Nelson Mandela was rightfully imprisoned

[jonathanasdf]

Yeah. Sounds like a great topic to argue for... isn't it? Well I have to do it for debate at school. Let me know what you guys think about the topic. I'm presenting on Friday, and right now my speeches are based on just general terrorism.

Of course, good ideas don't come when only one side is being argued for, so lets make this a full debate. Was Nelson Mandela rightfully imprisoned? Was his act of fighting evil with evil justified, or does the ends not justify the means? Was he a liberator, or just a plain terrorist?

Thanks guys.

[TheRapingDragon]

Unfortunately I'm not about to do your homework for you, but if you present your argument as to why he was rightfully imprisoned (or why he was not rightfully imprisoned) then I'll be glad to debate or counter-debate accordingly.

In other words, show your points and your own opinion first please.

[jonathanasdf]

Well, would someone who bombed buildings, murdered innocent civilians, and refused to renouce violence to change politics be classified as a terrorist? Because Nelson Mandela had committed all of these acts. By definition, terrorism is

The use of - or threatened use of - criminal violence against civilians or civilian infrastructure to achieve political ends through fear and intimidation.

Mandela had participated in various acts of terrorism, including the Church Street bombings, the Koeberg Attack, and the production and distribution of over 210000 hand grenades, 4800 anti-personnel mines, 1500 time devices, 144 tons of ammonium nitrate, and more such explosives and weaponry. He was later tried for 221 counts of sabotage, of which 193 were counts of terrorism.

Mandela may have liberated Black Africans, but the end does not justify the means. For the acts of terrorism he committed, Nelson Mandela was rightfully imprisoned. The end that he achieved should not affect the fact that he killed innocent civilians. He could have gone after the Aparthied government heads instead, and perhaps achieved the same ends. Thus he was rightfully imprisoned.

[darkness1477]

well the black africans were so used to being abused by the white ones were convinced that all white people were evil so his actions were in ressponse to how his whole life was lived which was crappy thanks to white people and the civilian whites were to ignorant to try to help or try to change it so why are they any better for letting aparthied happen tehn the people who made it happen? so in the end they were just as bad so he should not be punished for his crimes since the crimes of all the civilans who let aparthied happen are just as bad if not worse.

[jonathanasdf]

About 90% of the people in this world are just trying to live their life. They don't care about politics or anything else. However, did they do anything wrong? Then, why do they deserve to die? Did those civilians actively participate in oppressing the blacks? Bystanding is not a crime. The killing of innocent people, however, is, and thus Mandela should have thought first before acting, and targetted the source of the problem, instead of resorting to terrorism, and because he didn't he should have been imprisoned.

[darkness1477]

if you aren't part of the solution yoiur part of the problem. In times of crises people are forced to make desicions that they don't havve time to fully think out. though he was a bit excessive he was fighting for a noble cause and his methods worked in the end. besides after what the whites ahad done to him he was just returning the favor

[sumzup]

"Returning the favor" does not absolve one from one's actions, though I do agree that Mandela is a great person. As always, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. He isn't the Jesus-reborn some (like the Ubuntu sample video) make him out to be, but neither is he some cold-hearted murderer.

[MalReynolds]

But in certain cases, standing idly by is a problem, much more than you would realize. There are numerous historical examples, the most prominent being the rise to power that the Nazi’s achieved prior to and during WWII. If half of the people who were unaffected by the radical changes being placed had given any sign of disagreement, a whole mess could have been avoided.

It’s one thing to stand by and not personally endanger yourself. Sure, everyone has the right to safety, but I firmly believe that a person has the responsibility to help others, even if that means putting themselves at risk. It’s not a popular stance, to be sure, and it’s not one that I think a large majority would agree with, but it’s one I abide by whenever possible. I’ve been punched in the face and threatened at knife point for trying to break up fights. I was almost beaten with broomsticks by greedy employees who were trying to stop me from returning a purse to a woman who left it behind accidentally.

But that diverges from the point. Bad will flourish if people simply do nothing against it. And I think, definitively, that inaction enabling the rise of dishonesty, brutality, or evil is almost as bad as committing the act itself.

[Arch0wl]

Mandela may have liberated Black Africans, but the end does not justify the means. For the acts of terrorism he committed, Nelson Mandela was rightfully imprisoned. The end that he achieved should not affect the fact that he killed innocent civilians. He could have gone after the Aparthied government heads instead, and perhaps achieved the same ends. Thus he was rightfully imprisoned.

The problem with your argument is that you're looking at it from the perspective of (presumably) a member of a western nation, which, successful or not, aims to have a neutral and indiscriminate system of law enforcement. Apartheid was by no definition neutral and blatantly discriminatory, and you're forgetting that the nation enforcing it had achieved power through British colonialism; in other words, most definitely through the same means that Mandela had attempted. Thus enforcing the law does not become just enforcement, as the enforcers of the law are guilty of the same act they are trying to prohibit.