Terrorist or freedom fighter? to man of the centuary.

Can't help it but I am rolling my eyes at this one.

Who were the terrorists the ANC or the Dutch that used violence and any means necessary to enslave the nationals and keep them there?

Walk a mile in their shoes and you may get a glimpse of the difference. However I think you'd have to walk way more than that to actually comprehend what they went through.

Remember the S.A tribes haven' really been unite as "1" people.

They had foriegners come to their land and because of their organization and access to firearms were able to subdue the nationals and then force them where to live in houses(but not in nices houses with amenities - shacks and rambles without proper waste disposal as a beginning) they were forced to live with "tribal members"  that may have been from an enemy tribe - or next to them so unrest was inevitable then the leaders would come an surpress the uprising(of the leaders making) with violence. They went from positions of power to nothing as a result all because they were black. They were forced into poverty, kept uneducated and underpaid and restricted in freedom of movement in their own country.

Now did the ANC focus their "terror" on America? No. Did they focus their "terror" on Europe? No Did they focus their "terror" on Asia? No did they focus ther "terror" on North Africa? No. Did they focus it on central Africa? No. Was it because they wanted to prove their God was bigger, better and badder? No. Did they focus it on the surpressors bent on never seeing them or letting them be equals in their own country? Do they try to draw attention other ways first? I'm sure they did, they probably tried all the political channels in their contry to no end. They probably even tried many international channels too.

Now examine terrorists. Do they attack the malevalent dictor that is surpressing them? No. Do they attack that which is made to be the scapegoat? Do they attack that which threatens their idealism in other countries?

Do I condone violence? No. Am I against violence? No - though I probably wouldn't choose that path. Am I surprised at some peoples choice to bring violence?No.

I have never had another nation/race come to my country and take me out of my job force me to live in cardboard/ wooden or tin ramshackles(remember these "houses weren't even as nice as the FEMA trailors for New Orleans - nor were they given the distance between neighbors as in New Orleans) without plumbing, electricity, not allow me to make a reasonable income no matter how hard I work, and the harder I try the more they try to beat me down, not allow me to go to school. Not be given the chance to have me or a true representative of me aid in the decision making for mine and others future. I have not had a person treat a dog or farm animal better than they would treat me. I have not had someone lay a beating on me without a chance of repercussions just because of my colour or because I drank from the wrong fountain, sat in the wrong seat or even raised my voices in frustration.

When I do I may have a different opinion of the ANC and their actions. Until then they were freedom fighters - trying to right a grave injustice and are not even close to the same category as real terrorists.

Speaking as one who grew up in Ireland until 6 years old, then South Africa from 6 to 25 years old with military service and now living in Ireland from age 25 to 40 years old:
I agree that there was no moral difference.
Also that the Black South Africans were used as slave labour, low payed, living in atrocious conditions in their own country.
The abolition of aparthied South Africa and the mission of Nelson Mandela was something all of the western world agreed with althought most would advocate peacefull negotiation , imposing sanctions first.
The ANC and Black (and quite a few white)people of South Africa realised this was not going to work as South Africa is quite capable of sustaining itself due it's vast array of resources.
The Irish question was one most of the Western world did not give a shit about and was localised to the UK and Ireland, leaving the battering out of a solution and end to it to these two parties and the para-militaries involved.
Similar to the South african problem there was collusion by the security forces and police, fact, with the Loyalist paramilitaries in order to set up the murder/assassination of Republican Catholics and even innocent Catholics, those killed mearly because they were Catholic.
The Catholics were not innocent of atrocities either, it is perhaps seen as the lesser of two evils.
South Africa was a problem hilighted on a Global scale and adpoted by the World as a problem that needed solving.
Both sides commited atrocities the larger ones by the side in power at the time, ie the British and South African goverments.
The Irish Catholics were interned without charge and some of them along with many Black South Africans arrested under almost the same circumstances died in captivity.
Refering to taoyoyo's post regarding Beko, I am sure if you have seen the end credits of the film you would have noticed the very long scrolling list of how many Black people died in captivity and the reasons given were "suicide, hung himself" and the worst cover-up of all "fell down stairs".
I am not sure of how many but a large percentage of the people who died in captivity "feel down stairs", ridiculous.
Remember most Black South Africans knew that these people were being murdered in captivity in a police state and dictatorship.
What would you do?
Most black people I knew would never entertain the thought of suicide, they are tough, yet gentle people on the whole who love life and could struggle through worse without the need to take their own lives.
The conditions of living and removal of basic human rights from black south africans was so distastefull an understanding could almost be reached by most of the world as to why "terrorist" acts were carried out.
I would not really call them terrorist acts but terrible acts caused against the sometime, innocents, not good, in order to try to make the White goverment bend somewhat in their steely resolve to resist.
I think during negotiations, the White goverment was told in secret, there are 3/4 million of you and 28 million of us, if we want to do what must be done in order to obtain our rights we will, you do the maths.
Soon after these negotiations the emancipation of Black South Africans began.
This is only specualtion but I had a feeling something like this may have been mentioned.
One must remember that what we see is not always what is going on and behind the scenes wheels turn ensuring power is kept were it is with no regard to human life. Forbid I attempt to preach to you Doc or anyone, no thank you, just an outflowing of my thoughts on this subject.
In a world such as we live in,  gray areas will never cease to be.

Hey Barefoot Doc,

I didn't mention earlier as I forgot but I don't think nelson mandela deserves a statue.

I did not mention about IRA and ETA(I know absolutely nothing about them) because I am more ignorant on them than what occurred in S.A. So I cannot say it makes it okay. What I am getting at is would the IRA, ?ETA? and ANC even exist if not for the "conquering" force coming in and treating the nationals as sub-human, removing land ownership, jobs, power and wealth?

I think I would answer - no.

Compare that to the terrorists most think of when someone says terrorist and those terrorists do exist without a conquering force or human rights violation by those they are attacking. They attack psuedo-judaism and capitalism, they aren't doing anything to correct a human rights violation or injustice.

I agree it is bizarre logic by TPTB also because they don't see the initial actions as terrorist - so what comes first the ANC or the "terror" the Dutch gov. brought to S. A - that gave rise to the possibility of the ANC, the IRA or the injustices of the British - that gave rise to the IRA? etc.

I also think that Islam gives the Oil PTB the para-military force to keep the world on edge(something the ANC didn't do) and fuel military R&D(I am sure the Oil Barons own much in these companies) and keep the prices of Oil up and as a result them rich. Whether the pawns know it or not that is a definite difference between the ANC, IRA and probably the ETA than "Terrorists"

If being labelled a terrorist is based purely on violence then yes there is no difference, BUT that means A LOT of countries are terrorists too.

Gov't's will allow genocide to occur with the idea that "we cannot interfere with a countries politics, they have to figure it out" look at Rwanda, Congo, Nigeria. Look at what can occur in China with the infantcide that has gone on. Even look at what Sadam did in Iraq and it took the threatening/invasion of another "country"(threat to oil/energy) before anybody did anything about it.

If you want to get into to funding and backing I'm sure Britain has a history of backing not so nice of leaders, the US sure does.

So to me the funding of ANC, IRA and (possibly)ETA is irrelevant, to me it is all about intent and I doubt the ANC, IRA and possibly the ETA would exist if not for the initial injustices and lack of international action to correct it, though a path I would not walk their "violence" is drastically different than what TPTB have labelled as "terrorist."

You're right it IS a GAME by TPTB, that's why I may have an opinion but I can shrug my shoulders, keep my focus on how I live and not be ruffled by the absurdness of some situations.