This example is great It illustrates the liberal mentality that being anti-apartheid is equivalent to Sainthood. The last paragraphcommentary by BET says it all!

Of course it's unfair to say she is amurderer running scot-free without addressing where she learned her trade.

Clearly Nelsons shining example of altruistic moral behavior didn't rub off on her....or maybe it is a case of birds of a feather...

"It culminated in the decision taken in 1961 to prepare for armed confrontation. December 1961 saw the opening stages of the campaign in the simultaneous acts of sabotage which occurred in most of the main urban centres on the 16th.

The Move to Armed Struggle

Why was the decision for armed struggle taken in 1961? Why not 1951 or 1941 or 1931? Is it that the character of the state had so altered fundamentally that only in 1961 did armed struggle become the only alternative? Not at all. There has never been a moment in the history of South Africa since 1952 in which the White ruling class would have given privileges without a physical battle. Why then did organisations like the African National Congress not call for armed struggle? Was it perhaps that they were not really revolutionary or that it was only in the early 60's that they began to appreciate the correct strategy? Is there perhaps substance in accusations by some of our detractors that until the early sixties the liberation movement was lacking in military fervour and the desire for radical change'? In other words was its policy not a revolutionary one? What is our measuring rod for revolutionary policy? A look at this concept will help towards a more profound understanding not only of the past but of the future. It is therefore not out of place to devote a word to it.

In essence, a revolutionary policy is one which holds out the quickest and most fundamental transformation and transfer of power from one class to another. In real life such radical changes are brought about not by imaginary forces but by those whose outlook and readiness to act is very much influenced by historically determined factors.

To ignore the real situation and to play about with imaginary forces, concepts and ideals is to invite failure. The art of revolutionary leadership consists in providing leadership to the masses and not just to its most advanced elements; it consists of setting a pace which accords with objective conditions and the real possibilities at hand. The revolutionary-sounding phrase does not always reflect revolutionary policy, and revolutionary-sounding policy is not always the spring-board for revolutionary advance. Indeed what appears to be "militant" and "revolutionary" can often be counter-revolutionary. It is surely a question of whether, in the given concrete situation, the course or policy advocated will aid or impede the prospects of the conquest of power. In this - the only test, the advocacy of armed struggle can, in some situations, be as counter-revolutionary as the advocacy of its opposite in other situations. Untimely, ill planned or premature manifestations of violence impede and do not advance the prospect for revolutionary change and are clearly counter-revolutionary. It is obvious therefore that policy and organisational structures must grow out of the real situation if they are not to become meaningless cliches."

That's lifted straight from the ANC historical documents list. Read it once, twice...preferably at least three times to get a real feel for the belief system in the ANC leadership. The ANC went from freedom loving anti-apartheid supporters to a bunch of murderous thugs who justified violence and terror as the way to "shift power from one class to another". Acts of sabotage (aka terror) were performed throughout the city and Nelson Mandela was one of the sponsors. He was guilty of promoting terror, even if he didn't set all the explosives or personally kill all of the ANC's victims.

This is why I laugh at Mandela's rhetoric now - a peace lover! Winner of the Nobel Peace Prize!

The Iraq war was nothing if not an armed militant movement shifting power from one class to another! Violence was justified in South Africa but not in Iraq?

People who are free of the burden of historical knowledge can look into recent history read all the glowing remarks of this man and assume he is some sort of hero-martyr. He is nothing of the kind. He is just another promoter of violence against innocents who has accepted the sainthood cast upon him by a bunch of leftists and is sadly deluded and ignorant enough to believe his own leftist press.

I'll grant it is hard to find the actual ANC events on the web and they surely are not taught to you in any college. Of course revisionism only works when you suppress the actual history. Fortunately, my own collection of contemporary resources provides a clear unrosy view of the ANC's actions and why they were outlawed.

If Nelson Mandela is your hero well than Timothy McVeigh and his cronies would likely be right up your alley - for their principles are identical to the ANC's.

Unfortunately for you, I have not the time or the inclination to transpose documents or make a case which will be discarded on its face by folks who have long ago bought into the annointing and sainthood of Nelson Mandela.

SDAI-Tech1