Arguendo Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 oh give over, his action was to terrorise his own country into changing its political system the people on that island WERE terrified for their lives, i know wouldve been I take your point but I think you are wrong, yes his intention was to terrorise to gain a change or to make others take notice through fear, but he is no terrorist. He undertook his actions of murder & maiming out of a singular choice not as part of a likeminded group. If he was a terrorist he would be part of a group or organisation who all held the same opinion that in obtaining their objective they would have to kill & maim, I have not heard any far right group come forward to take recognition of his acts, in the same respect I’ve never heard of any far right group openly broadcast the need to undertake an armed struggle; He is & will always be just some sick individual who holds a very personal objective in gaining his political way, one which is not shared by others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 I take your point but I think you are wrong, yes his intention was to terrorise to gain a change or to make others take notice through fear, but he is no terrorist. He undertook his actions of murder & maiming out of a singular choice not as part of a likeminded group. If he was a terrorist he would be part of a group or organisation who all held the same opinion that in obtaining their objective they would have to kill & maim, I have not heard any far right group come forward to take recognition of his acts, in the same respect I’ve never heard of any far right group openly broadcast the need to undertake an armed struggle; He is & will always be just some sick individual who holds a very personal objective in gaining his political way, one which is not shared by others. Terrorists also always have demands. He wants to change the system. Don't we all. But he obviously went about it in the wrong way.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 I take your point but I think you are wrong, yes his intention was to terrorise to gain a change or to make others take notice through fear, but he is no terrorist. He undertook his actions of murder & maiming out of a singular choice not as part of a likeminded group. If he was a terrorist he would be part of a group or organisation who all held the same opinion that in obtaining their objective they would have to kill & maim, I have not heard any far right group come forward to take recognition of his acts, in the same respect I’ve never heard of any far right group openly broadcast the need to undertake an armed struggle; He is & will always be just some sick individual who holds a very personal objective in gaining his political way, one which is not shared by others. obviously we have differing definitions for the word terrorist surely the main definition is to "terrorrise"? to get your demands met? surely thats what he did? you DONT have to be in a group, organisation or cell to be one, just so happens the vast majority over the years have been Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 obviously we have differing definitions for the word terrorist surely the main definition is to "terrorrise"? to get your demands met? surely thats what he did? you DONT have to be in a group, organisation or cell to be one, just so happens the vast majority over the years have been I don't think he contacted anyone with demands... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upinwath Posted July 25, 2011 Author Share Posted July 25, 2011 This Mandela thing is a bit of a laugh anyway given he was fighting a far right racist government. Bit daft to bring up his name considering he was fighting Nazis and won. Even more so when you consider his attitudes to the nazis after he won. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 This Mandela thing is a bit of a laugh anyway given he was fighting a far right racist government. Bit daft to bring up his name considering he was fighting Nazis and won. Even more so when you consider his attitudes to the nazis after he won. Absolutely, I wonder what the likes of Breivik would have done if they had been in Mandela's post victory position? I can't imagine him wanting to kiss and make up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arguendo Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 I think you need to read up on the history of South Africa and how the ANC came about. In case you forget, even in recent history the Thatcher government resisted the application of sanctions against South Africa, the ANC's struggle against the apartheid regime started in 1912, by the time Mandela became involved in the 40's it was clear gaining change by "peaceful endeavours & gaining support from individuals/governments in other countries" wasn't going to work. Mandela and the ANC leadership had resisted direct action for many years, however they believed it became a necessary evil to facilitate change. I wonder what Mandela's detractors would do if the UK was controlled by Islamists who denied non Muslims the right to vote, made them live in the worst areas, denied them the freedom to associate with whoever they pleased, denied them equal access to education and health care? So you're a pacifist then? Thatcher like other countries resisted the sanctions for several reasons; one was the belief that sanctions would harm all South Africans, a morally & justifiable reason, the other reasons & not so morally justified was the British financial/business interests held in that country. The ANC overall objective was justified, but the majority of their actions were & still are classed as war crimes by some, whilst we also have to remember placing sanctions on South Africa would have caused a blood bath beyond comprehension, due to Russia’ support of the ANC. If as you say the UK was controlled by Islamists who denied non Muslims the right to vote, made them live in the worst areas, denied etc, etc, then I have no doubt a civil war would ensue, because that is wrong. But then by your own stance would you say that those in the UK who opposed the ruling Islamists & took it upon themselves to go about kidnapping & torturing both their own UK & opposition civilians would be justified. I don’t see many of those opposing the BNP or EDL running around with burning tyres over their heads, whole families being wiped out or mass rapes being practiced; I am in part a pacifist; but even I have limitations, a war whether internal or between other countries is one thing, but a political organisation which promotes & goes about terrorising, murdering & torturing both their own & other civilians is wrong, war is wrong but unfortunately inevitable at times; a reason why civilised countries undertook the writing of the Geneva convention in order o prevent atrocities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Thatcher like other countries resisted the sanctions for several reasons; one was the belief that sanctions would harm all South Africans, a morally & justifiable reason, the other reasons & not so morally justified was the British financial/business interests held in that country. The ANC overall objective was justified, but the majority of their actions were & still are classed as war crimes by some, whilst we also have to remember placing sanctions on South Africa would have caused a blood bath beyond comprehension, due to Russia’ support of the ANC. So I rest my case, they were never going to get the universal support from other countries as you suggested. If as you say the UK was controlled by Islamists who denied non Muslims the right to vote, made them live in the worst areas, denied etc, etc, then I have no doubt a civil war would ensue, because that is wrong. But then by your own stance would you say that those in the UK who opposed the ruling Islamists & took it upon themselves to go about kidnapping & torturing both their own UK & opposition civilians would be justified. I would absolutely support direct action in those circumstances as I've said many times on this forum. Any regime seeking to take away the citizens right to self determination would have to be prepared for a fairly robust response to it. I don’t see many of those opposing the BNP or EDL running around with burning tyres over their heads, whole families being wiped out or mass rapes being practiced; Because at the present moment in time this country still operates under a parliamentary democracy, if the scenario I described earlier ever came to pass the situation you describe would certainly happen. I am in part a pacifist; but even I have limitations, a war whether internal or between other countries is one thing, but a political organisation which promotes & goes about terrorising, murdering & torturing both their own & other civilians is wrong, war is wrong but unfortunately inevitable at times; a reason why civilised countries undertook the writing of the Geneva convention in order o prevent atrocities. You see you can't justify one without justifying the other. There are innocent and civilian casualties in both scenarios-I think the military call it collateral damage, others call it terrorism. I think what another poster said is most relevant with regards to Mandela-how did he behave when the ANC rose to power in 1994? Did he advocate the mass slaughter and removal of whites and supporters of the previous regime? No, he found the way to forgive and form an alliance with DeKlerk (another brave man in my opinion), that he hoped would pave the way for a successful South Africa, the fact that didn't entirely happen isn't his fault (or DeKlerk's) but at least all the people of SA have representation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 I don't think he contacted anyone with demands... no he didnt, but he had aims and a reason he wanted to change norways current political structure as it was lefty, marxist multicultural Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 no he didnt, but he had aims and a reason he wanted to change norways current political structure as it was lefty, marxist multicultural Terrorists always have demands. He wasnt a terrorist.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.