Was Nelson Mandela a terrorist?

Everyone was a terrorist.
Terrorism means "fighting in a way I don't like for a cause I don't like".
Attempts to turn terrorism around by saying "state terrorism" are missing the point. A guy was jailed on terrorism charges for setting three cars on fire in an SUV dealership as a form of direct action against cars, meanwhile his government bombed Baghdad fresh off Dresden and Hiroshima.
Terrorism is fighting how people don't like for causes they don't like.

>ass pained Afrikaners on my Veeky Forums

Jfc, you aren't even meme worthy

This. He undoubtedly was, which makes him becoming an agent for peace more powerful. I don't think anyone thinks he's a total saint, but he shows that peace is possible even if it's hard.

>he realized South Africa is a disaster.
Source?

>A guy was jailed on terrorism charges for setting three cars on fire in an SUV dealership as a form of direct action against cars, meanwhile his government bombed Baghdad fresh off Dresden and Hiroshima.
>Terrorism is fighting how people don't like for causes they don't like.
Mistakes of the subhumans. They immediately interpret the idea of subjectivity as giving them free reign to support any viewpoint that they want, no matter how incoherent, ignorant and wretched. Sure, the ant too has its own perspective of things, and therefore its own subjective reality, but who gives a shit about the reality of an ant? The greater the man the greater — and hence the more objective — his perspective, and therefore the idea of subjectivity does not undermine the absolute rule of inequality in the universe but is precisely the mechanism by which it comes about.

"Everything is subjective" means that everything can be perceived from a variety of perspectives — indeed an infinity of them — it doesn't mean that all perspectives are equal. From the plurality of subjects it by no means follows that all subjects are equal! But that is precisely what the subhumans contend. With a terrifying consistency they take the idea from the philosophers and utterly pervert it, until it comes to mean the exact opposite to what it meant at first. For if all viewpoints were indeed equal they would have to be identical! i.e. there would not be an infinity of viewpoints but only a single one! i.e. there would not be subjectivity! Subhumans: Standing Every Human Idea On Its Head Since The Invention Of Speech.

who are the subhumans?

Mandela was the leader of the ANC and helped found MK

That's like saying that if Bin Laden had been jailed but Al Qaeda had still carried out attacks anyway that Bin Laden was totally innocent

>seizing upon the animosity blah blah

During the "fall" of apartheid whites were still heavily armed and at points in time various generals spoke of committing a military coup in the country

Mandela would have gotten invaded like Milosevic if he had even tried to go Balkan Wars on the whites in the 1990s

He wasn't a peaceful figure like Gandhi who held the upper hand, he was a peaceful figure because the whites held all the power and were gradually giving it up to him because he won their trust you retarded faggos

>why are people angry that their country is now third world and the West lied to them

Why aren't you dead like Amy Biehl?

He literally helped turn the ANC from a club for rich Africans (he was related to Kaiser Matanzima and the royalty of one of the Xhosa tribes, hence why Mandela was educated and well off) to advocate for better treatment of Africans into a terrorist organization aligned with the SACP, Joe Slovo and the USSR and helped found MK.

For a board devoted to history most of you seem to have basic bitch highschool-tier understanding of South Africa.

>For a board devoted to history most of you seem to have basic bitch highschool-tier understanding of South Africa.
They know the history, they just base their opinions of the opinions fed to them by the media. They also feel Assad should be toppled and that the FSA will bring abaout a perfectly stable democracy and that the Islamist rebels won't seek power.

CAN'T YOU READ?!

Yes, but "Terrorism" is an incredibly broad and basically meaningless buzzword to begin with.

The american founding fathers were also technically terrorists.

What do you consider a terrorist?

Fuck off Winnie

A group not officially attached to a state attacking soft targets for political influence

No.
The founding fathers had their army and never organized any direct violence against certain people or groups of people. At least I've never heard about Washington throwing bombs at some pro-british official's house.

If bin Laden has no control anymore over Al quaeda you can't hold him responsible for what The new chief did

South Africa was always third world idiot.

Your post is even more basic bitch like.

You think people like Assassination after he sperged out and pretty much did the wrong choice at every opportunity he got dealing with the citizenry.

I wasn't referring to Mandela specifically. I was saying that "terrorist" is a useless term. Fear of violence created by displays of violence is what forces obedience to a state. It's also what rebels use to overturn obedience to the state.
As far as I can see "terrorist" is a vague, aesthetic term. Maybe a definition could be "illicit violence done in such a manner as to strike symbolic targets, causing fear amongst a populus", but even then the term only works in so far as you don't apply it to the state. Maybe the definition could be the above plus "not the state". At which point it's this clunky, unwieldy term that's obviously a waste of time from the perspective of clear analysis.

I didn't say that all perspectives were correct. I said that terrorism is an analytically weak term.

Also, were you trying to call me a subhuman? Will to power brah

necklacing
yep
nice

any documentary on modern SA

Terrorism has highly specific legal definitions.

No, terrorism isn't vague at all.
Terrorism is using violence ilegally to achieve political aims.
States even when they use violence follow some norms, at least provisionally. Terrorists don't.
States can commit terrorist acts too obviously.
Now terrorism can vary, for example striking government targets is more "moral" than striking at civilian population randomly.

Such as?

>using violence illegally to achieve political aims
Right, like every time a spy agency uses violence overseas. Are they terrorists?