Nelson Mandela dies aged 95

[The Don]

Wonder if the BBC will be playing this in their hysterical broadcasts?

Why would they when this was way before Mandela renounced violence and is completely irrelevant to what he later became famous for?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Why would they when this was way before Mandela renounced violence and is completely irrelevant to what he later became famous for?

Er what? the left in general was supportive of Mandela as he was committing these acts of terror - hence his close links with Communists both in Africa and around the world. The video above also looks like it was taken way after he was released from prison. Peter Hain (a former Labour Minister) was one of those campaigning for his release from prison - something that would have happened sooner had Mandela agreed to renounce violence like the South African President had asked of him. Mandela refused to renounce violence.

There's so much more you could comment on with this man - the fact he, back around 2000, said that the IRA shouldn't decommission it's weapons or the fact he remained silent on what Mugabe was doing in neighbouring Zimbabwe - or even the record of Winnie Mandela with her necklacing (type that phrase in on Google images to see what it means) ....... the man certainly isn't what he is painted to be.

He's also the man who said this when asked why he was visiting the terrorist and despot Gaddafi -

In 1994 Gaddafi, then still a world pariah, was invited to attend then President Nelson Mandela's swearing in ceremony. Responding to Western critisim of the new ANC government's close relationship with the Gaddafi regime Mandela stated that:

“Those who feel irritated by our friendship with President Gaddafi can go jump in the pool."

Just type in 'Nelson Mandela truth' on Google and you'll find shedloads of documentation that you weren't taught in school and certainly won't ever hear on the BBC or in the rest of the media. Everything i've stated here in this thread is factual which you and others can find with a simple search or even I can provide the links if you so wish. It speaks volumes to me that all of the Telegraph blogs today have all had their comments sections closed to the public - if the man is so great and there's nothing unsavoury about his past, then why the censorship?

As I said earlier - he had a redeeming quality in that he at least brought people together after apartheid had ended. But on a scale of Gandhi to Gerry Adams? He's firmly near Adams in that both he and Adams murdered innocent people to bring about their political aims whereas Gandhi utterly rejected that and brought about his political objectives through admirable tactics.

And what fool -repped me saying Mandela wasn't comparable to the IRA? Hello!?

[The Don]

I’m not in the mood for a drawn out debate with you regarding whether or not it’s right to fight violence with violence, although revolutions do tend to be bloody. The video you've linked is absolutely ridiculous and has been taken grossly out of context. He’s stood next to a white guy in the video for god sake and I'm pretty sure he had the opportunity if he wanted whilst president of South Africa to “kill whites” which obviously never happened. I'm pretty sure the song he's singing is some resistance song.

In regards to the IRA comment you've taken out of context, here’s what was actually said

During a news conference Monday in Dublin, Mandela was asked about his views on the IRA "I would like to see the British government and the IRA adopt precisely the line we have taken," he replied. "There's nothing better than opposites sitting down to resolve problems by peaceful means." A reporter asked Mandela if he knew that the IRA was backed by only a small minority, even in Northern Ireland.
"That's not the issue," he said. "The issue is that people are slaughtering one another when they could sit down and discuss the problems in a peaceful manner."

Wow, what a hardcore terrorist, advocating that people peacefully discuss their issues...

Oh, and I -repped you, I thought you had VIP otherwise I would've left my name on it.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh and here's a photo of Churchill with Stalin



doesn't mean they are comparable, what stupid logic

[-:Undertaker:-]

I’m not in the mood for a drawn out debate with you regarding whether or not it’s right to fight violence with violence

I never made that point. OF COURSE it is right to fight violence with violence, often it is the only way to break chains. The key difference though which i'm talking about is terrorism against innocent people - the idea that you purposely target innocent people in a campaign of terror to bring about political objectives.

I reject that notion and believe that the only targets should be that said regime. Do you?

although revolutions do tend to be bloody. The video you've linked is absolutely ridiculous and has been taken grossly out of context. He’s stood next to a white guy in the video for god sake and I'm pretty sure he had the opportunity if he wanted whilst president of South Africa to “kill whites” which obviously never happened. I'm pretty sure the song he's singing is some resistance song.

Well that's explained in the comments that apparently the man in the video is Jewish and some Jews consider their Jewishness as an ethnic group rather than being classed as white. I don't share that view but it's a view held inside Jewish circles and outside of them.

Either way, what's being taken out of context? I posted a video where he's singing kill the whites. The only person commenting on the video is you, I haven't actually said anything but have let it speak for itself. You seem incredibly defensive like you don't want it to be the truth.

But your problem is, it is true.

In regards to the IRA comment you've taken out of context, here’s what was actually said
Wow, what a hardcore terrorist, advocating that people peacefully discuss their issues...

*facepalm* Mandela was famous for making vague statements like that, anybody is capable of making a statement like that - it's worthy of a Miss World speech. Here's what he said in relation to the IRA when he was pressed by reporters on what he really thought -

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/op...-29384673.html

In April 2000, the political row over the IRA's unwillingness to decommission its weapons was dominating the political news during that visit to Dublin; so much so that, before Mandela came to lunch, he had met the Sinn Fein leadership.

"What advice, Mr Mandela, did you offer them," asked the late Aengus Fanning, editor of the Sunday Independent, another guest at lunch.

Mandela did not answer the question directly, but instead embarked on a long explanation of the position in which he found himself in South Africa on the same issue.

He outlined how he faced a wide spectrum of factions within the African National Congress, ranging from liberals, who said all guns should be handed over swiftly, to the mainstream, who felt they should be kept and that such a compromise could not be contemplated so soon.

Fanning repeated the question more pointedly: "But what was your position, Mr Mandela, on decommissioning weapons? And what advice would you give Gerry Adams?" Mandela's mood turned suddenly steely. He looked seriously and sternly at Fanning. "My position, my position... my position is that you don't hand over your weapons until you get what you want... "

The editors around the table were stopped in their tracks. Here was the other Mandela, unflinchingly gritty, never to be taken lightly, who commanded the respect of a huge revolutionary force inside and outside his prison cell.

That evening, I travelled back to Belfast and to the Culloden Hotel, where the Belfast Telegraph Business Awards were taking place. I arrived late off the evening Enterprise train and took my seat apologetically beside the then Secretary of State, Peter Mandelson, who was anxious to know what Mandela had said about Northern Ireland.

Mandelson was visibly shocked when I suggested Mandela did not share the unionists', or British, view on IRA decommissioning and that he thought David Trimble needed to show more political confidence and courage, because he had so much support from London. Mandelson was clearly annoyed at the prospect of such an influential global figure as Nelson Mandela showing sympathy for Sinn Fein and the IRA's position on decommissioning.

So is he still not comparable to the IRA or do you need more information fed to you? How about we discuss the bombings that his armed group engaged in against innocent people - like the IRA - to bring about a political aim?

As for the Churchill-Stalin picture, erm hello? Stalin was the commander of a huge army of a country that was involved in a make or break war in 1945. Gerry Adams was one of the leaders of a ragtag terrorist group that was targeting innocent people via roadside bombs. I think the comparisons are quite different. But beside, pictures aren't that important you are right - what's important is what Mandela has said on the IRA and which I have quoted above. Or even what his wife said -



Again, look up what necklacing is - look at the images, it'll give you a better idea.

[The Don]

The Telegraph has summed up better than I could why they are not comparable so I shall quote that

"The comparison is odd for a number of reasons, but the fundamental difference is that black South Africans, a majority, had no democratic alternative to armed struggle, being unable to vote. Catholics in Northern Ireland could. And until the government gave Sinn Fein an effective veto on all policy (which they now have) they mostly voted for the SDLP, which represented a clear rejection of violence from the Catholic population.

To talk about Northern Ireland and apartheid South Africa in the same breath is also absurd if one compares how Britain treated Catholics with how South Africa treated blacks. The Government spent huge amounts on Northern Ireland; indeed as Kevin Myers pointed out in the brilliant Watching the Door, the English taxpayer effectively bankrolled the Troubles, making it perhaps the only welfare state-funded conflict in history (the IRA received a great deal of money from building firms which were paid huge amounts by Whitehall to rebuild property destroyed by the IRA)."

[-:Undertaker:-]

The Telegraph has summed up better than I could why they are not comparable so I shall quote that

"The comparison is odd for a number of reasons, but the fundamental difference is that black South Africans, a majority, had no democratic alternative to armed struggle, being unable to vote. Catholics in Northern Ireland could. And until the government gave Sinn Fein an effective veto on all policy (which they now have) they mostly voted for the SDLP, which represented a clear rejection of violence from the Catholic population.

To talk about Northern Ireland and apartheid South Africa in the same breath is also absurd if one compares how Britain treated Catholics with how South Africa treated blacks. The Government spent huge amounts on Northern Ireland; indeed as Kevin Myers pointed out in the brilliant Watching the Door, the English taxpayer effectively bankrolled the Troubles, making it perhaps the only welfare state-funded conflict in history (the IRA received a great deal of money from building firms which were paid huge amounts by Whitehall to rebuild property destroyed by the IRA)."

Ah yes, the brave Daily Telegraph that is closing down all the comment sections on it's articles.

But in reponse to what you say on votes and so on, that excuses targeting innocent people does it? Even the Soviets in revolutionary Russia felt no need to wage a campaign of terror against the people of Russia - rather they waged a campaign of terror against the government and it's defences. The people of Tsarist Russia didn't have a vote.

In the dying days of British rule in India, Gandhi rejected any violence being used - even against British forces and troops - and indeed I read earlier that when his followers started to do just that, he went on hunger strike until they ceased a campaign of terror.

If Mandela has targeted solely the South Africa government in a campaign of terror then that's fine - but to purposely target innocent people just as the IRA and UVF did? Vile and sickening. I clearly reject such tactics whereas you endorse them - our disagreement is clear.

[The Don]

As for the Churchill-Stalin picture, erm hello? Stalin was the commander of a huge army of a country that was involved in a make or break war in 1945.

I see you've edited your post where you insinuated that Mandela was comparable with the IRA due to the photo. I obviously understand the context behind my example.

- - - Updated - - -

Ah yes, the brave Daily Telegraph that is closing down all the comment sections on it's articles.

But in reponse to what you say on votes and so on, that excuses targeting innocent people does it? Even the Soviets in revolutionary Russia felt no need to wage a campaign of terror against the people of Russia - rather they waged a campaign of terror against the government and it's defences. The people of Tsarist Russia didn't have a vote.

In the dying days of British rule in India, Gandhi rejected any violence being used - even against British forces and troops - and indeed I read earlier that when his followers started to do just that, he went on hunger strike until they ceased a campaign of terror.

If Mandela has targeted solely the South Africa government in a campaign of terror then that's fine - but to purposely target innocent people just as the IRA and UVF did? Vile and sickening. I clearly reject such tactics whereas you endorse them - our disagreement is clear.

You keep saying that Mandela targeted innocent people but you have yet to provide proof for these claims, post some and I will actually be able to respond... And could you highlight which part of my posts endorse the murder of innocent people? Because I don't remember writing that and it sounds like a cheap shot and a poor debating tactic.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I see you've edited your post where you insinuated that Mandela was comparable with the IRA due to the photo. I obviously understand the context behind my example.

Eh? I edited just after I posted as I usually correct spellings etc afterwards, I haven't changed anything I said in that post as I stand by it all - ask a moderator to confirm this is the case (if that's possible) if you wish.

Mandela refused to condemn the IRA, willingly met with it's leaders (pictures) and when pressed, stated that the IRA shouldn't surrender it's weapons until it had achieved it's objectives. That to me sounds like somebody who was rather sympathetic to the IRA - don't you think? Why heap praise on a man who is seemingly very comfortable associating with a group that murdered and terrorised the people of these islands?

Besides that's not even why he's comparable - he's comparable because he headed an organisation that targeted innocent people rather than solely targeting government figures as he should have done. Just like the IRA.

Just because you agree with an aim doesn't mean you have to endorse the killing of innocent people to bring about that aim - I am a very strong British Unionist like the UVF yet I think they are murderous scum on the same level as the IRA for targeting innocent people. The same applies to all the other Unionist terror groups in Ulster.

[The Don]

Eh? I edited just after I posted as I usually correct spellings etc afterwards, I haven't changed anything I said in that post as I stand by it all - ask a moderator to confirm this is the case (if that's possible) if you wish.

Mandela refused to condemn the IRA, willingly met with it's leaders (pictures) and when pressed, stated that the IRA shouldn't surrender it's weapons until it had achieved it's objectives. That to me sounds like somebody who was rather sympathetic to the IRA - don't you think? Why heap praise on a man who is seemingly very comfortable associating with a group that murdered and terrorised the people of these islands?

Besides that's not even why he's comparable - he's comparable because he headed an organisation that targeted innocent people rather than solely targeting government figures as he should have done. Just like the IRA.

Just because you agree with an aim doesn't mean you have to endorse the killing of innocent people to bring about that aim - I am a very strong British Unionist like the UVF yet I think they are murderous scum on the same level as the IRA for targeting innocent people. The same applies to all the other Unionist terror groups in Ulster.

You keep saying that Mandela targeted innocent people but you have yet to provide proof for these claims, post some and I will actually be able to respond... And could you highlight which part of my posts endorse the murder of innocent people? Because I don't remember writing that and it sounds like a cheap shot and a poor debating tactic.

[Kardan]

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