Hacker News Reader

Comment by SideburnsOfDoom | Hacker News Reader

> Mandela was a symbol of non-peaceful resistance

Yes, and:

"Umkhonto we Sizwe (translated as "Spear of the Nation") was the armed wing of the African National Congress (ANC), co-founded by Nelson Mandela, fought against the South African government....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umkhonto_we_Sizwe

Indeed, let's not allow anyone to sanitise history. It's a fact that Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and PW Botha all called him a terrorist.

View on HN

It's a fact that Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and PW Botha all called him a terrorist.

Is a bit like being called a wanker by Onan.

edit - pekk, it won't let me reply at the moment, but in answer to your comment, Thatcher was no idiot by any stretch of the imagination, but she did send the SAS to train Pol-Pot led forces, while Reagan put up the money, so I think she definitely had more than a little blood on her hands. - http://www.newstatesman.com/node/137397

In hindsight, yes.

Margaret Thatcher (to pick one) was a terrible idiot, but not a terrorist.

Terrorism is a term used to describe almost exclusively violence conducted at the intersection of non-state endorsement and non-Western. A definition of terrorism which is derived from the impact and motivations of the violence would be impossible: state-sanctioned and non-sanctioned violence are separated by very blurry lines in those dimensions.

Therefore to say Margeret Thatcher is not a terrorist is like saying "blue things are not yellow." Duh. The term exists specifically to describe violence conducted by people who are not Thatchers.

> Therefore to say Margeret Thatcher is not a terrorist is like saying "blue things are not yellow." Duh. The term exists specifically to describe violence conducted by people who are not Thatchers.

Unless you're Mark Thatcher

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Thatcher#2004_Equatorial_G...

Margaret Thatcher's rule started in May 1979, the genocide in Cambodia ended in 1979, the Khmer Rouge were defeated in January 1979 by the Vietnamese army. Blaming the genocide on Thatcher is one of the most ridiculous and intellectually dishonest anti-Thatcher argument I've read yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge_rule_of_Cambodia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher

Also, if you're going to judge statesmen by the regimes they supported, then you should know that Mandela was a big supporter of Cuba's Castro, Saddam Hussein, Qaddafi and North Korea. Does that make Mandela a horrible man or statesman? Probably not, you'd be hard put to find a single statesman in history who never supported at least one evil regime.

I didn't say that Thatcher was responsible for Cambodia's Year Zero. As you rightly say, she gave Pol-Pot support after Year Zero. At least the folk who gave him support before that have the excuse that they didn't know how he was going to turn out.

Year Zero corresponds to 1975, starts of the genocide, saying that she helped Pol Pot after Year Zero is disingenuous. She went into power in May 1979, when the genocide was over and the Khmer Rouge overthrown. So she had nothing to do with the killings. Also, the newstatesmen is highly leftist and the article very messy. I couldn't find any other source verifying all of these claims or to what extend did she personally help anything.

Also, the newstatesmen is highly leftist and the article very messy. I couldn't find any other source

from that article -

Until 1989, the British role in Cambodia remained secret. The first reports appeared in the Sunday Telegraph, written by Simon O'Dwyer-Russell, a diplomatic and defence correspondent with close professional and family contacts with the SAS. He revealed that the SAS was training the Pol Pot-led force. Soon afterwards, Jane's Defence Weekly reported that the British training for the "non-communist" members of the "coalition" had been going on "at secret bases in Thailand for more than four years". The instructors were from the SAS, "all serving military personnel, all veterans of the Falklands conflict, led by a captain".

Or is The Telegraph and Jane's Defence Weekly still too left wing for you?

While this is true, the remarkable part about Mandela is that his greatest accomplishments came 27 years after leaving the path of violence. He left prison not seeking revenge when it was possible, but offering forgiveness and hope.

Mandela was a pragmatist. Non-violence was a tactic that fit the strategic need.

tactic yes, but also a great appeal to his humanist intellectual position.

He could've been out of jail in a moment if he ever wanted to be a pragmatist.

Would leaving jail under those circumstances have helped his cause? If not, then doing so would not have been pragmatic.

What's more, he was on the US terrorist list until 2008.

I think the fact that Mandela was on it until 2008 is pretty much all you need to know about the US terrorist list. It can't be a very good list.

One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. But Mandela fought for a very important cause: the freedom of an oppressed people. And he always used the most effective and appropriate weapons to fight that fight.

Anyone who calls him a terrorist is a crook.

I have no views on political matters but anyone who feels oppressed and fights back would by your argument be perfectly acceptable and their violence legitimate. If I feel oppressed, is violence by me perfectly acceptable? I suppose it depends who is defining what "oppressed" means.

It's not about feeling oppressed, it's about being oppressed, and not having any democratic means to change it. Use the soap box and the ballot box first. It's only when they take away your right to vote and your right to express your political ideas, that violence becomes your only option for change.

I'm not sure that being called a terrorist by PW Botha is all that meaningful.

True, but Reagan and Thatcher's statements had economic and military impact.

The Reagan administration implemented the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act.

The Act that Reagan himself vetoed, yes.

Reagan's explanation for vetoing is the same that many on the left use for advocating removal of the Cuba sanctions: they hurt the people more than they help.

Reagan's real reason (as opposed to his explanation) was that during the cold war the USA would support any regime even really shitty ones like Pinochet in Chile or the National Party of South Africa that was openly anti-communist.

Reagan actually vetoed it, what i find funny is this line: " President Reagan enlisted South African foreign minister Pik Botha to call Republicans on the fence." Pik Botha was one of the hardest apartheid officials, he held out until the end and wanted war. Source below.

'''Veto by President Reagan[edit] Reagan vetoed the compromised bill on September 26, calling it "economic warfare" and alleging that it would mostly hurt the impoverished black majority and lead to more civil strife.[10] He again offered to impose sanctions via executive order, while also working with Senate Republicans on concessions to avoid them overriding his veto. Reagan's veto was attacked harshly by anti-Apartheid leaders like Desmond Tutu who said Reagan would be "judged harshly by history".[11] In the week leading up to the subsequent vote, President Reagan enlisted South African foreign minister Pik Botha to call Republicans on the fence, though this was seen to backfire.[12] Veto override[edit] Reagan's veto was overridden by Congress (by the Senate 78 to 21, the House by 313 to 83) on October 2.[13] This override marked the first time in the twentieth century that a president had a foreign policy veto overridden.[2] Apartheid opponents in America and South Africa applauded the vote, while critics argued that it would be either ineffectual or lead to more violence.[12][14]'''

All true. The American and UK right-wing lead by Reagan and Thatcher were hugely influential in supporting the apartheid regime - they may have been nasty but they were at least anti-communist.

It is not a coincidence that after the Berlin wall fall and the "threat of communism" receded, a political settlement became possible in South Africa. The cold war has a lot to answer for.

I can't reply to your statement below for some reason but Reagan vetoed the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid act. His veto was overridden by congress.

Well put.

> Indeed, let's not allow anyone to sanitise history. It's a fact that Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and PW Botha all called him a terrorist.

That says more about them than it says about Mandela.

The US is a symbol of non-peaceful dominance but somehow, thats okay, because 'destroying WMDs' or 'getting rid of the Taliban' are all better reasons to use violence than decades of systematic oppression.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com