and focusing on military or specifically government targets? Probably not terrorism - even if you disagree with why the group in question is doing it, there could be some legitimacy in someone else seeing them as freedom fighters of a sort.


There is obviously some room for overlap and I admit things don't always fit into neat categories, but it's not all just a matter of opinion and useless definitions based on the worst of moral relativism.

 Hordini wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

ones persons terrorist is generally someone elses freedom fighter, hence why some people take each position on mandela.

Which is kind of lazy thinking, because the line isn't really as thin as some people make it out to be. Tactics play a certain role, but I think the biggest indication of terrorism vs. freedom fighter, even if you agree or disagree with the person/group in question is who and what is being targeted. Is the civilian population and civilian infrastructure being deliberately targeted in order to terrorize and cause fear? Good chance it's terrorism.

Is the group trying to avoid killing the civilian population and focusing on military or specifically government targets? Probably not terrorism - even if you disagree with why the group in question is doing it, there could be some legitimacy in someone else seeing them as freedom fighters of a sort.


There is obviously some room for overlap and I admit things don't always fit into neat categories, but it's not all just a matter of opinion and useless definitions based on the worst of moral relativism.

Deliberate or not, civilian casualties matter regardless of if they were "intended" or not, there is no difference to the dead if they are killed in a 9/11 style attack, by people they never met, who are killing for a cause they have no part in, and the innocent people killed in say a drone attack or mass bombing of a country (iraq/afghanistan/ect).

this is especially true given that even the "good guys" know 100% that even if they specifically target only the "bad guys" that they are inevitably going to be killing innocents.

iI other words, I could simply call your thinking "lazy" and refer you to the "road to hell paved with good intentions" maxim, or "do the ends justify the means" type arguments.

because due to 3k civvie casualties we almost universally call AQ terrorists, but due to 1 million civvie casualties in Iraq, we dont equate the states as such. So your arguement that intentions are more important then means/ends is a bit poorly thought out. even if we go into the means and ends, both sides are using means that involve killing innocents, regardless of intent, and both sides claim honourable ends are the intended end result.

neither group actually acheived their intended goals, so where is the line?

While my statement is very simple and black and white-esque, its still a true statement, and is a maxim that is widely accepted, its not like I came up with the saying after all.

and OBS it goes with out saying, Im not actually calling the US terrorists,

The US didn't inflict one million civilian casualties in Iraq. That should be clear.

And intention absolutely does matter. There is a difference between a drone strike or an attack on enemy combatants in which civilians get caught in the crossfire, and deliberately setting off a bomb in the middle of a crowded marketplace with the intent to kill as many civilians as possible.

Understanding how those two things are quite different, and that one is terrorism and the other is not, does not in any way equate to claiming that civilian casualties don't matter.

 Hordini wrote:
The US didn't inflict one million civilian casualties in Iraq. That should be clear.

And intention absolutely does matter. There is a difference between a drone strike or an attack on enemy combatants in which civilians get caught in the crossfire, and deliberately setting off a bomb in the middle of a crowded marketplace with the intent to kill as many civilians as possible.

Understanding how those two things are quite different, and that one is terrorism and the other is not, does not in any way equate to claiming that civilian casualties don't matter.

Or, to use an apparent example from Mandela himself: the difference between disrupting a power station (whether by damage, or turning off, etc) and a suicide vest in a crowded market should be VERY apparent.

 Hordini wrote:
The US didn't inflict one million civilian casualties in Iraq. That should be clear.

And intention absolutely does matter. There is a difference between a drone strike or an attack on enemy combatants in which civilians get caught in the crossfire, and deliberately setting off a bomb in the middle of a crowded marketplace with the intent to kill as many civilians as possible.

Understanding how those two things are quite different, and that one is terrorism and the other is not, does not in any way equate to claiming that civilian casualties don't matter.

Actually, yes, the wars started just after 9/11 have led to ~one million casualties , through direct means such as bombing, or indirect means such as loss of infrastructure.

Even some of the more conservative studies will attribute ~500,000 casualties to the war and its tertiary effects in Iraq alone.

one could also argue, that the intentions of the states (government not people) were not honorable or "good" as they turned out to be false at best, and outright lies at worst regarding iraq's wmds.

edit to add link with #'s http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-24547256




You are entitled to your opinion, you can say the ends justify the means, that the INTENDED outcome matters and either justifies/mitigates the consequences/actual outcome in some way, and thats OK.

But, thats the catch 22, if we accept that OUR PERSONAL/CULTURAL idea of what makes up a "good intention" makes an act terrorist or not, then we have to accept that it may get a different label by different persons/cultures, and that either label is only correct in the society that accepts those intentions as justification.

I think the means are an ends to themselves, and OBS im not equating blowing up infrastructure to blowing up people,

I am equating blowing up people, even with the best of intentions, to blowing up people with less then the best intentions. End result, regardless of intentions, is the same.

Intentions may matter to some groups, while the same intention is not acceptable to others, either way the intentions are infinitesimally insignificant compared to the actual means/outcomes that those intentions had.

After all, the crusades, the holocaust, sterilization of the handicapped ect were all done with the best of intentions.

Mandela isnt my idea of terrorist, it should be apparent that I am simply trying to explain how SOME people can see it that way.

I'm not saying that there haven't been one million casualties in Iraq. I'm saying the US didn't inflict one million casualties. If we're going to lay blame, we should lay it on the people actually perpetrating the act.

The US has inflicted some civilian casualties, and that is a big deal, and we are responsible for the ones we killed, good intentions or not. But the majority of the one million civilian casualties that occurred in Iraq were inflicted by Iraqi and foreign insurgents, terrorists and other extremist groups, many of which deliberately targeted civilians.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 easysauce wrote:
After all, the crusades, the holocaust, sterilization of the handicapped ect were all done with the best of intentions.

None of these things were done with good intentions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In addition, there is no personal or cultural idea that makes detonating a suicide vest in a crowded market with the intention of killing as many civilians as possible morally equivalent to accidentally killing civilians in a fight with an enemy who uses civilians as terrain.

That doesn't do anything to minimize the gravity of civilian casualties or absolve us of any responsibility for them - on the contrary, it increases our level of responsibility to ensure those kinds of casualties are minimized - and only the exercise of the most callous moral relativism would allow the two to be equated.

 Hordini wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
After all, the crusades, the holocaust, sterilization of the handicapped ect were all done with the best of intentions.

None of these things were done with good intentions.

The crusades were absolutely done with good intentions. They thought they were doing God's work by retaking the Holy Land and cleansing the blasphemers. What can be claimed to be better than purging your God's enemies?

Note: I am ABSOLUTELY NOT saying the crusades were a good thing, I am saying that in most of the soldiers' minds, they thought they were doing the right thing.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
After all, the crusades, the holocaust, sterilization of the handicapped ect were all done with the best of intentions.

None of these things were done with good intentions.

The crusades were absolutely done with good intentions. They thought they were doing God's work by retaking the Holy Land and cleansing the blasphemers. What can be claimed to be better than purging your God's enemies?

While I'm sure that was true in some cases, it certainly wasn't across the board. Plenty of crusaders set off quite simply to gain wealth and lands.

I had a German room mate from South Africa back in the day, and I remember when he got a phone call about a bombing that was carried out by SWAPO, which killed and injured several people.
He was pumped up and pissed for the next couple of days, talking about the sub human terrorists who murder women and children.
My guess is that is a lot of where the reputation comes from.
Of course there's the other side of the coin, but the initial question is why Nelson Mandela was called a terrorist by some.