[Repeat to Fade]

Nelson Mandela is an international revered figure and has been given hundred of awards including the noble peace prize.

But will the trial of Charles Taylor possible damage his image? For those that haven't been keeping up to date with the trial one of the major points is that Charles Taylor among others mostly celebrities attended a party hosted by Mandela in 1997. In 1997 it was known that Charles Taylor was a war criminal, he was the head of the NPFL who were known for their brutality and sponsored the RUF in Sierra Leon. No other African leader was at this party, yet Taylor with all this known at the time ate, drank and partied with celebrities and Mandela himself.

Surely his motives for this has to be questioned? In fact maybe the overwhelming positive feeling for Mandela needs to be questioned, it was not an isolated case of him being friendly towards a dictator. And while it is a contentious subject he was a terrorist who was responsible for the deaths of innocents.

Are we due to rethink our hero worship?

[Azale]

It would be nice if you could stop pussyfooting around and say what you're getting at before we castigate one of the few truly respectable African statesmen.

Who the hell is perfect anyway. Gandhi disowned his son and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. I really hate to quote Mao, but a revolution is not a freaking dinner party and the overthrow of the apartheid system was shockingly less violent than many had imagined could be possible. This is largely thanks to Mandela.

[Repeat to Fade]

But it's not just about his terrorist activities during apartheid he had a very poor choice of friends when he was in power. I just wonder if he should be held up as a near-saint like he currently is.

In the cold light of day maybe Mandela's record isn't as awe-inspiring as many would have you think.

[Azale]

"But it's not just about his terrorist activities during apartheid he had a very poor choice of friends when he was in power. I just wonder if he should be held up as a near-saint like he currently is."

As far as I know, the only real connection South Africa had to Taylor was that one of its private military contractors (Executive Outcomes?) was hired by Sierra Leone's government to fight Taylor's little side posse, the Revolutionary United Front. He wined and dined with butchers and warlords sure, but unless I see a more solid link than that...well, it doesn't mean much to me. Mandela was also incredibly naive (or just really polite) in asserting Laurent Kabila would be a new face of change in Africa. It is possible he bought into Taylor's line, that he was a liberator of Liberia from the clutches of the murderous Doe clique.

At least, that is more plausible than the nothing you are offering right now.

"In the cold light of day maybe Mandela's record isn't as awe-inspiring as many would have you think."

Everyone is free to see the mistakes he made. Umkhonto we Sizwe was an abject failure. He eventually joined the chorus of those agitating for violence and innocents were killed. He cooperated with unsavory characters, in the hopes that it would further his own national liberation goals.

But in summation, it is still pretty awe-inspiring, especially in a relative context. There was nothing stopping Mandela from sucking SA's coffers dry, getting some revenge for his decades imprisonment, establishing a self serving cult of personality and unleashing the ethnic hordes on the Afrikaners. He did not even approach this typical African transition of government, and while the ANC and South Africa have plenty of problems, a Mandela ain't one.

UNLESS there is some big bombshell you're just itching to drop

[Kaspar]

Unless you want to pretty much ostracize yourself from the rest of the continent, an African president is going to have fraternize a little with dictators. You don't win political battles by being idealistic, especially in Africa and other developing regions. For example, albeit sort of getting off topic, Mandela has even stated that the ANC only used the communists for political leverage, there's never been a clear connection between the two parties' ideological platforms.

[Dave]

I agree with Kaspar, and my immense respect for Nelson Mandela as a supremely gifted political strategist is not diminished. It must also be noted that for most of his career Mandela was perceived as the weaker power in his struggle, and thus the threshold for offensive behavior is much higher in his case than it was for the white leaders of South Africa.

The attempt to tarnish Mandela with this is the equivalent of the attempt to tarnish King with his mild communist associations. It is irrelevant to the basic issue and attempts to win over political moderates with deception, instead of focusing on the real reason why both figures should be opposed.

[Azale]

Well, while we're all here...what is the reason Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King Jr. should be opposed?

[Needs More Ditka]

But it's not just about his terrorist activities during apartheid he had a very poor choice of friends when he was in power. I just wonder if he should be held up as a near-saint like he currently is.

In the cold light of day maybe Mandela's record isn't as awe-inspiring as many would have you think.

A man who got out of prison, changed an entire nation, and went from fighting a despicable, racist system to being elected the leader of the same nation isn't awe-inspiring? You've got some pretty high standards there guy.

[Repeat to Fade]

Sorry I'm just not a big fan of murdering children (even in the name of equality for those still living), and befriending tyrants and war criminals. Just a personal preference.

[Needs More Ditka]

I'm not a fan of warfare either, but I'm not going to condemn someone for waging it in defense of the underprivileged.

[Repeat to Fade]

Then you need to learn the difference between terrorism and warfare. It also doesn't explain his actions once in power.

[Needs More Ditka]

Warfare is terrorism on a massive scale. There is nothing more dignified about going to war then there is about flying a plane into a building. Both kill people. Both scare people. The only difference is one is government-sanctioned.

And if you're going to bring out that scary T word then perhaps you should inform me why I should despise this international icon of equality.

[Repeat to Fade]

Warfare is terrorism on a massive scale. There is nothing more dignified about going to war then there is about flying a plane into a building. Both kill people. Both scare people. The only difference is one is government-sanctioned.

No terrorism is aimed at civilians, it's aim is to kill enough innocents and do enough damage to the civilian population to change government policy.

[Dave]

Well, while we're all here...what is the reason Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King Jr. should be opposed?

They sought the dismantling of white rule in their respective societies, which in turn led to a decline in power, security, and quality of life for the resident white populations.

Most people who post threads like this actually oppose Mandela (or King) for that reason, but aren't willing to come out and say it and thus turn to distractions.

[Repeat to Fade]

Oh I don't oppose what Mandela achieved just how he went about that and his pallying up to war criminals. The whole apartheid thing was rather bad and it needed to go, but terrorism was a lame way of doing it.

[eugenekop]

Unless you want to pretty much ostracize yourself from the rest of the continent, an African president is going to have fraternize a little with dictators. You don't win political battles by being idealistic, especially in Africa and other developing regions.

Indeed. Terrorism is a valid tool when all other options fail.

[Repeat to Fade]

No guerilla warfare would be a vaild tool, attacks upon the army, and if you want to tread a dangerous line the police and politicians.

Killing innocent civilians on the other hand isn't ever valid.

You can't claim to be fighting for justice when you commit such evil.

[eugenekop]

No guerilla warfare would be a vaild tool, attacks upon the army, and if you want to tread a dangerous line the police and politicians.

Killing innocent civilians on the other hand isn't ever valid.

You can't claim to be fighting for justice when you commit such evil.

I wouldn't say it is never valid, it is valid for example when the other side does this to you as well. It is also valid in other cases like the use of atom bombs on Japan. That was an intentional killing of civilians, but that was the right thing to do at that time.

If you know that you will save 5 of your own soldiers by killing 10 innocent civilians, I would tell you to go for it. So this is not black and white. It really depends on the circumstances. However I agree that Guerilla warfare is a much more legitimate tool, and that terrorism is a last resort that should be used very sparingly.

[Tailz]

I wouldn't say it is never valid, it is valid for example when the other side does this to you as well. It is also valid in other cases like the use of atom bombs on Japan. That was an intentional killing of civilians, but that was the right thing to do at that time.

The intentional killing of civilians is never the right thing to do.

If you know that you will save 5 of your own soldiers by killing 10 innocent civilians, I would tell you to go for it. So this is not black and white. It really depends on the circumstances. However I agree that Guerilla warfare is a much more legitimate tool, and that terrorism is a last resort that should be used very sparingly.

If killing civilians is your only method, then you need to find a new method.

Unconventional warfare is just another method of waging war, it is nether legal or illegal. But actions that kill or maim the innocent on purpose, are immoral, unjust, unethical, and just bad manners.

Eugenekop, did you ever stop to think that this blatant disregard for the sanctity of your fellow human beings is why Israel is still in constant conflict with the Palestinians?

[eugenekop]

Unconventional warfare is just another method of waging war, it is nether legal or illegal. But actions that kill or maim the innocent on purpose, are immoral, unjust, unethical, and just bad manners.

Then I disagree with you. I gave 2 examples, and I think they both show valid use of intentional killing of civilians. If America didn't drop those bombs on Japan the war would have dragged for decades with millions in causalities. I have no doubt about it.

Your position is too idealistic. When the world will be a a more peaceful and organized place with a system of policing and real international courts, then we might totally ban terrorism. Until then, it is a valid tool, and if you don't use it, someone else will use it against you and you'll gonna suffer or die.