Nelson Mandela - no longer a terrorist in the US.

Remove all ads!

A little late, but old heads think slow and realisation that the cold war is over is till taking time in some heads. Some person seems to have been a little faster and now, eventually, they have put Nelson Mandela from the US terrorist list.

Great news you say? Of course not. This is about the Bush administration: Mandela is on parole

Who yould ever forgive an evil democrat liberal communist like Mandela to have obstructed the US-apartheid coalition against the red threat in Angola in the cold 1980s when the US had such strange bedfellows ... like a Mr. Saddam Hussein? No one who has worked in the Reagan administration - that's for sure.

... just parole. Doesn't come that much as a surprise to me as Mandela has refused to speak to Bush as he reportedly didn't want to waste his time. You don't like me so I don't like you. It's the Bush style.

From here.

 

LOL they consider Mandela as a terrorist because he was trying to win equal rights for the oppressed black community of South Africa. Now they said he is on parole. I wonder what is their drug, it must be very good.

Hint who is the most hated politician in USA?
i wonder if he is too in the list

 

It wasn't about what he fought for or with, but how he fought. He was the leader of a terrorist organisation, if not in ideals then in modus operandi. A good pal of world's communists, trusted friend of col. Ghadaffi of Lybia, beneficiary of Mr Suharto of Indonesia. He isn't really a terrorist and bloodthirsty criminal despot of the caliber of Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe (former Rhodesia) and similar bullies more to the North, but it's remarkable that after the whole 'glorious' fight for the rights of the black conducted by the said bullies, the rights of the black - or anyone else for that matter - have not improved at all, let alone their economical conditions and newly rediscovered tribal blood feuds. You know, in communism everyone has plenty of rights, but there's no procedure for using them (Stalin's constitution AD 1934 was the most democratic one ever, the only flaw being that it was never upheld). In rampant savage communism you have no rights other than to the protection of Red Party Almighty

 

Are you certain about this? I went to see the Biography of Nelson Mandella and found this piece

This seems to me like the revolution Gadhi initialized at India, non-violence but still pushing hard.

I don't know Chevy i think that he went into the terrorists list because of your second explanation than anything else

 

yea, it's us slow americans and our evil overlord (and his goons) at it again. maybe, someday, we will get it together and actually accomplish something as a nation. like germany.

thank you ragusa for showing us the evils of our ways. again.

 

I'm just pointing out a weird incident and I mock about it a little.

It's not about the americans beeing slow - I'm pretty sure that outside the nuclear shelters of the US administration really few people in the US considered Nelson Mandela a terrorist. Maybe because they get more sunlight.
For people like those who served under Reagan little changed except that no longer russia is a obstacle.

 

Divide and rule they say. Tribal feuds where never asleep, they were always going on. So, they are not "newly discovered". The master has left the building, question is, who's going to be the new master. I think it's funny you mention Mugabe, who rules in good old Rhodesian spirit and has mastered some of those tribal feuds with utter violence.

Thus to all tyrants ! A rascist regime, using murder, torture, forced deportation and forced labour to stay in power and the people have no right to defend themsleves ? What happened to "There is a God, to punish and take revenge" ?
But then again, Mandela obviously led to the road to reconciliation.

If you ask me, I do not see any difference between an Apartheid-regime and communist-Russia.

And no, it does not seem to me, as if South-Africa would be a communist regime right now. No, not at all.

 

[Please don't post if you have nothing to contribute.] -Tal

I considered it a very appropriate response to yet another Ragusa started thread.

[ August 22, 2003, 22:10: Message edited by: The Great Snook ]

 

It's too bad that some don't have a degree of respect for the time-honored American tradition of free speech. Many know that the debate cuts deep into an entrenched ideology of belief. Thus, they would like nothing better than for the debate to go away. That way they would not have to explain any real reasons why they support the leaders and policies that not only fly-in-the-face of everything America has stood for in the past, but instead are only interested in this new ideology of don't ask and don't question anything the people we helped put in power want to accomplish. That way no one is accountable for their statements and actions, only how high they can wave the flag.

[ August 28, 2003, 05:37: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

@Chandos

You have completely missed the point. I (and from some of the tone of other posters) are just tired of non-stop American bashing. It seems that some people must spend hours each day finding obscure links that paint the United States in a bad light. Now I wasn't around these boards during previous administrations, so I have no idea if the bashing is aimed solely at our current president or if it has been uniform throughout all presidencies.

Regardless, I live in one of the most liberal states in the nation and politically I am an independent with strong libertarian leanings. I am a firm believer in free-speech. I am far from someone who just accepts whatever his leaders tell him, and I certainly do not need to wave a flag as high as I can to show everyone.

My point is that I am "bored/tired" with the meaningless bashing. If someone can prove to me that the topic as posted had a point other than to bash The United States and its president than I will eat crow.

Someone should move this entire thread to Whatnots and put it under random babblings for as far as I can determine no meaningfull discussion will come from it. Almost all of these threads degenerate into people complaining about the bashing and then others complaining about the complaining. I can't remember the last time I saw one stay on topic for more than one or two posts

 

@Chandos

Show me? Where? Merely exercising my right to free speech. Because I don't agree, I can't express myself freely?

On topic:

Ragusa,
Why does it not bother you that Clinton choose to not clear Mandela? He had 8 years? You just can't bash up the chance to take a shot at Bush.

 

I agree with Snook. It does seem that many of these posts wind up like that and in the end are pointless -- no one changes their mind or really makes that meaningful of points. In fact the most I've learned from these posts where it just seems to be full-out America bashing is that my ex-Social Studies class (who ticked me off every few seconds) is a representative of the rest of the world. For instance, at this point I might decide to go look up articles "revealing" him to actually have been leading the organization. And then of course you'd say that's propaganda but hello how do we know yours aren't. And forgive us silly Americans if we seem paranoid that you guys are out to get us with forever insults but it does seem that way. Maybe we are just sensitive... maybe not.

Going back on topic, I actually am a little surprised that he was put on probation because as far as I'd been aware he WAS trying to lead things peacefully and it was his wife who was the murdress. But perhaps there was some double plot facade. (ie good cop, bad cop tricks) that the CIA caught on to. I wish there was some way to find out for certain.

 

All of you know as well as I do that there has been an attempt by conservatives to attack Ragusa on almost every issue that he posts on. It doesn't matter if it is Mandella or Bush or Clinton, or Iraq, everytime he has a topic, all of you follow him there to attack his so-called "anti-Americanism." Yet I see that he always has a specific topic that he wants to comment on; not on Bush, or Reagan, or any other president. He speaks to an issue. Right now, it is the Bush policies that he is commenting on, and all the Bush supporters, rather than argue the merits of the topic, attack him as being anti-American. I don't see that as the case.

I, for one, can't stand Bush and his gang, and my attacks are meant to be on Bush as the worst president we have had in a long time, maybe since Calvin Coolidge, or Herbert Hoover. My threads and attacks are aimed at that guy and his henchmen. I will not deny it and I make no bones about it: He's a loser in my book and all of us are suffering as a result of his pooor leadership.

But I don't think that is what Ragusa's posts are about. He is only pointing out what is absurd in the current policy. If any of you are being honest, then engage in the debate, rather than trying to stop it.

 

Heh, I can't believe that the government actually put Mandela on the terrorist list! That's insane! What sort of threat could Mandela pose? Last I checked, he was still nonviolent. I think the problem is that main agenda is being severely twisted until the U.S. public becomes mindless sheep and agree with every sort of crap the Bush Administration pumps out.

Fight it, people! Don't be sucked down into the mindless zombie pit! This is total b.s. Don't buy it!

 

Tal you are exactly correct. It is getting old.

As I mentioned earlier I challenge anyone to prove to me that the original post had anything to do with a serious debate. Some examples

As to the entire topic. I offer another challenge. Can anyone find a link to a major news organization that even mentions this issue? I read the liberal Boston Globe and even they haven't mentioned anything about this. I don't doubt that it is true, but it is so non-newsworthy that I cannot even understand how anyone could pick a pro/con side to debate.

Tal, you want the alley to return to serious debates. Fine, I make another challenge to Ragusa. Create a topic of relevance and leave the name calling and snideness on the playground. Contrary to what some readers may think I do not believe that The United States is without fault. If there was a topic "In hindsight was the United States correct to invade Iraq" I would vote that we were wrong, even though before the invasion I was strongly for it.

I'm assuming that everyone can see the difference between an intelligent discussion about the invasion of Iraq and a name calling diatribe about a non-issue.

End rant.

 

Well, I'm gonna try to get back on topic a bit here. There are several South African families who have emigrated to my town in the past 10 years or so. They are white, BTW. They are decent, hardworking, compassionate people. You should hear THEIR version of how things went in South Africa -- it's not pleasant, and the conflict cannot always be summed up to:
Blacks -- totally innocent oppressed victims
Whites -- Totally unredeemably evil oppressors.
Now, I can't remember the statistic's source, but after the apartheid system ended, South Africa became the rape capital of the world, IIRC. Maybe it isn't anymore, don't know for sure.
Point is, Mandela has been practically sainted by the western press, and he's probably a good man, but he's not perfect, and his behaviour and associations deserve the same neutral evaluation we'd all like to to receive ourselves.
On a side note, any anti Bush person does have to address the interesting question -- why didn't Clinton take him off the list? While people don't like to hear it, sometimes I wonder if they know something we don't that influences their decisions . . .?

 

I agree with you Depaara, that it's not a black-white issue, all those good, all those others bad. But the ovious thing is, that Apartheid was a criminal system, an anachronism from a long gone past.

Either they know something or they hide something. In either case, a goverment has to put it's cards on the table, if it's democratic.

 

YOu know what? This is going to get me slaughtered, but I'll say it anyway. Canada and the US have a policy similar to apartheid -- it's called the Reserve system we use for Natives. Now admitedly it's not as bad or repressive, but there are Natives out there who feel marginalized and repressed by this system. Yet no one really talks about the down side to this policy.
I guess the point I'm re-iterating is that while I DO NOT and NEVER DID agree with apartheid, it is oh-so-easy for the affluent West (by which I mean North America and much of Europe) to point fingers and find fault, yet there are serious problems in our own back yards. It's never as simple as the 60 minutes soundbites.