7 Nelson Mandela Quotes You Probably Won’t See In The Media Watch

yo radical one
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#41
Report 4 years ago
#41
Discussing Nelson Mandela is the worst thing ever


Was he a violent terrorist? Yes he was, but that doesn't mean that his violence and his terrorism was unjustified, he was made into a lower class citizen in his own country so why should he not be? Again, the Western world largely opposed him and he was aligned with the Soviet forces during the Cold War, it wasn't until the fall of the USSR when the West suddenly decided they liked him, mainly to improve their public perception when Communism was no longer a threat. So the West created this idea of who he was and used him as their propaganda instrument when it was convenient to do so, until then, America and many European nations had supported the Apartheid government. He wasn't this peaceful hippy and I don't understand why White people see him as their best mate and a great redeemer, he was man who was treated badly and exploited, but was also very militant and interested in his own people, it just seems like the person and the perception are such different things.
0
reply
KingBradly
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#42
Report 4 years ago
#42
(Original post by InsertWittyName)
People always treat him like he's some benevolent, divine being. He was a human. Gandhi, Mother Teresa, MLK and Mandela all had their flaws- none of them were perfect, some were not necessarily nice people.
To say that Mother Teresa and Gandhi had 'flaws' is to put it pretty lightly.
0
reply
KingBradly
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#43
Report 4 years ago
#43
(Original post by yo radical one)
Discussing Nelson Mandela is the worst thing ever


Was he a violent terrorist? Yes he was, but that doesn't mean that his violence and his terrorism was unjustified, he was made into a lower class citizen in his own country so why should he not be? Again, the Western world largely opposed him and he was aligned with the Soviet forces during the Cold War, it wasn't until the fall of the USSR when the West suddenly decided they liked him, mainly to improve their public perception when Communism was no longer a threat. So the West created this idea of who he was and used him as their propaganda instrument when it was convenient to do so, until then, America and many European nations had supported the Apartheid government. He wasn't this peaceful hippy and I don't understand why White people see him as their best mate and a great redeemer, he was man who was treated badly and exploited, but was also very militant and interested in his own people, it just seems like the person and the perception are such different things.
Tbh, he never even tried to pretend that he was a peaceful hippie. He was very aware that he did bad things and I don't think he wanted people to forget that. There are some definitely strange and questionable sides to the man and to the things he did, but I think overall, once he left jail, he was generally a force of good. Before that, not so much. I really don't think that the terrorism he was involved in was excusable, even if one can sympathize with his anger. Also, his wife was totally crazy, but then he left her pretty much as soon as he left jail, which I think says a lot about how he changed. It's pretty shocking that he said anything nice about Gaddafi, but perhaps he was just exercising diplomacy, a skill which he clearly had a talent for.

Compared to the likes of Gandhi and the Mother Teresa though, he was much closer to the image people have of him.
0
reply
Gouki
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#44
Report 4 years ago
#44
Great man.
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#45
Report 4 years ago
#45
(Original post by DErasmus)
Not always though, there are numerous documented accounts where innocent people were killed. I have no problem with killing officials from corrupt regimes but killing civilians is a step too far.
Does that also apply to the likes of Isreal and us?

BY that logic we shouldn't have fought like any of our recent wars.
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#46
Report 4 years ago
#46
(Original post by yo radical one)
Discussing Nelson Mandela is the worst thing ever


Was he a violent terrorist? Yes he was, but that doesn't mean that his violence and his terrorism was unjustified, he was made into a lower class citizen in his own country so why should he not be? Again, the Western world largely opposed him and he was aligned with the Soviet forces during the Cold War, it wasn't until the fall of the USSR when the West suddenly decided they liked him, mainly to improve their public perception when Communism was no longer a threat. So the West created this idea of who he was and used him as their propaganda instrument when it was convenient to do so, until then, America and many European nations had supported the Apartheid government. He wasn't this peaceful hippy and I don't understand why White people see him as their best mate and a great redeemer, he was man who was treated badly and exploited, but was also very militant and interested in his own people, it just seems like the person and the perception are such different things.
Pretty much.
0
reply
DErasmus
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#47
Report 4 years ago
#47
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
Does that also apply to the likes of Isreal and us?

BY that logic we shouldn't have fought like any of our recent wars.
How many civilians in Iraq were killed by US forces? I don't get agree with Israeli excess but the idea that Palestine are innocents grinds my gears
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#48
Report 4 years ago
#48
(Original post by DErasmus)
How many civilians in Iraq were killed by US forces? I don't get agree with Israeli excess but the idea that Palestine are innocents grinds my gears
Just as I suspected. You don't actually believe in what you just said when it is the 'wrong' people doing the fighting.

If you think every single Palestinian is a legitimate target after what youi just said about mandella you are morally repungent hypocrite. No other way of looking at it :dontknow:
0
reply
inachigeek21
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#49
Report 4 years ago
#49
(Original post by Rakas21)
He was a terrorist and an enemy of the South African state. That he was welcomed to the UK is as much an injustice as Gerry Adams roaming the streets free today.
How was he an enemy of the South African state...?
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#50
Report 4 years ago
#50
The most ridiculous one on that list was Gaddafi, but Mandela wasn't the only African leader by a long shot to heap praise on the deranged sex maniac and torturer-in-chief of Benghazi. This adoration was entirely unrelated to the copious quantities of cash heaped on numerous African states by the dictator. See: Blair, Tony for more glowing tributes to the man in the tent with the big lady bodyguards.

Most of the rest of the list (with the possible exception of Cuba) seem at least arguable. The US is a case in point - their record on human rights is distinctly patchy. They didn't seem overly-concerned with civilian casualties at any point during the many wars of the post-war era they have, er, peacefully acted as principal instigator of.
0
reply
DErasmus
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#51
Report 4 years ago
#51
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
Just as I suspected. You don't actually believe in what you just said when it is the 'wrong' people doing the fighting.

If you think every single Palestinian is a legitimate target after what youi just said about mandella you are morally repungent hypocrite. No other way of looking at it :dontknow:
...? Hamas are the ones terrorising Israel. Israel is responding, maybe with disproportional force (I don't pretend to know what actually goes on on the ground unlike some people), but nontheless it's not them that is launching unprovoked rocket attacks over the border. You didn't answer my question, how many Muslims were killed by a US soldier?
0
reply
DErasmus
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#52
Report 4 years ago
#52
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
The most ridiculous one on that list was Gaddafi, but Mandela wasn't the only African leader by a long shot to heap praise on the deranged sex maniac and torturer-in-chief of Benghazi. This adoration was entirely unrelated to the copious quantities of cash heaped on numerous African states by the dictator. See: Blair, Tony for more tributes.

Most of the rest of the list (with the possible exception of Cuba) seem at least arguable. The US is a case in point - their record on human rights is distinctly patchy. They didn't seem overly-concerned with civilian casualties at any point during the many wars of the post-war era they have, er, peacefully acted as principal instigator of.
The US have been responsible for horrible regimes in the 20th century, but comparatively to the Soviets domestic policy has been nothing short of the difference between freedom and slavery, while an American might be constrained by factors such as wealth, they were always free to leave to another country, the Soviets literally killed people, millions of them for not working. US did not practice domestic terrorism whereas Soviet was a terrorist state.
0
reply
*Thedreaming*
Badges: 17
#53
Report 4 years ago
#53
(Original post by Rakas21)
Can't stand the hero worship he gets, he was by all accounts a terrorist.

He's a Marxist and his party are destroying the economy of South Africa. Another place we should have never left.
Da ***?


why do you feel entitled to South Africa?
1
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#54
Report 4 years ago
#54
(Original post by DErasmus)
...? Hamas are the ones terrorising Israel. Israel is responding, maybe with disproportional force (I don't pretend to know what actually goes on on the ground unlike some people), but nontheless it's not them that is launching unprovoked rocket attacks over the border. You didn't answer my question, how many Muslims were killed by a US soldier?
Look here you. You just stated Mandellas tactic of only attempting to target militarily and other 'fair game' groups as not being acceptable as civilians were still accidentally killed. This is an acceptable stance if you apply it everywhere, but you don't.

You then go on to state that this same rule does not apply for the wars we have been involved in and Isreals approach to Palestine (where Israel actually intentionally targets civilians). By your above pacifist like logic Isreal should not be doing what it is doing even if it is morally justified to do so as civilians may be killed by accident (even though they intentionally target civilians, but lets pretend they don't).

It seems to me you are just eating up the usual propoganda 'when we do it it is glory and just, when they do it is is evil and bad' I can't see how else you can have one rule for us and one rule of them.

It would be fine if you were fine with accidental civilians casualties casued by both mandella's terrorists and Isreal's army. But you aren't. It is illogical, biased and stupid.

I would imagine quite few Muslims were killed by US soldiers considering the Taliban are Muslim...
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#55
Report 4 years ago
#55
(Original post by *Thedreaming*)
Da ***?


why do you feel entitled to South Africa?
He is a colonialist for some reason.
0
reply
DErasmus
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#56
Report 4 years ago
#56
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
Look here you. You just stated Mandellas tactic of only attempting to target militarily and other 'fair game' groups as not being acceptable as civilians were still accidentally killed. This is an acceptable stance if you apply it everywhere, but you don't.

You then go on to state that this same rule does not apply for the wars we have been involved in and Isreals approach to Palestine (where Israel actually intentionally targets civilians). By your above pacifist like logic Isreal should not be doing what it is doing even if it is morally justified to do so as civilians may be killed by accident (even though they intentionally target civilians, but lets pretend they don't).

It seems to me you are just eating up the usual propoganda 'when we do it it is glory and just, when they do it is is evil and bad' I can't see how else you can have one rule for us and one rule of them.

It would be fine if you were fine with accidental civilians casualties casued by both mandella's terrorists and Isreal's army. But you aren't. It is illogical, biased and stupid.

I would imagine quite few Muslims were killed by US soldiers considering the Taliban are Muslim...
Taliban are civilians?

There is nothing illogical or inconsistent about the view that terrorism, that is the deliberate killing of civilians for a political purpose is wrong. The US did not deliberately target Iraqi civilians anymore than Israel did Palestinian ones, they both had motiviations to defend their country against attackers, Mandela was fine to bomb government officials but bombing civilians intentionally to make a point is NEVER ok. I have admitted Israel may be excessive (like I said I don't know on the ground!) but the idea that this is intentional is completely unfounded.
0
reply
*Thedreaming*
Badges: 17
#57
Report 4 years ago
#57
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
He is a colonialist for some reason.
smdh
0
reply
Dr Pesto
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#58
Report 4 years ago
#58
(Original post by Yeah dude)
History is written by the victor


Posted from TSR Mobile
That's not really true anymore though.
0
reply
Bubzeh
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#59
Report 4 years ago
#59
Let's be honest. South Africa was a ****hole and South Africa is still a ****hole.

He killed people that killed people, blah blah. One big cycle. Boring.

Only lived so long because he sat in prison doing nothing for all those years.
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#60
Report 4 years ago
#60
(Original post by DErasmus)
Taliban are civilians?

There is nothing illogical or inconsistent about the view that terrorism, that is the deliberate killing of civilians for a political purpose is wrong. The US did not deliberately target Iraqi civilians anymore than Israel did Palestinian ones, they both had motiviations to defend their country against attackers, Mandela was fine to bomb government officials but bombing civilians intentionally to make a point is NEVER ok. I have admitted Israel may be excessive (like I said I don't know on the ground!) but the idea that this is intentional is completely unfounded.
Every war is for political reasons you spud. Civilians will always die in them. You said if civilians are killed it can never be justified. Civilians died in our invasion of irag. You see I don't get so hung up about what is and isn't a terrorists' cos I can think outside the box those above try to put me in. Mandella was juts defiding the people being oppressed by the tyrannical state that was oppressing them :dontknow: Paletisinas that fight probably see themselves as defending their home from the evil lot on the otherside you lob gas in their schools. :dontknow: Isrealies probably see themselves as defending themselves from the lot you fire rockets at them.

If you are against civilian casualties full stop then you should be against all of the above, which you are not.

I';m just gonna leave this here as it is what I am trying to say.

It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

You are fine when it is Us doing the civilian killing but against it when it is them doing the civilian killing. Which to me it moronic and not objective in the slightest.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (561)
37.68%
No - but I will (116)
7.79%
No - I don't want to (106)
7.12%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (706)
47.41%

Watched Threads

View All