Nelson Mandela... the terrorist.
 

Nelson Mandela is on the terrorist watch list. This administration continues to humiliate and soil the reputation of this country.

http://whitehouser.com/news/nelson-m...the-terrorist/

Your absolutely right. I guess I'm un-American for saying so:rolleyes:

This is only news because of the bill proposed to remove all members of the ANC from the list. Mandela (along with all members of the ANC) have been on the watch list for decades. The ANC used to be characterized as a "terrorist organization" because or their non-violent and violent opposition to apartheid. Not because they were terrorists by todays standards.

This probably was just a silly mistake.

That being said, the simple fact is the only reason why people have such a visceral reaction is because given the behavior of this Administration it's completely believeable.

-spence

Nelson Mandela is a scum bag

Google "Church Street Bombing" and you will see why he is on the list. They don't just put people on it for political reasons. Grow up!

Bush supports Apartheid?

so mandela signed the order for one bombing. How many bombings is Bush responsible for? Both were acting for the cause of their people... However, i believe mandela's popularity rating is higher than good ol Dubya's... :smokin:

How did Mandela sign the order for the bombing...it happened in 1983 and Mandela was in prison from 1962 to 1990.....

he ran the show from inside.

I don't think it was an actual piece of paper saying "I hearby order you to bomb.....yada yada yada". Mandela signing off on the bombing was basically him giving his blessing for them to do it. Even though he was in prison, he was able to communicate with his people on the outside and guide them.

I know this will come as a great shock to you, but we DO NOT target innocent people. We spend a great deal of money on weapons that are highly accurate and help prevent the death of innocent people. It is offensive to all those who serve when you make comments that equate what America does to what terrorist do. They did not send 15 billion dollars to Africa to stem the aids epidemic. America did.

tally up how many innocent iraqi civilians have died. factor in the fact that the war was based on a bunch of lies, and Id say its about the same. Oil profits are soaring though..:cheers2:

How many Iraqi's died under Hussain? Or would have died if we had not liberated them. Or was the fact that he gassed the Kurds a fabrication too. We went into Bosnia for less.

Today's news

Bush misused Iraq intelligence: Senate report By Randall Mikkelsen
Thu Jun 5, 1:23 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush and his top policymakers misstated Saddam Hussein's links to terrorism and ignored doubts among intelligence agencies about Iraq's arms programs as they made a case for war, the Senate intelligence committee reported on Thursday.

The report shows an administration that "led the nation to war on false premises," said the committee's Democratic Chairman, Sen. John Rockefeller of West Virginia. Several Republicans on the committee protested its findings as a "partisan exercise."

The committee studied major speeches by Bush, Vice President #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney and other officials in advance of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, and compared key assertions with intelligence available at the time.

Statements that Iraq had a partnership with al Qaeda were wrong and unsupported by intelligence, the report said.

It said that Bush's and Cheney's assertions that Saddam was prepared to arm terrorist groups with weapons of mass destruction for attacks on the United States contradicted available intelligence.

Such assertions had a strong resonance with a U.S. public, still reeling after al Qaeda's September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. Polls showed that many Americans believed Iraq played a role in the attacks, even long after Bush acknowledged in September 2003 that there was no evidence Saddam was involved.

The report also said administration prewar statements on Iraq's weapons programs were backed up in most cases by available U.S. intelligence, but officials failed to reflect internal debate over those findings, which proved wrong.

PUBLIC CAMPAIGN

The long-delayed Senate study supported previous reports and findings that the administration's main cases for war -- that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was spreading them to terrorists -- were inaccurate and deeply flawed.

"The president and his advisors undertook a relentless public campaign in the aftermath of the (September 11) attacks to use the war against al Qaeda as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein," Rockefeller said in written commentary on the report.

"Representing to the American people that the two had an operational partnership and posed a single, indistinguishable threat was fundamentally misleading and led the nation to war on false premises."

A statement to Congress by then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that the Iraqi government hid weapons of mass destruction in facilities underground was not backed up by intelligence information, the report said. Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon said Rumsfeld's comments should be investigated further, but he stopped short of urging a criminal probe.

The committee voted 10-5 to approve the report, with two Republican lawmakers supporting it. Sen. Christopher Bond of Missouri and three other Republican panel members denounced the study in an attached dissent.

"The committee finds itself once again consumed with political gamesmanship," the Republicans said. The effort to produce the report "has indeed resulted in a partisan exercise." They said, however, that the report demonstrated that Bush administration statements were backed by intelligence and "it was the intelligence that was faulty."

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said: "We had the intelligence that we had, fully vetted, but it was wrong. We certainly regret that and we've taken measures to fix it."

PUBLIC SUPPORT

U.S. public opinion on the war, supportive at first, has soured, contributing to a dive in Bush's popularity.

The conflict is likely to be a key issue in the November presidential election between Republican John McCain, who supports the war, and Democrat Barack Obama, who opposed the war from the start and says he would aim to pull U.S. troops out within 16 months of taking office in January 2009.

Rockefeller has announced his support for Obama.

The administration's record in making its case for Iraq has also been cited by critics of Bush's get-tough policy on Iran. They accuse Bush of overstating the potential threat of Iran's nuclear program in order to justify the possible use of force.

A second report by the committee faulted the administration's handling of December 2001 Rome meetings between defense officials and Iranian informants, which dealt with the Iran issue. It said department officials failed to share intelligence from the meeting, which Rockefeller said demonstrated a "fundamental disdain" for other intelligence agencies.

A Senate study critical of the President, now thats odd...

when all else fails, denial is the most predictable human emotion...


aknowledgement of the situation for what it is..... distant 2nd

So, when are you going to acknowledge that you got this whole terrorist watch list thing wrong?

How do you explain your blaming of the current administration for Mandela being on the watch list? It seems that you started this thread to bash the President without even having the slightest clue about the situaltion. Is it possible that you look around for stories that suit your political ideologies and post them without actually being informed about what you're posting?

Yes, it's called EXECUTIVE OVERSIGHT.

While this may appear strange and new, it's actually a primary function of the US Senate. Many Americans seem to have forget as it was absent from 2002 - 2006.

-spence

I got the whole terrorist thing wrong? Your going to have to articulate that one for me.

I blame the current administration for its lack of caution when flagging nobel peace prize winning political leaders of friendly nations as Terrorist. At best, this is an overlooked mistake. Your secretary of state acknowlegded it was "embarrassing".

Mandela repudiated the ANC violent tactics. He admitted and owned up to their human rights violations. Has Bush?

I believe a wrong can be righted even after 20+ years. If Bush had've been forthright and transparent when the bottom began to follow out of his arguments for invading a sovreign nation I'd feel different.

And with respect to my political agenda, I thought this was a political forum complete with frames of reference from across the spectrum. I think your insinuations are a weak attempt to discredit my propositons subsequent embarrasment at Nelson Mandela being blacklisted. Lets stick to the point @ issue, and it seems at if your implying such labeling is justified.

Please try to read my quotes a little better. I said you got the "terrorist watch list thing" wrong. Not the "whole terrorist thing" wrong.

I merely pointed out that you started a thread implying that it's the current administrations fault that Mandela is on the terrorist watch list. In fact, the entire ANC has been on the list for years. You didn't mention that Mandela was on the list through Democratic administrations. At the beginning of the thread, I pointed out what you had left out because your statement was lacking in accurate information.

Now, I may not be very smart because I don't use a lot of 10 cent words in my posts, but could you please tell me what the heck the statement I highlighted means? As for me justifying Mandela being labled a terrorist, you couldn't be more wrong. I have never defended him being on the list, nor do I believe he should be there. I only gave the information that you conveniently left out because it didn't fit your position.

It was a republican Reagan administration that put Mandela on the terrorist watch list in the first place, following the suit of South Africa's then white minority controlled government which he also sypported. He embarked on a good will tour in the United States in the early 90's. You'd think someone in government, be it democrat or republican, would say well maybe this guy should not be listed.

And speaking of reading carefully, I maintained in this thread that this type of designation (among other things) is humiliating.

ANC party members are flagged for questioning anytime they apply for visas to visit the U.S. As late as 2002, former ANC chairman Tokyo Sexwale was refused a visa. In 2007, Barbara Masekela, South Africa's ambassador to the US for 4 years from 02 to 06, was denied a visa. She was trying to visit an ailing cousin. What "presumed" imminent threat did this woman pose to National security. The waiver wasnt issed until afther the cousin passed.

Michael Chertoff raised some interesting points however, he is a republican, but I believe wholeheartedly with the following statement. For it is you who presumes that my liberal inclinations inhibit any reasonable agreement with those of different party standards.

" [The issue] raises a troubling and difficult debate about what groups are considered terrorists and which are not."
-Michael Chertoff

Am I asking to much of the U.S. State Department? A state department under the current administration that obviously has some familiarity with issue here.

You stated that I have an agenda, I do have an issue, all things considered, with such designations and I am going to hold firm to these.

How am I not being clear. I will concede at the very least that this is an embarrassing mistake, although I have my own private reservations, how does this reflect some agenda I have being that I "look around for stories that suit your political ideologies and post them without actually being informed about what you're posting?"

Please, I encourage you to provide more examples, since I am so uninformed.

I'll try to make this simple, because instead of just saying "I didn't realize that he was put on the list and not removed from the list by previous administrations", you are blaming the current adminstration. All I'm doing is pointing out that it was irresponsible of you to post something blaming an administration that inherited a list with the names of ANC members on it.

Lets keep it simple then:

I am well aware of Reagans designation of the ANC as a "notorious terrorist group". But this administration differs from ohers in as much that it has a perpetual hard-on for everything "terror" related. I'd expect better oversight, but I guess that us asking to much from the proponents of the "war on terror". Bush campaigns on terror. If an administration's foreign policy's guiding principles of "hunting and tracking down terrorist killers" and "taking the fight to the terrorist" include blacklisting nobel peace prize winners. Then yes, my posting is irresponsible. Whose next, the Dalai Llama.

I will concede at the very least that this is an embarrassing mistake, although I have my own private reservations, how does this reflect some agenda I have being that I "look around for stories that suit your political ideologies and post them without actually being informed about what you're [I am] posting?"

You never answered that question either.

or rather, I will use your logic--- If an administration's foreign policy's guiding principles of "hunting and tracking down terrorist killers" and "taking the fight to the terrorist" include maintaining blacklists including nobel peace prize winners. Then yes, my posting is irresponsible.

There is that better.

Why do you try to complicate things? You want to bash Bush, go ahead. I don't care what you think of him or his administration. In fact, I'm not a fan of his either. But, he did not put the ANC on the list. Your argument would be like me posting that the Clinton administration is responsible for 9/11 because they had Bin Laden in custody in Somalia. They let him go because "he's not a threat to the west."

And as far as answering your question, I'm not wasting my time going through pages and pages of your 1 line responses that bash anything about the Republicans. I do remember you calling the Republicans "pubes" at one point, though. Not a real nice thing to say about anyone in a public forum, although it does make your agenda clear.

Bush's administration maintains the list. The Bush administration also fashions itself the protector of america from "terrorist killers". I'm just establishing relevancy in alluding to the vagueries of this "war on terror".

The Bin Laden thing, I dont know if we ever had him in custody. We may have had an opportunity to kill him one way or the other, but custody. I dont know, I might have to ask you to substantiate that. And speaking of threats to the west. It was pre 9/11 Bush who said "I dont feel like swatting flies" in reference to the terrorist.

By the way that was awfully confusing analogy, I am having trouble making the connections between Bin Laden and Mandela.

Pubes, huh. I dont recall you advocating the same standards of decency for "tree huggers" and "kool aid drinkers"

not to mention an entire thread "WHY I HATE DEMOCRATS"

Like The Patriots Spy Gate ? Money well spent. It's all politcs and grandstanding, at our expense. It's a friggen joke.:rotflmao:

Why didn't Clinton remove The Noble Prize winners name. Too busy?

Didn't Al Gore win one of those. :rotflmao:

EXECUTIVE OVERSIGHT

If you're going to deke at least wiggle your hips a bit.

-spence

He really did a Hell of job cleaning that place up though, didn't he?
:rotflmao::rotflmao:

All right, I'm going to respond against my better judgement. It seems that you just don't get it.

For someone who comments on so much about politics and world events, you should know about the Clinton/Bin Laden situation. If you're not familiar, I'll just let you look it up. It's pretty easy to find. And, there is no connection between BinLaden and Mandela (except that they are both on the "list"). All I was doing was showing you that you can blame an administration for something it's not responsible for if you want to disregard all the facts.

Bottom line is that you are going to blame the current administration for anything that you can, whether you have the facts or not. I can't change your hatred for Republicans, nor will I try to.

All I did was point out that you posted something that was inaccurate and all you had to do was say "thanks for pointing it out. I didn't know that he was put on that list years ago". And by your standards, Clinton deserves just as much flack as Bush for Mandela being on that list.

Check all of my posts and see if I have ever used childish, distasteful language to describe any political party. I'm not an advocate for anyone. All I did was point out the word you used because it shows how you feel about an entire group of people. You don't hide your hate very well.

And as for you mentioning the other thread about hating Democrats, I can't really comment on it. I've never read through the thread, so I wouldn't feel comfortable commenting on it. But, I'm sure it's a nice read and is purely someones opinion.

By situation you mean the application of hindsight to score political points?

Clinton certainly could have done more, but they did seem to be tracking the threats in a serious manner, which all but stopped under Bush before 9/11.

-spence

Spence, that's exactly what I mean. Blaming Clinton for 9/11 is irresponsible, but I can certainly find enough stuff on the internet to make it suit that argument. The guy who started the thread did it only to bash the Bush administration, without having the facts. He positioned his post so that it looked like Bush put Mandela on the list. It suited his anti Republican rhetoric, so he threw it out there.

I would certainly agree that knee jerk responses to stories like this don't add value, and both sides (including myself at times) are guilty.

What's more important is the ability to course correct if new information becomes available.

That being said, there's a ton of bogus stuff out there that's cited as fact. It's very difficult to know what's what.

-spence

the problem is that we only have the two major parties and realistically they can both be extremely radical in their positions. Problem is though in securing votes based on their differences they cause the rest of us to lose sight of the real issues that affect us everyday.

"I want a black President!"
"I want a woman President!"
"I want a democrat!"
"I want a republican!"

What I want is someone competant who has the best interest of this nation and it citizens. All we usually get is some loser with a personal agenda.

None of them want to attack the real issues and almost all seem reactive vs. proactive...

Clinton could have used more energy and resources on that world trade center underground bombing....and Bush could have used more dillegence when he took office.

End result is lots of people died in the initial attack and now soldiers are are being killed everyday in Iraq. They play with our emotions over our dead soldiers for their political gain when they should be working together to resolve the situation in Iraq and bring our people home safely.

As far as Mandela being on any blacklist I could give a crap. Who put him there and how long he's been on it means even less to me. If the President, Republican or Democrat, has time to review these stupid little lists I would prefer he take another job and let someone lead the country who actually can do some good.

We have serious issues here at home and they need to be resolved. We have thousands of soldiers in harms way and they need to be home with their families.