Mandela throws out the race card, site erroneous fact

I'll put you down as against the war in Iraq then and voting to get Bush out of office in 2004.

 

Timing,

I have already asked the question of whether we have the right to go to war.

I had a thread that said that Iraq has violated UN sanctions, not sanctions with the USA.

I don't think war is necessary, at least Bush has not proven his case yet.

DD

 

I was just messin with ya man. Ever heard the saying, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter?

 

I think he could've pardoned his conviction while he was President.

In a galaxy far far away, are Princess Leia and Luke Skywalker considered terrorists? The rebels didn't win with nonviolent resistence. Yet you might share their common ideals and then turn portray them in a more romantic light.

So are you dismissing his opinions by virtue of his convicted actions (and then likening him to Don King), or is it just a smoke screen to imply that you flat out disagree with what he says? I mean there are 11 countries showing their 'gratitude' of the US by standing with us in an allance, but you can't assume that every nation has benefited from our generosity. So you can't neccessarily categorize every foreigner as one indicative of "world opinion" and harden the stance for unilateralism.

The last thing I can ask is to read that link of Mandela Mr. Blaze provided: http://www.politicsandelections.com/usa/butts/gorejul31.htm

Because it's not about just "forgiving and forgetting" of one's past crimes, but also the harder task of providing equality and recrimination for the aggreived. In American history, Emancipation didn't end all of slavery's ills, but today a vast majority of Americans believe that the crimes against slaves were addressed with the 13th and 14th Amendment. It was essentially sweeping our darker aspects of history under the rug, and continuing our established principles. And that's a perspective you have to keep in mind when you read that article on Mandela.

 

I personally don't buy the "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" line at all. I think the difference between a "freedom fighter" and a terrorist is the nature of the target. Terrorists <i>target</i> civilians. Freedom fighters target the government they are fighting against.

Luke and Leah did not attack civilians, they attacked a military target (twice!).

 

I personally don't buy the "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" line at all. I think the difference between a "freedom fighter" and a terrorist is the nature of the target. Terrorists target civilians. Freedom fighters target the government they are fighting against.


So you don't think the bombing of the USS Cole or the various US Embassies is terrorism? What about the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon?

 

Wouldn't you think that 'fighting for freedom from their government' be implicit in the definition of 'freedom fighter'?

 

Actually I view those attacks as acts of war. However, actual war was never declared by the "enemy" nor is the "enemy" a soverign nation so you <i>could</i> call them criminal acts or terrorism, I suppose.

 

So let's see...if they agree with us, it shows that they are right minded, gratefull, and loyal...and therefore confirms the opinion that we are right...If they disagree with us they are obviously wrong-thinking, ungratefull, and disloyal, hence confirming our opinion that we are right....

If you start with the assumption that you are right an everyone else is wrong, you will usually conclude that you agree with yourself.

 

Macbeth,

Eureka, you are right !



DD