Mandela's dead

[Fruitcake]

Yeah, here's Obama at Mandela's memorial happily taking a selfie-



I give his wife, Michelle props. At least she's classy enough to stay dignified.....

..........unlike the village idiot more commonly referred to as the British Prime Minister.

[Lootifer]

George Washington was a terrorist.

Could be your next thread.

Single mistakes actions taint you for life I guess.

He was a terroist for part of his life. He was also simply just a political activist (and not a terroist) for a good chunk of his life also.

[AndyDufresne]

When I was a kid, I remember breaking some bottles and jugs and my grandfather's farm for fun. I was pretty much a terrorist.


--Andy

[patches70]

George Washington was a terrorist.

Could be your next thread.

Single mistakes actions taint you for life I guess.

He was a terroist for part of his life. He was also simply just a political activist (and not a terroist) for a good chunk of his life also.

I can't believe you just called Mandela a terrorist. What could possibly have led you to that idea?

Ever been to Alcoholics Anonymous? An alcoholic is an alcoholic for life even if he hasn't had a drink in decades. Maybe Agent 86 wouldn't have a problem if people referred to Mandela as a "recovering terrorist". Or "former terrorist". Arafat turned away from terrorism but some would always consider him a terrorist. And probably rightfully so, though there are plenty in the world who would view him as a hero.

Just because someone renounces their former violent ways doesn't absolve them of guilt from the violence they did commit. At least I don't think it does.

Unless of course terrorism is ok so long as the cause is just.But that leads down all kinds of nasty roads. Who determines what's "just"?
Where does Agent 86 get the moral authority to say it's ok to kill children in the cause of ending Apartheid but not for something else, say the expulsion of foreign troops in one's homeland? For instance, is it ok to blow up civilians in, say London because Britain has troops in Afghanistan?
I don't see any reason why native peoples shouldn't rise up and try to expel foreign troops in one's homeland (that's war) and if it's ok to use terrorism in the pursuit of a just cause, then it's perfectly acceptable to blow up children in the capital city of the invader's army.

I'm just speculating on the nature of terrorism and people's often contradictory views of the practice. As agent 86 said rightfully, it's pretty easy to get labeled a "terrorist".

[TA1LGUNN3R]

EDIT: Oh, and if your talking about the US' Founding Fathers, it's pretty much no different, except the Founding Fathers after winning their war didn't turn the new found United States into murder, rape and lawless capital of the world.

That came much later.....
The ANC came out the gates pretty much murdering, raping and pillaging not only their former political masters, but each other as well.

One should note the time difference between the two instances. If the Revolutionary War were to take place in a theoretically modern world (lol like the world would be so awesomely modern without Uhmerica, f*ck YEAH) would post-revolution America and S. Africa be so different?

-TG

Yeah. The two have different histories--especially in their institutions. The US enjoyed a long period of expansion versus little organized resistance, and its overall story has been one of increasing economic success. South Africa was a product of full colonization which consisted of controlling the local populace. The introduction of Europeans into the US more or less eliminated about 90% of the local populace through disease, so they simply expanded outward, instead of having to control the local populace--as was done in South Africa. South Africa and its neighboring tribes also offered a stiffer resistance and seemed to have been more resilient to European diseases (I could be wrong on that). The different results in from this story are due to the different demographics and different nature of colonization (expansion v. control).

One very interesting point about South Africa is how the white-only labor unions supported the ANC's pushes for higher minimum wages (which they've set to W. European standards, thus contributing to massive unemployment). The most racist of organizations was supporting a commonly praised public policy that's intended to help the poor, but in reality raising the price of unskilled labor makes the price of skilled labor relatively cheaper.

Maybe. I was more hypothesizing that a fully modern world would come upon whatever the equivalent modern Native population would be in the States, shake and stir. A lot of supposition and fancy, sure, but my point was that it's easy to condemn S. Africa's situation when it could easily be so similar to the hypothetical. And again, as you pointed out, the majority of the resisting population was wiped out fairly easily, so antagonistic populations were less of factor. Let's say the Amerinds weren't wiped out by European diseases. How would the story play out then?

I don't know, I don't think there is any reason to think that in said instance that the US would degenerate like South Africa did. Look at the Soviet Union, they fell apart, and it was chaotic, but nothing of the nature like South Africa. What happened in South Africa was not only a great shame, but the results sullied Mandela's efforts.

It's ok to praise one's intentions while ignoring actual results, but at least people should be honest about it. Mandela probably had good intentions but the results pretty much wipe those good intentions away IMO. For myself, it's impossible for me to not take into account the results of one's good intentions.

Not everyone is like that, plenty of people can see only the intent and completely ignore the results.
Just like when people cannot be objective they take offense to statements like the OP. The OP made the off cuff comment that bears truth however distasteful it may be and another took offense. Except the one offended didn't even realize that Mandela was indeed a terrorist.

It's ok if one is a terrorist so long as the terrorist is supporting one's own ideology I guess. I can understand that, like I've said, one man's terrorist is another's hero. Usually a terrorist is what the big army calls the little army. And if the terrorist wins the war, lo and behold they are no longer a terrorist, they are a national hero. Go figure.

Like I said, I don't have anything against Mandela. The ANC is complete crap IMO, but I sure as hell aren't going to deify Mandela or treat him like a saint. Too much evil happened under his watch by the very group he founded and led. It can be argued that it wasn't all his fault, or that he even tried to stop the terrible things that happened, but we get back again to the intentions vs results. He may have tried but he failed miserably.

For those who ignore what happened it's easy to look at Mandela with pride.
For those who remember what happened after he and the ANC triumphed, one cannot help but shake their head in great sadness.

But at least he tried I guess. It is admirable for one to stand up for what one believes in I guess. But then again I suppose it matters what one believes in, eh?

It's easy to take vengeance on one's enemies once vanquished. And often far less admirable and taints all that one stands for when such things happen.
It's a far better road to give mercy and compassion in accordance to one's beliefs. And a far more difficult and praise worthy road to travel.

Former leads to great abuses in the future. Like the ending of WWI and the horrible way Germany was treated sowed the seeds for an even worse war in the future. At least the world learned their lesson I think after WWII, that you don't treat your enemies like dogs in the street. When we do that we end up treating everyone like dogs. Like the ANC treats the people of South Africa. Though they are getting a little bit better of late, but it's going to take a lot to wash away all the blood on their hands. And they ain't even close to getting there yet.

Live and learn I suppose, such things happen often enough to not be very surprised when it happens. Who knows how it would be for the US when we eventually go through something like what South Africa went through. Maybe we'll devolve and start raping, murdering and pillaging or maybe not. I guess we won't know till it happens, but let's pray we have more capable figureheads than Mandela was when that time comes.

We shall see.

fwiw I agree with you. I don't believe that the ends justify the means, especially in the killing of innocents. Dr. King achieved much in the advancement of civil rights, and he never killed anybody.

-TG

[Fewnix]

you guys are a hoot:

The US enjoyed a long period of expansion versus little organized resistance, and its overall story has been one of increasing economic success.

[Lootifer]

George Washington was a terrorist.

Could be your next thread.

Single mistakes actions taint you for life I guess.

He was a terroist for part of his life. He was also simply just a political activist (and not a terroist) for a good chunk of his life also.

I can't believe you just called Mandela a terrorist. What could possibly have led you to that idea?

Ever been to Alcoholics Anonymous? An alcoholic is an alcoholic for life even if he hasn't had a drink in decades. Maybe Agent 86 wouldn't have a problem if people referred to Mandela as a "recovering terrorist". Or "former terrorist". Arafat turned away from terrorism but some would always consider him a terrorist. And probably rightfully so, though there are plenty in the world who would view him as a hero.

Just because someone renounces their former violent ways doesn't absolve them of guilt from the violence they did commit. At least I don't think it does.

Unless of course terrorism is ok so long as the cause is just.But that leads down all kinds of nasty roads. Who determines what's "just"?
Where does Agent 86 get the moral authority to say it's ok to kill children in the cause of ending Apartheid but not for something else, say the expulsion of foreign troops in one's homeland? For instance, is it ok to blow up civilians in, say London because Britain has troops in Afghanistan?
I don't see any reason why native peoples shouldn't rise up and try to expel foreign troops in one's homeland (that's war) and if it's ok to use terrorism in the pursuit of a just cause, then it's perfectly acceptable to blow up children in the capital city of the invader's army.

I'm just speculating on the nature of terrorism and people's often contradictory views of the practice. As agent 86 said rightfully, it's pretty easy to get labeled a "terrorist".

I never suggested that Mandela wasn't a terrorist, especially early in his life.

In answer to your question: I personally would never condone terrorism. I do however empathize with its usage, much like I empathize with a cornered dog going bezerk to escape its captors; those left with no "good" courses of action will then resort to "bad" courses of action to achieve their goal.

[thegreekdog]

Yeah, here's Obama at Mandela's memorial happily taking a selfie-



I give his wife, Michelle props. At least she's classy enough to stay dignified.....

I always liked that video. Cracked me up.

[BigBallinStalin]

EDIT: Oh, and if your talking about the US' Founding Fathers, it's pretty much no different, except the Founding Fathers after winning their war didn't turn the new found United States into murder, rape and lawless capital of the world.

That came much later.....
The ANC came out the gates pretty much murdering, raping and pillaging not only their former political masters, but each other as well.

One should note the time difference between the two instances. If the Revolutionary War were to take place in a theoretically modern world (lol like the world would be so awesomely modern without Uhmerica, f*ck YEAH) would post-revolution America and S. Africa be so different?

-TG

Yeah. The two have different histories--especially in their institutions. The US enjoyed a long period of expansion versus little organized resistance, and its overall story has been one of increasing economic success. South Africa was a product of full colonization which consisted of controlling the local populace. The introduction of Europeans into the US more or less eliminated about 90% of the local populace through disease, so they simply expanded outward, instead of having to control the local populace--as was done in South Africa. South Africa and its neighboring tribes also offered a stiffer resistance and seemed to have been more resilient to European diseases (I could be wrong on that). The different results in from this story are due to the different demographics and different nature of colonization (expansion v. control).

One very interesting point about South Africa is how the white-only labor unions supported the ANC's pushes for higher minimum wages (which they've set to W. European standards, thus contributing to massive unemployment). The most racist of organizations was supporting a commonly praised public policy that's intended to help the poor, but in reality raising the price of unskilled labor makes the price of skilled labor relatively cheaper.

Maybe. I was more hypothesizing that a fully modern world would come upon whatever the equivalent modern Native population would be in the States, shake and stir. A lot of supposition and fancy, sure, but my point was that it's easy to condemn S. Africa's situation when it could easily be so similar to the hypothetical. And again, as you pointed out, the majority of the resisting population was wiped out fairly easily, so antagonistic populations were less of factor. Let's say the Amerinds weren't wiped out by European diseases. How would the story play out then?

Who knows. Similar enough case studies--where the local populace didn't die in as extremely large numbers as the American Indians is New Guinea and all those islands. Indonesia's been dominant there, while the 'locals' are pushed further into the lesser productive lands. A South Africa didn't happen there, so <shrugs> who knows.

[BigBallinStalin]

you guys are a hoot:

The US enjoyed a long period of expansion versus little organized resistance, and its overall story has been one of increasing economic success.

What's your point?

[spurgistan]

I give this troll thread a B-. Good job, good effort.

[Phatscotty]

HAHAHA! Obama got up for a second and when he got back Michelle took his seat to keep away from the blond woman! She knows how her man acts around the blondes, and he KNOWS Mitch is furiously jealous towards blondes.

Look at him suckin up!! His credibility and trust looks like it might be gone with gunns too. He aint gettin none for a lonnnnng time


HAHAHA and look at Susan Rice in the back, she's like "just tell me when, and I'll slice this blondie!"

show

[Gillipig]

Good riddance. Another terrorist bites the dust! I cared more about Brian the dog in family guy dying.