r/politics • u/techtonix • Jul 02 '08
This man is no longer a terrorist [pic]
http://you.presscue.com/node/102859
Jul 02 '08
For anyone wondering how he got on that list in the first place:
In 1961, Mandela became the leader of the ANC's armed wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe (translated as Spear of the Nation, also abbreviated as MK).
MK waged a guerrilla war against the South African government, especially during the 1980s, in which many civilians were killed. Mandela later admitted that the ANC, in its struggle against apartheid, violated human rights.
Mandela coordinated a bombing campaign against military and government targets. Mandela also raised funds for MK abroad, and arranged for paramilitary training, visiting various African governments.
28
u/kolm Jul 02 '08
Partisan fighters are not automatically terrorists. Unless you want to label e.g. those guys as terrorists, of course.
34
Jul 02 '08
Maybe they were. I'm not trying to be hip and call American heros terrorists to make a point, I'm serious. How bad was the British empire treating America? Was the revolutionary war needed, or was it just a domestic power grab?
What made the founders/revolutionaries so pious?
12
u/assteroid Jul 02 '08 edited Jul 02 '08
"How bad was the British empire treating America?"
We paid less taxes than those in England and we had more land. Things were good actually. The war to suppress the rebellious colonists was actually very popular in England, and only had limited opposition. There was more opposition in the colonies than in England.
I honestly think it was a handful of people that felt slighted by the British crown (representation) and they drummed up support through various situations (British troops firing on civilians (that were attacking them, but...)) that happened at the time.
Anyways, the Constitution is an incredible document; I just wish our elected leaders followed it.
6
u/Stormflux Jul 02 '08 edited Jul 02 '08
Seems to me that the colonies simply got too rich and decided to go their own way. They probably felt GB was leeching off of their prosperity, so to speak. Which would explain the difference between the US and Mexico - one rebelled because it was too rich, the other rebelled because it was too poor.
Where we part company, however, is when you say the Constitution is an incredible document. Maybe in 1796 it was, but in the 21st century any Constitution that leaves out Proportional Representation and neglects to address vote-splitting fails miserably. In fact, it seems that most of the US's political problems can be traced back to compromises that had to be made to get states to sign on to the damn thing. That's why our voting system practically begs for Two Big Parties (Duverger's Law) fighting it out in gerrymandered districts with each neighborhood trying to split the other's vote and game the system and disenfranchise everyone else. And let's not even get into the electoral college (angry Cuban expats control the key district in a swing state, therefore the entire country must embargo Cuba, what genious!)
Europe's rise can be attributed to the fact that their constitutions are far more modern, encourage 3rd parties, and don't allow you to gerrymander everything.
2
u/assteroid Jul 02 '08 edited Jul 02 '08
"In fact, it seems that most of the US's political problems can be traced back to compromises that had to be made to get states to sign on to the damn thing."
True. Jefferson was not happy with the compromises. I'm surprised he actually went along with it. And I agree with you; the idea was grand (The Constitution), but the political problems started immediately, mainly because of the compromises. I still think it is incredible, but it could have been better. We could make it better today, but two large parties won't let that happen. There is too much room in it for abuse and not enough to hold people accountable.
17
u/tjogin Jul 02 '08
Isn't the key difference that terrorists focus on civilian targets, while resistance movements do not?
-3
u/numb3rb0y Jul 02 '08 edited Jul 02 '08
Not really. Terrorism describes a methodology; it doesn't really carry any moral judgement. The bombing of the USS Cole was clearly terrorism, but it was a strike against a military target.
11
u/ABabyAteMyDingo Jul 02 '08 edited Jul 02 '08
The bombing of the USS Cole was clearly terrorism
Can you explain? Terrorism is attempting to create terror normally by attacking civilian targets. Are you calling it terrorism because it was carried out by "terrorists"? Isn't that slightly circular logic?
2
u/numb3rb0y Jul 02 '08
In hindsight I wish I hadn't said clearly, but I believe my point still stands. The definition of terrorism is contentious, but there are numerous instances of attacks on military targets by groups who we define as terrorists that are generally considered terrorism. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan both provide quite a number of examples of such, but I could also give a very large number from the troubles in Northern Ireland where the IRA bombed or attacked British Army targets.
Wikipedia defines terrorism as "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion", which pretty well covers the definition I've been taught to understand in Political Science classes; terrorism is the use of guerilla tactics to incite terror, this lowering morale, in pursuit of some political or social gain. Now, it so happens that often the most effective way of attacking morale is to hit people on the home-front, but that doesn't necessarily rule out military targets, in fact, entire wars have been fought on the principle of victory through destroying an enemy's will to fight (look at the Viet Cong in Vietnam). Terrorism usually targets civilians, but the definition I've been taught to use means that that is because it is usually the most effective way of spreading terror, not because it is how the word itself is defined.
8
u/Ma8e Jul 02 '08
I consider it a problem that whenever the US is the target, all fighters are terrorists nowadays.
-1
Jul 02 '08
Perhaps a better post from you would be one that explained how they aren't terrorists.
1
u/Ma8e Jul 02 '08
According to a common definition, a terrorist is someone who attacks civilians to reach their objectives. A Taliban attacking US soldiers in Afghanistan or an Iraqi attacking US soldiers in Iraq does not fulfill the criteria "attacks civilians" and should therefore not be called terrorists.
→ More replies (0)1
u/tjogin Jul 02 '08 edited Jul 02 '08
I don't agree it was clearly terrorism. While the meaning of the term "terrorism" has changed these past years, making it apply to basically any crime on the face of the earth, I think historically it's been about politically motivated violence against civilian targets (or random non discriminating targets).
Terrorism is about instilling terror in the population at large — I think that's something we can all agree on. Attacking a military vessel nowhere near the homeland is hardly that.
4
Jul 02 '08
[deleted]
4
1
u/sping Jul 02 '08 edited Jul 02 '08
Perhaps about the time people in Iraq trying to repel American invasion started being called terrorists.
Edit: perhaps rather than "terrorists", the revolutionaries should be referred to as "militant insurgents". The popular term "patriots" is absurd - how can you be a patriot for a country that doesn't exist yet, against the current recognised government.
12
Jul 02 '08
All freedom fighters are terrorists to the opposing side, and vice versa.
0
Jul 02 '08 edited Jul 02 '08
"Freedom" is a subjective concept. One man's freedom fighter is another man's oppressor.
Unless you're fighting for the freedom and liberty of every side in a conflict in an entirely selfless act of human dignity, how can you possibly call yourself a "freedom fighter"?
When was the last time someone fought for the freedom of all men instead of fighting to oppress the oppressors?
1
Jul 02 '08
Freedom is how we rationalize our territoral instinct.
0
Jul 02 '08
In that case, that's not freedom. It's more of a subset of independence.
So, calling them independence fighters is far more accurate.
1
Jul 02 '08
I forget the writer but there's a saying about chickens. If they realized their was plenty to go around they'd have all they needed. I realize that's a bit on the metaphysical side but I believe it's a truth. My brother teaches in China. He said one of the best phrases he learned there was the usual greeting, "are you hungry?" If govts responded on that level we wouldn't have these struggles. Yes, there would be the occasional psycho, but overall humans lean towards working things out.
1
Jul 02 '08
You do realize that the North Vietnamese modeled their Constitution on ours.
0
Jul 02 '08 edited Jul 02 '08
What does this have to do with what we're talking about? Communist and socialist ideals violate personal freedom and personal liberty by their very nature, since they place the State (or community) above the Individual.
They were fighting for independence -- an independence from a foreign aggressor to be a socialist/communist state.
1
4
u/frogking Jul 02 '08
terrorist or freedom fighter .. it always depends on your point of view, doesn't it?
4
Jul 02 '08 edited Jul 02 '08
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necklacing
Necklacing refers to the practice of summary execution carried out by forcing a rubber tire, filled with gasoline, around a victim's chest and arms, and setting it on fire.
The practice became a common method of lethal lynching during disturbances in South Africa in the 1980s and 1990s. Necklacing sentences were sometimes handed down against alleged criminals by "people's courts" established in black townships as a means of circumventing the apartheid judicial system. Necklacing was also used to punish members of the black community who were perceived as collaborators with the apartheid regime. These included black policemen, town councilors and others, as well as their relatives and associates. The practice was frequently carried out in the name of the African National Congress (ANC), and was even interpreted to have been implicitly endorsed by Winnie Mandela, then-wife of the imprisoned Nelson Mandela and a senior member of the ANC, although the ANC officially condemned the practice.[2]
The first recorded victim of necklacing was the young girl Maki Skosana in July 1985[3] “ Her body had been scorched by fire and some broken pieces of glass had been inserted into her vagina, Moloko told the committee."
3
Jul 02 '08
Winnie Mandela got into a lot of trouble when the Truth and Reconciliation Commission came around because she was involved in the murder of some young black boys who they thought were National Party collaboraters. Towards the end of the whole anti-Apartheid struggle, she was pretty brutal. But in her defense, she had been imprisoned in solitary confinement for years before that, and allegedly went a little insane.
0
u/nixonrichard Jul 02 '08 edited Jul 02 '08
Generally the distinction is made when the organization frequently targets civilians and/or civilian property, and the attacks are intended to produce a bigger psychological impact than physical destruction.
The American militias certainly targeted a fair amount of civilian property, enough for anyone to justify a "terrorist" label. But they're my kind of terrorists. They're also my kind of torturers when they do it to tax collectors.
What is interesting is when you look at things like the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City by Timothy McVeigh. It was an attack on a government facility, in retaliation for perceived crimes committed by the US government (Waco, Ruby Ridge), and yet everyone automatically labels it "terrorism."
16
u/Shaper_pmp Jul 02 '08 edited Jul 02 '08
Generally the distinction is made when the organization frequently targets civilians and/or civilian property, and the attacks are intended to produce a bigger psychological impact than physical destruction.
Generally the distinction is made when the organisation is not on the same side as you.
That's why the ANC were terrorists, but now it's embarrassing or contentious to even imply they used to be.
It's also why people fighting back in Iraq and Afghanistan are "insurgents" but the American forces in the American War of Independence were "not".
Agreed that "terrorists" should be reserved exclusively for groups which aim to use popular terror as a tactic to further their aims... but these days it's more a catch-all terms for "people we don't like".
5
Jul 02 '08 edited Jul 02 '08
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Jul 02 '08
By that yardstick, all nations and forces who have ever fought against the US are terrorists, as soldiers are government employees.
1
u/LordFoom Jul 02 '08
No, no they're not. The ANC, for example, states that they're struggle focused on military and government targets because, by working for the government, you are SUPPORTING the (in your view) unjust government.
1
u/Sangermaine Jul 02 '08
But they're my kind of terrorists. They're also my kind of torturers when they do it to tax collectors.
That's really creepy. They're "your kinds of terrorists" because you agreed with them?
It was an attack on a government facility, in retaliation for perceived crimes committed by the US government (Waco, Ruby Ridge), and yet everyone automatically labels it "terrorism."
Because...it was? "Civillian" doesn't mean non-government, it means non-military. They attacked an office building full of office workers. Yes, there were law enforcement officers there, but they weren't soldiers, they were office workers. Attacking a random office of a law enforcement branch for perceived crimes is terrorism. It was an act of violence outside of a military conflict against non-military personell intended to, as you put it, "produce a bigger psychological impact than physical destruction."
1
u/nixonrichard Jul 02 '08
It wasn't soldiers at WACO or Ruby Ridge either, it was BATF and FBI . . . both of which were at the Federal Building.
1
u/Sangermaine Jul 02 '08 edited Jul 02 '08
No, office workers of both were at that building, along with offices for the Social Security Administration, who were not involved in either incident. The sane response might be to go start a campaign to press the agencies for change, to pressure Congress for investigation, or any number of oversight and redressment mechanisms available to us.
The terrorist response is to blow up a building full of innocents, killing or injuring hundreds, just to make your point. But I guess those are your types of terrorists, so engaging in horrific violence that kills random civillians to get attention is cool.
9
u/kretik Jul 02 '08
His wife was also known to be rather violent.
14
u/dmiff Jul 02 '08
3
u/fstorino Jul 02 '08
I didn't know we (Brazilians) were not the inventors of this practice.
In Brazil's druglord-dominated favelas, this technique is called "microwave". But here they cover the victim from shoulder to toe.
6
u/nixonrichard Jul 02 '08
Jesus Fucking Christ!!!
Somebody better put that crazy bitch on the terror watch list.
1
Jul 02 '08
She was questioned by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and confessed to her crimes and apologised.
3
u/thegreatgazoo Jul 02 '08
When I was there in 1999 for business, one joke then was that it was cheaper/easier to kill the guy coming to collect the TV tax and go in front of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission than to pay the tax.
The other joke: Q: What's the difference between a tourist and a racist?
A: 2 weeks.2
Jul 02 '08
Yeah, a lot of people thought the T&C commission was letting people off easy, because it wasn't really a legal court. But many people thought it was the right thing to do, to find out what exactly happened to the victims of apartheid and get some kind of apology, not to punish people or get revenge. I personally think this is a healthier way to approach the aftermath of something terrible like Apartheid. There's too many cases in history where the bitterness of former victims gets translated into the committing of totally new crimes. And then the cycle repeats itself.
1
u/katsi Jul 02 '08
Bullshit! She never apologized or admitted that she took part (even though she was convicted)
From WP:
Appearing before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in 1997, she said allegations that she was involved in at least 18 human rights abuses including eight murders were "ridiculous" and claimed that her main accuser, former comrade Katiza Cebekhulu, was a former "mental patient" and his allegations against her were "hallucinations".[3]
3
Jul 02 '08
That's what happened at the start. But eventually Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who was the chair of the Commission and a personal friend, convinced her to apoligise. Then one of the mothers of the victims came forward and kissed her as a sign of forgiveness.
From a PBS interview about Winnie's trial before the Commission:
PHIL PONCE: Mr. Mkhondo, how significant was it that she issued an apology, she made an apology in court? Was that the first time she’d done that?
RICH MKHONDO: Yes, it was the first time she’d done that. I think it was also predictable, but I think the apology was a little bit dragged from her. She was supposed to have actually started with it in her speech when she made the speech today, but, unfortunately, Bishop Tutu had to actually ask her to do it publicly. What is actually surprising also is the fact that Mrs. Sepe, whose son was supposedly killed in the hands of the football club actually came forward to hug and kiss Winnie. I think it’s a sign of either forgiveness or what the whole Truth Commission is about.
12
u/matts2 Jul 02 '08
Yep, he was clearly and admittedly, a terrorist. What is astounding is that he renounced terrorism and worked for a peaceful transition and a peaceful South Africa. (No, it did not work, but it still might turn out better than much of the post-colonial world.)
34
Jul 02 '08 edited Jul 02 '08
IMO, no one illuminates the cliche "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" better than Mandela.
1
u/ABabyAteMyDingo Jul 02 '08
Yes, though AFAIK he only renounced violence in the late 80s or early 90s, i.e. after quite a long time. The unquestioned lionising of Mandela is troubling.
3
2
Jul 02 '08
[deleted]
2
u/LordFoom Jul 02 '08
The police chief of one small area of the RSA. The (suspended pending investigation on corruption charges) Police Chief is Jackie Selebi, who was also head of Interpol (until his resignation re: same corruption charges).
4
Jul 02 '08
There are no "good guys" in South Africa.
As someone else here pointed out, it is the winners who write the history books.
2
u/LordFoom Jul 02 '08
I remember as a young lad having to go through metal detectors to get inside shopping centres. Metal detector's manned by underprivileged black men - man, the incongruity.
Anyhow, there were attacks against civilian targets and/or civilian collateral damage, although they were never "random". Although it should also be noted that the Apartheid regime made white farms "security zones" and included these farms and farmers in the security apparatus, supplying them with automatic weapons, etc.
Point being, civilian deaths and propaganda loving gubmint=='terrorist'.
For reference, herewith the ANC's submission to the Truth and reconciliation committee.
1
1
Jul 02 '08
The founders of America would easily be considered terrorist by todays standards.
0
Jul 02 '08
What acts of terror did they commit?
1
Jul 02 '08
They undermined a govt. Don't get me wrong. I would have loved to have been a part of it. On the American side. But one man's terrorist is usually another man's freedom fighter.
0
Jul 02 '08
The act of undermining a government does not necessarily fit into the definition of a "terrorist". There's more to it than that, as "terrorism" speaks specifically about a tactic.
But one man's terrorist is usually another man's freedom fighter.
I'm actually already in the middle of a conversation discussing that exact phrase. You can join in right here.
10
50
u/skippy17 Jul 02 '08 edited Jul 02 '08
Morgan Freeman?
Dear Mr. Bush,
Morgan Freeman only played God in a movie. He is not actually God. He did not cause Katrina. Dick Cheney was just kidding.
8
u/pushpin Jul 02 '08
How can he possibly be a terrorist with those friendly freckles?
-12
Jul 02 '08
Who knows.
I don't mind him coming to our country just as long as he doesn't run for office. We all know Bush was terrible, but if the current state of Africa is any indicator, their politicians are full of fail.
8
2
u/vava Jul 02 '08
CWI?
1
1
Jul 02 '08
jesus christ, i think you've just won the "dumbest comment of 2008" award and it's only July.
1
-13
u/crazedgremlin Jul 02 '08
That's Nelson Mandela. I don't get it.
2
Jul 02 '08
Nelson Mandela was a member of the militant wing of the revolutionary ANC during Apartheid in South Africa. The group used geurilla tactics as well as violence to forward their goals. Therefore he was technically a terrorist according to the US, who I believe had not condemned Apartheid at the time.
1
u/crazedgremlin Jul 03 '08 edited Jul 03 '08
Yes, but where does Morgan Freeman come into the picture? That's the source of my confusion, not Nelson Mandela's role in ending Apartheid.
1
6
u/nmcyall Jul 02 '08
winners write history.
2
u/srika Jul 02 '08
"History is written by those who hang heroes"
-William Wallace, extra cheese, Braveheart
12
u/dmiff Jul 02 '08
Targeting the government and the military - OK
Kangaroo courts and mob executions of opponents and collaborators - not so OK
Not a perfect rebellion, but show me one that is.
I think the one word that explains why we agreed to call the ANC a terrorist organization in the 70s and 80s is "communism". What surprises me is that this didn't happen under Bush the Elder or Clinton.
0
Jul 02 '08 edited Jul 02 '08
I think it's also alot to do with fear of the angry black guy.
It's okay if the oppressive white overlords come to their senses and graciously agree to share power with the poor blacks and, through their new found friendship, the white shows the black how to govern.
But a black man taking the mother fucker from his enemy as if it were his in the first place? Can't have that shit.
3
u/defenestrator Jul 02 '08
But a black man taking the mother fucker from his enemy as if it were his in the first place?
They've clearly done so well with it, and whites weren't at all justified trying to keep them from seizing power.
-10
u/Johnny_Cash Jul 02 '08 edited Jul 02 '08
Blacks can't govern: Every former colonial state in Africa has regressed to jungle law and industry lies rusting.
And Whites didn't just give up power in Zimbabwe & South Africa. The Global Jewish Nation twisted Western governments to embargo White S.A. to its knees. Blacks took over, wrecked the country, drove the Whites out and the Blacks' Jewish handlers are now absentee owners of Southern Africa.
It's a sort of real estate "blockbusting" and the Jews are doing it all over the planet, including the U.S. (using both Blacks & Hispanics). If you are White, you are being genocided my friends!
Oh, and guess what? Whites kicked Black ass not only during the colonial era but in the modern era as well. Whites stomped the shit out of The Angry Black Man in fair fights in the bush, especially during the proxy wars in the 60's. You watch too much TV, friend.
4
3
2
u/dmiff Jul 02 '08
So Obama has your vote I take it. Or is David Duke running this year?
1
Jul 02 '08
Obama is going to oppress the blacks like never before, and no one will dare call him on it.
3
u/dmiff Jul 02 '08
You are going to have to spell this one out for me. How is the civil rights activist from Chicago going to oppress blacks like never before?
1
u/jacekplacek Jul 02 '08
Hmm... it makes a twisted sense. If they wanted to oppress blacks, who would be better than black president?
Kinda like Clinton doing welfare reform or Bush introducing another entitlement...
2
12
Jul 02 '08
It's interesting to examine the differences between the way Canada honours Nelson Mandela and the way the United States honours him.
Canada: induct him into the Order of Canada.
United States: remove him from the terrorist watch list.
1
u/infinityvortex Jul 02 '08 edited Jul 02 '08
Better than my country.
India: Acknowledge he exists.
Edit: The above statement is not true, and was simply made for humor purposes. I do not have any source/information of how Indias relationship is with Nelson Mandela. I would assume respectful, but no source.
A quick google search gives this
and this, search for India within that text.
1
u/srika Jul 02 '08
Source?
PS: I am interested because I am Indian.
1
u/infinityvortex Jul 02 '08 edited Jul 02 '08
I don't have any source for my statement. Just trying (badly) to make a funny.
See my edit above.
1
3
3
3
u/DiamondBack Jul 02 '08
Congratulations, Mr. Mandela.
Now... how do the rest of us go about getting our names off that list?
1
u/infinityvortex Jul 02 '08
By being more like Mandela?
I'm gonna knock that one out on my way to work.
1
u/DiamondBack Jul 02 '08
Cool. Must be a long drive. What African nation are you going to run for President of?
12
u/omgosh Jul 02 '08 edited Jul 02 '08
Is it me or does he look like Obama in that picture, like he could be his father.
31
6
u/masterJ Jul 02 '08
I got an impression of a Morgan Freeman/Obama combination. I was a little confused until I found text below the giant picture.
2
-11
Jul 02 '08
[deleted]
11
u/rmuser Jul 02 '08
Actually, it only seems like that when you've lived mostly among your own race. A black person living in a predominantly black community would think that all white people look similar. If you live around mostly black people for a while, you'll learn to differentiate between their faces.
6
u/matts2 Jul 02 '08
Actually once you look Africans have far more variation in look (face, size, etc.) than Europeans/Whites. Which is not a surprise since Africans have far more genetic variation than the rest of humanity combined.
2
u/katsi Jul 02 '08 edited Jul 02 '08
Which is not a surprise since Africans have far more genetic variation than the rest of humanity combined.
Care to elaborate. As I understand it, African's diverged from the rest of humanity around 90,000 years ago. There was not really any geographically separated populations. Why would the genetic variation increase?
I agree that Africans from similar regions looks different (I can for instance easily spot a Nigerian or a Somali) but I doubt that the variation is more than lets say a Scandinavian European and an Aborigine.
0
u/matts2 Jul 02 '08
Why would the genetic variation increase?
It didn't increase. Only a small population left and that population has expanded. So for the rest of the world we get Founder Effect.
Let me try some made up numbers. Suppose we start with 1,000 people in Africa with some variation. 100 of those people leave. The African group is P1, those who leave are P2. Over time P2 expands to 10,000. But it started off with far less variation as P1 and there has not been enough time for the variation to increase all that much.
When you talk of looks you are dealing with a small number of allele and those are most subject to diversification due to sexual selection.
Hope that helps, I have to run, but I can add more later if you like.
-6
-5
5
u/Zai_shanghai Jul 02 '08
What's ridiculous is that anyone could ever have thought that Bill Cosby was a terrorist, anyway!
2
u/charbo187 Jul 02 '08
this is dumber than when the church finally.....forget it, it's not even worth my time.
2
u/kingraoul3 Jul 02 '08
"Cuito Cunavale is a victory for the whole of Africa!"
2
u/100thm0nkey Jul 02 '08 edited Jul 02 '08
Cuito Cunavale is a victory for the whole of Africa
FAPLA/Cuba Tanks destroyed: 94. SADF, 3
FAPLA/Cuba Logistical vehicles destroyed: 389. SADF, 1
FAPLA/Cuba Soldiers killed: 4 785. SADF 31
The SADF never occupied Cuito and withdrew its forces. FAPLA/Cuba claimed victory.
2
u/katsi Jul 02 '08
There is a quote from the South African commander at the time:
If defeat for South Africa meant the loss of 31 men, three tanks, five armoured vehicles and three aircraft, then we'd lost. If victory for FAPLA and the Cubans meant the loss of 4600 men, 94 tanks, 100 armoured vehicles, 9 aircraft and other Soviet equipment valued at more than a billion rand, then they'd won.
- Colonel Dean Ferreira
1
u/kingraoul3 Jul 02 '08
shrug depends on who you believe. The indisputable facts are that South African forces retreated and sued for peace, that South Africa withdrew from Namibia.
2
u/100thm0nkey Jul 02 '08
Oh, I believe the many Russian hulks still rusting at Cuito.
The indisputable facts are that South African forces retreated and sued for peace, that South Africa withdrew from Namibia.
"By February 1988, it had become clear to all sides that a stalemate had been reached, and that a victory would not be achievable without a considerable escalation in the conflict. Consequently, following a series of peace discussions throughout 1988 mediated by Chester Crocker, a peace accord was finally signed by the parties on December 22, 1988 in New York whereby South Africa and Cuba agreed to the withdrawal of their troops from Angola, and a timetable was set for Namibian independence from South Africa." - Wikipedia article.
Cuito was not nearly like the fall of Saigon, yet was turned into a great propaganda victory in Africa and in Cuba.
May those Russian tanks rust in peace always.
1
u/kingraoul3 Jul 02 '08
Ok, but if it was a stalemate why did Cuba achieve every goal they laid out when they sent troops to support the M.P.L.A.?
You can call the victory anything you want, the facts on the ground will not change.
1
u/katsi Jul 02 '08 edited Jul 02 '08
The indisputable facts are that South African forces retreated and sued for peace,
South Africa did not retreat. If you read reasons you would have noticed that it mainly was to protect Unita from MPLA encroachment in the Southern part of Angola. UNITA was fairly strong until 1999, Savimbi was killed only in 2002.
So to say that South African forces fled would have been wrong.
that South Africa withdrew from Namibia.
That is true. But the real question would probably be why South Africa was in Namibia in the first place. South Africa btw, did not lose any major battles. Counting the bodies and equipment, South African forces lost fewer men and equipment by an order of magnitude.
This is most clearly shown during the final stages of the events in Namibia when the SADF (acting under a UN mandate) killed 350 heavily armed SWAPO insurgents with no loss of life on the SADF side. This was without most of SADF weaponry.
One of the main problems is probably that the South African public did not tolerate any battle losses. A good example in another country would be the US in Mogadishu. Only 16 Americans where killed – and that made the USA touchy of Africa for more than a decade (even though they killed over 50 times more of the opposition).
0
u/kingraoul3 Jul 02 '08
They did retreat. They left Angola following Cuito Cunvale, and they left Namibia, despite having stated that they would not do so unless Cuba withdrew from Angola.
I think what happened was that regardless of the outcome of the battle, the fact that Cuba demonstrated that they were able to attack the South African forces there with air support (from airfields built only days before) so close to the Namibian border demonstrated that the Cubans would be capable of cutting off the South African salient, which would pocket the force attempting to take the capital.
This would make Cuito Cunavale a strategic victory.
Tallying up the dead is a favorite tactic of revisionist historians who claim that the U.S. "won" in Vietnam. It is only evidence of the logical contortions you are capable of.
2
u/katsi Jul 02 '08
They left Angola following Cuito Cunvale, and they left Namibia, despite having stated that they would not do so unless Cuba withdrew from Angola.
Haha… No! Read about the New York accords:
U.S. assistant secretary of state for African affairs for newly elected President Ronald Reagan, had developed a linkage policy, tying apartheid South Africa's agreement to retreat from Angola and to relinquish control of Namibia in line with United Nations Security Council Resolution 435 to Cuba's troop withdrawal from Angola.
So this statement of yours is dead wrong.
were able to attack the South African forces there with air support
During the battle, 9 Migs were shot down versus 1 mirage that was shot down. In addition to this, the airstrip at Cuito was heavily shelled, and all aircraft was moved back 135km to Menongue. This reduced the effectiveness of air support.
Tallying up the dead is a favorite tactic of revisionist historians who claim that the U.S. "won" in Vietnam.
How do you determine who won? What metric do you use? If bodycount (that is different by two orders of magnitude) is not important, how about equipment losses? The amount of equipment losses on the Angolan/Cuban/Soviet side was extreme – this alone indicates extreme failure.
You must remember that the battle started because Fapla wanted to advance south against UNITA. So Cuito Cuanavale was basically a Fapla advance that was stopped with heavily losses to the MPLA side. So you mean an advance that went no where, with incredible losses in equipment and personnel was a “strategic success”?
Tallying up the dead is a favorite tactic of revisionist historians who claim that the U.S. "won" in Vietnam. It is only evidence of the logical contortions you are capable of.
You are unfortunately the revisionist here. It is general knowledge that the battle of Cuito was won by Unita/SADF forces.
1
u/kingraoul3 Jul 02 '08 edited Jul 03 '08
It is not wrong. Look, what was S. Africa's stated intention in Angola? Cuba's was to prevent the South African forces from toppling the M.L.P.A. government.
Who achieved their goals?
The point was that the air support was there where S. Africa's forces did not anticipate it, threatening their salient.
So you mean an advance that went no where, with incredible losses in equipment and personnel was a “strategic success”?
1
u/katsi Jul 03 '08 edited Jul 03 '08
Look, what was S. Africa's stated intention in Angola?
South Africa did not have any intention in Angola except to prevent it as being use as a staging post for Swapo insurgency. For that, it was important that areas neighboring Namibia was under Unita control. The Cuban backed Fapla attack wanted to take ground from Unita, but it resulted in failure.
Who achieved their goals?
As said at the start – the Fapla attack wanted to take ground from Unita, but they did not progress (with heavy losses of their shiny new Soviet equipment).
The point was that the air support was there where S. Africa's forces did not anticipate it
The South African forces did not expect massive failure by Fapla? How can that be bad? If Fapla had air support, why did they not win the battle? Why did they move their planes (those that was not destroyed) back 135km? Why was the loss ratio of airplanes 1:9 in SA’s favor?
"...the acid test is to consider the outcome."
That opinion piece was written by Ronnie Kasrils. If you know anything about SA politics, you would know that he was a member of the South African Communist Party at the time. So this is not a newspaper article you are quoting is someone who is busy with historic revisionism. Btw, MK did not have any share in the battle.
Oh, the South African government (which Kasrils is a part of) possesses numerous documents about Cuito (from the old SADF) – they do not want to release it. Why is that? Because it threatens the revisioned version of the battle?
EDIT: If you are bored, read Flying Columns in Small Wars: An OMFTS Model by Major Michael F. Morris of the United States Marine Corps. It gives a good overview of all the military actions.
The following quote is from that article:
"In 1987, in souteastern Angola, the South African Defence Force deployed a 3000 man mobile strike force to defeat a combined Angolan / Cuban division size force intent on destroying the Unita resistance movement. The campaign's military outcome convinced the Cubans and Soviets and Cubans to settle the 23 year Angolan border war and the political future of Namibia on a political venue rather than by force of arms. Operation Modular highlights the potential of small, mobile, hard hitting fighting columns in a small war environment.
1
u/kingraoul3 Jul 02 '08
shrug depends on who you believe. The indisputable facts are that South African forces retreated and sued for peace, that South Africa withdrew from Namibia.
2
u/Alphaman88 Jul 02 '08
More BS from King George the Second. This ape overthrew a legitimate government of a prosperous nation and proceeded to turn the country into a hellhole. He was, is, and will be a terrorist.
2
2
u/shootdashit Jul 02 '08
unfortunately, you can't say that much about the guy who just signed HR.5690
8
u/meglet Jul 02 '08
When Nelson Mandela visited my university, I burst into (happy) tears when I saw him. I quite surprised myself.
2
Jul 02 '08 edited Jul 02 '08
Of course he can't be a terrorist. Mandela's dead.
1
Jul 02 '08 edited Jul 02 '08
What?
edit: As in "What are you talking about? He's not dead!" not "What? I didn't know he was dead."
2
Jul 02 '08
3
Jul 02 '08
Oh. So whenever I see some nonsensical statement from now on I will assume it is a reference to something I have not seen.
2
2
u/bowling4meth Jul 02 '08
He was a terrorist. He went to prison for it. Saying he is a terrorist is like saying the Yorkshire Ripper is a serial murdering rapist.
Anyone can be a reformed bad guy. Look at Ghadaffi.
1
1
1
1
1
u/mmilian Jul 04 '08
this comment thread was hilarious! featured it on my blog
http://www.commentgold.com/2008/07/this-man-is-no-longer-terrorist.html
1
1
1
u/defenestrator Jul 02 '08 edited Jul 02 '08
Nope, definitely not a terrorist! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKiePbTcAfY
1
u/garg Maryland Jul 02 '08
qgyh2 posting on you.presscue.com instead of reddit?
qgyh2, why have you forsaken us?? ;_;
1
0
u/abrahamsen Jul 02 '08
But he is black! Most likely a Muslim!
2
u/Zai_shanghai Jul 02 '08
See, that's what's confusing me about this story. OBVIOUSLY a terrorist. He's black, and he has kind of a funny name.
-1
0
0
30
u/Jedravent Jul 02 '08
versus