Nelson Mandela dies aged 95

[Kardan]

I'd actually laugh, that's no joke Seeing how mentally unstable he is it will probably be completely random and involve a string of weird events, if not - an overdose or some sort of STI/STD gone septic.

As for the topic. He lived quite a full life. But seeing as he was a terrorist at one stage in his life it seems a bit strange to consider him a saint, a "shining star" in the world. I can only conclude with the quote "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," because that's he was.

When I read this, I thought you were on about the Queen, and I thought you were the one going crazy But then I realised you meant Bieber

- - - Updated - - -

Er what? He refused to renounce violence when the President promised to release him upon doing so. How can he be directly quoted when he wasn't all that well known back then when people didn't fawn over his words?

Even the TRC after apartheid fell investigated the crimes of the ANC and it's terrorism.

You just don't want all this to be true so everytime I post the evidence on this man you just move the goalposts.

I've not moved the goalposts once, here's my first post:

Did Mandela's party even kill civilians when he was out of jail? All I've read about is 'Sabotage', like burning crops etc.

As we've established, they didn't. I'm not arguing against what they did whilst he was in jail, that's clear to see.

And on a second thought, if Mandela is such a bad man, surely that means Bush, Obama, Blair, Thatcher etc. are even worse?

[-:Undertaker:-]

And on a second thought, if Mandela is such a bad man, surely that means Bush, Obama, Blair, Thatcher etc. are even worse?

I have been one of the biggest critics on this forum of Bush, Blair, Brown, Cameron and Obama's foreign policy - foreign policy is exactly one of the biggest reasons why I didn't endorse either Romney or Obama in 2012 and instead endorsed Ron Paul. The same can be said for Labour and the Conservatives. Afterall if you think back, who was one of the only one's on this forum arguing against ANY military involvement in both Libya and Syria at a time when a lot of the forum backed action there. It was me and I think events have proved me correct don't you?

But here we're talking about Nelson Mandela and his bombing campaigns against innocents and i'm glad that we've finally established that he did indeed order bombings against innocent people and isn't the man he's being portrayed to be, aka another Gandhi.

[Kardan]

I have been one of the biggest critics on this forum of Bush, Blair, Brown, Cameron and Obama's foreign policy - foreign policy is exactly one of the biggest reasons why I didn't endorse either Romney or Obama in 2012 and instead endorsed Ron Paul. The same can be said for Labour and the Conservatives. Afterall if you think back, who was one of the only one's on this forum arguing against ANY military involvement in both Libya and Syria at a time when a lot of the forum backed action there. It was me and I think events have proved me correct don't you?

But here we're talking about Nelson Mandela and his bombing campaigns against innocents and i'm glad that we've finally established that he did indeed order bombings against innocent people and isn't the man he's being portrayed to be, aka another Gandhi.

I seemed to have missed that part of the thread...

[Demi]

RIP to a great man.

[The Don]

Lol you keep saying he ordered the murder of innocents from prison, proof please he admired to sabotage not murder, nice try though dan.

[myles]

this is a bit old now i think its time we leave him to rest in peace and talk about something nicer

[-:Undertaker:-]

I seemed to have missed that part of the thread...

Then I simply cannot do more, you're determined to see him as a Saint despite the overwhelming evidence.

A man once defined hell as a place where there is no reason, and you've just dragged me into hell.

Lol you keep saying he ordered the murder of innocents from prison, proof please he admired to sabotage not murder, nice try though dan.

So the organisation which he led and co-founded was completely out of his control? Are you really saying that?

The courts to my knowledge found otherwise.

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co....medium=twitter

A hero we shamefully ignored

A great tidal wave of syrup swept across the surface of the Earth as soon as the death of Nelson Mandela was announced. I am sure Mandela himself would have been embarrassed by it. One of the many good things about him was his modesty. Another was his genuine forgiveness of those who had wronged him.

May he rest in peace. It is those who overpraise him who are my targets here. He simply was not the perfect being they claim.

He chose to adopt the path of violence. He did not have to. Apartheid South Africa was a political and moral slum, but many fought it without resorting to gun or bomb.

And it is not just nasty, reactionary me making this point. Amnesty International, that great campaign for silenced and imprisoned voices of liberty, took up a then-peaceful Mandela’s case in 1962. But after his turn to violent tactics, the British group reluctantly decided that he could no longer be called a prisoner of conscience.

For years the African National Congress has used Mandela as window-dressing. It’s not a nice organisation. Its armed wing, Spear of the Nation, is notorious for its brutality.

The ANC was dominated at every level by the South African Communist Party, the most rigidly Stalinist movement outside North Korea, and grovelling supporters of Kremlin repression.

This is the real point of the whole exaggerated Mandela cult. Anyone looking at the world in the second half of the 20th Century could see that the harshest and cruellest regimes on the planet were Left-wing ones, in Moscow, Peking and Havana. But the fashionable Western Left will never admit that. They are interested only in ‘Right-wing’ repression and secretly think that Left-wing oppression might actually be justified.

That is why there was nothing like this fuss on the death of another giant of human liberation, Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Solzhenitsyn was at least as great as Mandela – and, in my view, greater.

He never wielded anything more deadly than a typewriter, yet he brought down an Evil Empire, with all its concentration camps, tanks, guns and bombs. But when he died in August 2008, I don’t recall hours of eulogies on the BBC, or his face on every front page. Ask yourselves why.

[The Don]

Then I simply cannot do more, you're determined to see him as a Saint despite the overwhelming evidence.

A man once defined hell as a place where there is no reason, and you've just dragged me into hell.



So the organisation which he led and co-founded was completely out of his control? Are you really saying that?

The courts to my knowledge found otherwise.

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co....medium=twitter

Have you ever heard the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"? A Peter Hitchens column in the mail on sunday is hardly evidence to support such claims, and in fact nowhere does it provide evidence to your claims. Considering that any of the bombings and murder of innocents you've linked previously were perpetrated whilst Mandela was locked away in Prison, far from being the ring leader you so desperately want him to be, I'm going to assume you're grossly mistaken. I'm all for a debate but when the best you can come up with is "WELL HE MUST'VE DONE IT SINCE HE WAS ASSOCIATED WITH THEM!!1!" your argument loses all validity. Oh, and to answer you question, I am indeed against the murder of innocents for political gain, but again, hearsay or guilt by association isn't going to prove whatever point it is you're trying to make.

So the organisation which he led and co-founded was completely out of his control? Are you really saying that?

Yes, I am suggesting that whilst he was incarcerated he wasn't the one planning the bombings of innocents, and unless you can prove otherwise your claims are invalid and simply conjecture

[peteyt]

I have been one of the biggest critics on this forum of Bush, Blair, Brown, Cameron and Obama's foreign policy - foreign policy is exactly one of the biggest reasons why I didn't endorse either Romney or Obama in 2012 and instead endorsed Ron Paul. The same can be said for Labour and the Conservatives. Afterall if you think back, who was one of the only one's on this forum arguing against ANY military involvement in both Libya and Syria at a time when a lot of the forum backed action there. It was me and I think events have proved me correct don't you?

But here we're talking about Nelson Mandela and his bombing campaigns against innocents and i'm glad that we've finally established that he did indeed order bombings against innocent people and isn't the man he's being portrayed to be, aka another Gandhi.

I'm a bit late on here but I wanted to touch on some of the things that "Undertaker" had brought up.

I don't know what to think of Nelson Mandela mainly because I've heard both sides of the stories but don't know enough to make my own decision currently. However my problem is that most of the side Undertaker has brought up, I've heard/learnt from online. For me the big problem isn't the fact that the news and etc is supporting Mandela after his actions, its the fact they aren't even discussing these actions.

Obviously some people will find Mandela a good person and even an inspiration but surely people who are that influenced by his good work, should at least be able touch on his bad work. It does seem like a lot of people are burying their heads in the sand and pretending there isn't a debate and that's the real problem for me. If all these people don't think he was a terrorist for example, at least tell us why you think this and touch on the whole terrorism angle rather than just pretending there isn't a debate to be had. Googling did bring up that at some point in 2008 Mandela was on the US terrorist watch list http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-list-in-2008/

Oh and I also wonder how many of the people, especially young people on Facebook/Twitter, know what Mandela actually has done when they post tweets like you where a big inspiration and stuff.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Have you ever heard the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"? A Peter Hitchens column in the mail on sunday is hardly evidence to support such claims, and in fact nowhere does it provide evidence to your claims.

Considering Hitchens is a former foreign reporter, he has pretty good standing when it comes to foreign affairs - especially concerning the end of the Cold War which he covered extensively.

Either way, what Hitchens wrote isn't the main point - the main point that you cannot refute (because it is true) is that even Amnesty International refused to associate with this man as he clearly crossed the line from a peaceful fighter against a regime to a violent one who sought to blow up innocent people to achieve his aims.

Considering that any of the bombings and murder of innocents you've linked previously were perpetrated whilst Mandela was locked away in Prison, far from being the ring leader you so desperately want him to be, I'm going to assume you're grossly mistaken. I'm all for a debate but when the best you can come up with is "WELL HE MUST'VE DONE IT SINCE HE WAS ASSOCIATED WITH THEM!!1!" your argument loses all validity. Oh, and to answer you question, I am indeed against the murder of innocents for political gain, but again, hearsay or guilt by association isn't going to prove whatever point it is you're trying to make.

You know as well as I do that just because you are locked in a prison that does not mean you lose contact with the outside world - look at the mafia. But even so, here's yet more evidence that apparently Mandela admits in his book 'Long Walk to Freedom' that he signed the Church Street bombings off - https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=cr&...alk+to+freedom

So he admits signing that bombing off, he associated with the scum in the IRA and didn't think they should hand over their weapons, he associated with Communist forces, his wife murdered people by placing them in petrol filled tyres, he also ordered the doctoring of a report which led to him ordering South African forces into the neighbouring Lesotho Kingdom which then results in a deal being signed that allowed South Africa to exploit it's water resources.

Even the CIA and British Government had him on their terrorist lists. Why? because he was.

Yes, I am suggesting that whilst he was incarcerated he wasn't the one planning the bombings of innocents, and unless you can prove otherwise your claims are invalid and simply conjecture

As above, he apparently admitted to the famous Church Street bombings. And even if he didn't sign them off (which he clearly did) - he refused to condemn them and was in agreement with them taking place, hence why he rejected the offer of release from prison if he renounced violence.

There are many references in this article you may find interesting which reference books by academics charting his history and what he really got upto - http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-...la-not-so-fast

I don't know what to think of Nelson Mandela mainly because I've heard both sides of the stories but don't know enough to make my own decision currently. However my problem is that most of the side Undertaker has brought up, I've heard/learnt from online. For me the big problem isn't the fact that the news and etc is supporting Mandela after his actions, its the fact they aren't even discussing these actions.

Exactly, we can debate his legacy - as i've said earlier, I admire him for the way he at least brought people together after apartheid fell rather than do what Mugabe did in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe).

But it just annoys the hell out of me that when you bring up what are facts abut his history that portray him to be a very different man to what the media circus are saying, you are met with utter disbelief because people simply cannot comprehend that he isn't what they've been brought up to believe.