2006-12-21 12:07:22 · 19 answers · asked by JETT 2 in Travel ➔ Africa & Middle East ➔ South Africa
One mans terrorist is another's freedom fighter. You'll never resolve this question as it's so emotive.
Nelson Mandela is seen as a beacon of light for so many people because he speaks out against violence now. You'll get a lot of answers based solely on popular opinion, rather than knowledge.
A terrorist uses violence or the threat of violence to impose their political view on the rest of the population.
What did he openly state at the time of his imprisonment ?
I've lived in Belfast all my life and know something about terrorism. No matter what the cause, no life is worth losing to further it, no matter what the provocation.
A lot of people here died unnecessarily because if they'd put as much effort into promoting their ideal to everyone as they had trying to kill each other they'd probably have changed the others view to their own!! The main fact is that terrorism doesn't further any cause, just pays undertakers and gravediggers.
All we achieved in this part of the UK are slighter fuller graveyards and an embittered population wondering what exactly so many people died for but ironically still hating "the other side".
2006-12-21 12:29:54 · answer #1 · answered by dave angel 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Mandela was tried for "recruiting people for training and guerrilla warfare for the purpose of violent revolution." So in the technical sense, yes, he was convicted as being a terrorist against the repressive apartheid government.
But in that sense, all freedom fighters against a repressive government could be considered terrorists.
2006-12-21 12:18:52 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is that a freedom fighter will not target unarmed civilians with malicious intent. (Are you listening suicide bombers?) As with any word and any definition we must decide the current application and meaning. I think the above definition holds true. Mandela tried to help his people by destroying infrastructure and not civilians. As much as he hated the unjust system he never acted with indifferent disregard to human life.
2006-12-21 12:28:10 · answer #3 · answered by kid_flav 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm so tired of hearing this immoral hogwash 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.'
The drones that repeat that morally equivalent nonsense are people unable to think for themselves, so try to skirt round the issue by espousing that little sound bite they probably heard on a political TV show.
Of course Mandela was, and is, a terrorist, which is anyone that uses violence to perpetuate an agenda, specifically violence aimed at civilian, or soft, targets.
Mandela is Marxist, and his organization, the African National Congress, is structured along traditional Marxist lines.
He is a violent thug, who has pulled off one of the most remarkable political con-jobs in history.
2006-12-21 18:56:15 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
NO! He was not a terrorist. He was charged with treason. He was "a lawyer, and along with two friends, formed the League of the African National Congress in 1944. He faced treason charges along with 155 other political activists in 1956 but was acquitted five years later." He organized strikes and demonstrations, and the government killed the protesters, and his organization was forced underground. He was caught and sentenced to life in prison. He was freed after 27 years, because he didn't do anything but protest a horrible, oppressive, racist regime.
2006-12-21 12:17:50 · answer #5 · answered by Angry Daisy 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
He is a communist and a terrorist even though he was fighting for hes own people he was tried in a public hearing with a jury and found guilty on 26 accounts of terrorism
So dont try and change history and make up cover stories the fact that he sabotaged buildings is the truth
He was even singing kill the whites (the aba kulu)
Go look on You tube he should have rotten hes balls of
2006-12-21 17:39:15 · answer #6 · answered by boskafur 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Yes, of course he was. He was convicted of treason based on a bombing campaign conducted by the ANC, aimed at strategic targets (power stations, railway lines, NOT civilian targets). He was commiting acts of violence against the ruling authorities in South Africa at the time.
Using the word terrorist, however, doesn't mean that his actions weren't a justified act of war against an illicit regime.
2006-12-21 12:15:01 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter
It's a cliché, I know, but still true.
Myself? I wouldn't regard him as a terrorist.
2006-12-21 12:32:53 · answer #8 · answered by Blathers 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Nope, setting up bombs to kill innocent people doens't make him a terrorist. I think they arrested him out of fault! Of course he was a terrorist! ;)
2006-12-21 18:11:07 · answer #9 · answered by Motti _Shish 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He was a worthless terrorist then and is still a disgusting guy who is now too old to be a terrorist but is a racist, corrupt sob.. He was the one who destroyed South Africa
2006-12-21 13:12:57 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋