- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Do you still believe Nelson Mandela was a terrorist?
Posted on 9/14/17 at 5:07 am
Posted on 9/14/17 at 5:07 am
Why Reagan supporters disliked Mandela-Article by New Republic
I like to look at things from both side of the aisle (even though this seems very one-sided given the proof and documentation we have on South African apartheid).
And for the record, despite all of the knowledge that I have about apartheid, involving its origins and encouragement, I do not condone violence against the Afrikaners or the destruction of their property.
So tell me why you feel that Mandela was a terrorist.
Here are some clips from the article
quote:
Reagan not only removed the restrictions; he embraced the South African Apartheid regime. He instituted a policy euphemized as “constructive engagement.” Reagan said that the United States lacked the power to change the internal workings of the Afrikaner government. Not only was the claim false, it contradicted his position on the far more powerful Soviet Union, which was designed precisely to change the evil empire’s internal behavior. Reagan put Mandela on the U.S. terrorist list, a placement that wasn’t removed until 2008, incredibly. This was at a time when the South African civil war was at its peak of violence, with the conflict becoming a global cause.
quote:
Most of the opposition was justified on foreign-policy grounds. The Reaganites feared that the Soviet Union would gain from the Afrikaner regime if they alienated it. As Conservative Caucus Foundation Chair Howard Phillips put it, “It’s not just a black-white issue. It’s red versus red, white, and blue.” The man who, outside of Reagan, did more than any other to shape the administration’s pro-apartheid policy was Assistant Secretary of State Chester Crocker, who fashioned the Constructive Engagement policy. Wrote Crocker: “The real choice we will face in southern Africa in the 1980s concerns our readiness to compete with our global adversary in the politics of a changing region who future depends on those who participate in shaping it.” The State Department now says frankly that “Defenders of the Apartheid regime” in the West “had promoted it as a bulwark against communism.” There were two flaws in this line of thinking. First was the notion that South Africa was an important theatre in the Cold War. It wasn’t. It wasn’t even of secondary importance, as Indochina was. Western Europe and Japan were what always mattered. Then there was the view that any means were justified in defeating the Soviet Union. Apartheid was as hideous a societal construct as existed, but many conservatives praised it just because it was anticommunist.
15
Posted on 9/14/17 at 5:22 am to volod
Just let this thread die.
ETA- Stop feeding him!!!
This post was edited on 9/14/17 at 6:20 am
Posted on 9/14/17 at 5:29 am to volod
Do you know what's going on in S.A. right Now?
I give that 15 years...the commies will have destroyed it...for better or for worse.
I give that 15 years...the commies will have destroyed it...for better or for worse.
Posted on 9/14/17 at 5:39 am to volod
South Africa is a lost cause anyway, I'm sure you know the #1 problem for the apartheid government was illegal immigration from the surrounding black nations 
Posted on 9/14/17 at 5:47 am to volod
I don't care
Posted on 9/14/17 at 6:10 am to volod
His wife was and he stayed married to her.
You appear to approve of necklacing. Ol' Nellie never said anything about his wife doing it.
You appear to approve of necklacing. Ol' Nellie never said anything about his wife doing it.
Posted on 9/14/17 at 6:13 am to volod
Didn't they enjoy stacking tires around a person and lighting them?
Posted on 9/14/17 at 6:15 am to bencoleman
On another note in 2015 the SA black terrorist government quit taking racial statistics of crime in order to hide the genocide of whites from the world. They need to keep getting worldfare because they are now unable to feed themselves.
Posted on 9/14/17 at 6:29 am to volod
Volod, I work with two guys from South Africa who are both in their late 50s.
If Nelson Mandela wasn't a terrorist, the ANC was certainly a terrorist organization. Their "struggle" included bombing bars, shopping centers, markets, courtrooms and a nuclear power plant (unsuccessfully).
If Nelson Mandela wasn't a terrorist, the ANC was certainly a terrorist organization. Their "struggle" included bombing bars, shopping centers, markets, courtrooms and a nuclear power plant (unsuccessfully).
Posted on 9/14/17 at 6:55 am to volod
Being highly involved with any organization that puts bombs in public places, targeting anyone nearby IS a fricking terrorist. Not even a difficult concept. Pretty sure their bombs killed more black women and children than white soldiers, so they also sucked at what they were doing.
Posted on 9/14/17 at 8:23 am to reverendotis
quote:
the ANC was certainly a terrorist organization
Backed by Communists.
Posted on 9/14/17 at 9:15 am to volod
South Africa has become a third-world hellhole since black rule began. Rhodesia was a prosperous nation until Mugabe took power and black rule began. There seems to be a common theme in the downfall of these two countries.
Posted on 9/14/17 at 9:39 am to SCLibertarian
quote:
South Africa has become a third-world hellhole since black rule began. Rhodesia was a prosperous nation until Mugabe took power and black rule began. There seems to be a common theme in the downfall of these two countries.
So what you are saying is, oppressive rule and denying people rights is okay as long as murders are not committed against the ruling class. Got it. Do you even realize that you are defending a system that is essentially a revised Jim Crow?
But every conservative completely overlooks all of the atrocities the Afrikaners committed on the black population.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but it could be argued that had systemic oppression never been implemented in the "homelands", that a large resistance group would not form, in the first place.
Throughout history, resistance groups (often called terrorist by those who wish to remain the dominant power) form because of oppression and being treated as 2nd class citizens. Think about it, why revolt when you are being treated equally?
I am not, nor will I ever condone terrorist acts. But the fact is, groups like the ANC would never have existed if Civil Rights had been implemented instead of apartheid.
Posted on 9/14/17 at 9:43 am to volod
quote:
Think about it, why revolt when you are being treated equally?
Question could be posed to any number of leftist groups in the U.S.
South Africa had real problems then and now. Americans just create them out of thin air.
Posted on 9/14/17 at 9:53 am to volod
quote:
I am not, nor will I ever condone terrorist acts. But the fact is, groups like the ANC would never have existed if Civil Rights had been implemented instead of apartheid.
So was the ANC a terrorist group or not?
Mandela was certainly a terrorist at one point but became more in his later years. Very much like Menachem Begin in Israel.
Posted on 9/14/17 at 10:03 am to volod
Labeling an individual a terrorist or a freedom fighter is subjective and any subsequent debate is pointless.
Did Mandela's group use violence against others to rectify what they viewed as injustice? Yes, they did. They were extremely violent individuals. The only debate that remains is if that violence was justified or not. Again, a pointless arguement.
Did Mandela's group use violence against others to rectify what they viewed as injustice? Yes, they did. They were extremely violent individuals. The only debate that remains is if that violence was justified or not. Again, a pointless arguement.
Posted on 9/14/17 at 10:06 am to volod
South Africa was better off under Apartheid. This is obvious.
Posted on 9/14/17 at 10:13 am to volod
quote:
I do not condone violence against the Afrikaners or the destruction of their property.
Mandela and company tacitly accepted this as a natural consequence of ending apartheid. His movement (in eerie similarity to segments of the U.S. black civil rights movement, however well-intentioned) was funded by the Soviets in an effort to isolate, separate and destroy western, democratic (yes, I know apartheid wasn't strictly democratic), capitalistic countries.
Now - SA is still the economic powerhouse of sub-Saharan Africa - but in many respects it is just a wealthier version of violent, dangerous, corrupt African nations of the region. It will likely get worse.
I just wonder what happened to their nuclear weapons...
This post was edited on 9/14/17 at 10:14 am
Posted on 9/14/17 at 10:17 am to volod
quote:
I am not, nor will I ever condone terrorist acts. But the fact is, groups like the ANC would never have existed if Civil Rights had been implemented instead of apartheid.
Not saying civil rights bad or apartheid good, but if SA had done at independence what you are claiming they should have, the entirety of the white population would have left, immediately. The ANC would still have existed, they would just be ruling a much, much poorer nation than they are today. That means more starvation, more suffering.
This happened in the Guianas (S America), Carribean, Mozambique, etc. And once the whites leave, they take their money with them. The end result is crippling poverty at the national level that is almost insurmountable.
Black majority countries don't like white minorities. There is one (and only one) instance of a black majority country suffering the existence of a visible white minority, and that's South Africa since the 1990s. Obviously that tolerance has come to an end.
Is there good historical reason for animosity? Sure. But two wrongs don't make a right.
Posted on 9/14/17 at 10:22 am to volod
quote:
Two wrongs don't make a right, but it could be argued that had systemic oppression never been implemented in the "homelands", that a large resistance group would not form, in the first place.
Throughout history, resistance groups (often called terrorist by those who wish to remain the dominant power) form because of oppression and being treated as 2nd class citizens. Think about it, why revolt when you are being treated equally?
I am not, nor will I ever condone terrorist acts. But the fact is, groups like the ANC would never have existed if Civil Rights had been implemented instead of apartheid.
Y'all can bitch about colonialism all you want, but colonizing these place brought order and prosperity. Once white people are inevitably kicked off the southern part of the continent, the place will devolve into every other shithole on the continent.
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News