Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyJWest
The South African Apartheid system was based upon the systematic use of violence to assert the 'right' of a minority to subjugate and oppress the majority - and as such, the use of force to overthrow it was legitimate. Should Mandela be immune for criticism? No - but cut out the crap about 'terrorism' - Madela was no more a 'terrorist' than the fighters of the French Resistance were.
|
BS. The French resistance fought against and targeted German military operations: by sabotage, spying, assassination, supply interruption, intel gathering, assaults, etc. , and sometimes, when targeting these, it accepted that civilian French innocents could be caught in the line of fire. But these were not deliberately targetted, they did not make targeting French civilian population the mission objective. The ANC however did many bombings against deliberately civilian targets, and killed black and white civilians alike. Including school busses.
But this lack of caring for differences is not new, in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict it gets all declared the same, too. The one side makes civilian families and people and children the target of lethal force - and this is being minimised (and in the end: legitimised) by claiming that when the other side accepting occasional collateral damages when aiming at not civilian but military targets of the enemy and civilians happen to get caught in the line of fire: that this is of the same moral quality (or not). That way, the victim and the attacker get declared to be of the same rights and guilts.
Whom you are deliberately targetting, makes a huge moral difference.