US Has Nelson Mandela On Terrorist List

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon
Upgrade to the latest Flash Player for improved playback performance. Upgrade now or more info.
20,093
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon
There is no Interactive Transcript.

Uploaded by on May 1, 2008

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

License:

Standard YouTube License

  • likes, 61 dislikes

Link to this comment:

Share to:

Top Comments

  • Google "Church Street Bombing" and "Silverton Bank Siege" to see what kind of wonderful man Mandela is.

    Sadly for many otherwise sensible folks the fact that the pre-94 SA goverment were *cue scary music here* eeevvviiiilll baby eat "racists" that excuses (at least in their minds) any act of cold blooded murder or terrorism by the ANC and Mandela.

    Not that the "Young Turks" (failed AA hosts now reduced to Youtube oblivion) have much credibility on anythuing....

  • Let me get this right...white, apartheid gov't terrorizes black civilians and they are mad when the ANC terrorizes them back in response? Amazing. Don't kid yourselves people.

see all

All Comments (569)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • @lionsare Wrong. The US placed mandela on the list because his organization (the ANC and specificly it's militant arm Umkhonto we Sizwe) had commited many acts of political terrorism that targeted civillians. Also, the US supported SA (correctly in my view) because they were the last country in southern Africa that was opposing the southward spread of communism. Google "The South African Border War" for an explanation. Finally there is no comparison between US and SA internal policlies.

  • @lionsare I did say i would give you the last word, but i can't let that go. Sorry. I never said that the pre-'94 SA government was perfect. Far from it. But do you really feel that the fact that a crime has been commited by the other side justifies another (worse) crime? So you feel that draconian laws and oppressive internal policies somehow justify cold blooded murder? That's pretty sick thinking.

  • @trenchraider1 america put Nelson Mendela on a terriorist list because they supported the racist south African govt. that was doing to blacks the same thing the u.s was doing.

  • @trenchraider1 it doesn't matter weather you meant to or not innocent people will be killed, black south Africans were oppressing and killed long before those things happened. did they start the conflict? did the south African govt not kill, oppress, and imprison black south Africans. actions cause reactions, what they did was a reaction to what was happening. you don't look at what lead them to do this. you act like the apartheid south African govt was a bed of roses that committed no crimes.

  • @lionsare Continued: Anyone who thinks that is acceptable is an amoral scumbag. The fact remains that Mandela is in the same category as was Yassir Affaffat: a murous terrorist and criminal who got a pass for his crimes simply becase his oppnents were unpopular. And did you REALLY quote that convicted felon and all arond bad person, Maclom X, at me? I'll allow you the last word. I'm nice that way...

  • @lionsare Spare me the moral equivalence of the "one man's freedom fighter..etc" argument and the the comparison to "colateral damage". Those are bad arguments that only serve to make you look bad. There is difference between purposely targting civilians and those who unfortunately get killed because they were in the line of fire. finally, irregular warfare is indeed an option when you cannot defeat an opponent militarilly. But you do NOT target civillians for cold blooded murder.

  • @trenchraider1 At the end of the day one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. war with an irreconcilable enemy is an act which unavoidably will lead to innocent deaths. point blank all that matters is who started the conflict after that foes will have to be killed. West calls it collateral when it kills innocent people for its cause but when others do it its terrorism.

  • @trenchraider1 no combatants of the state were not the only ones targeted. unarmed British officials and businesses do not count as combatants. the only difference between a Terrorist and a resistance fighter is which side your on. when you are unable to meet and defeat the opposing military on equal grounds then you attack them in any way you can.

  • @lionsare Really? You want to compare the American Revolutionary War to, say, the Church Street Bombing? One was a legitimate revolution that only targeted the legitmate combatants of the enemy state, while the other was a terrorist act directed at civillians. It's not about non-violence, it's about terrorism. Sorry to break this to you, but your hero was a terrorist and scumbag. The South Africans locked him up for a reason.

  • @trenchraider1 like the french resistance and the american revolution were so non-violent.

    by any means necessary.

    - Malcolm x.

Loading...

Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more