Mandela softens view on Bin Laden

Business Media Company ^ | Jan 2, 2002 | Sapa?

[rwfromkansas]

Yeah, Osama was denying responsibility when he detailed how he was directing the terrorists to come over to America for a mission that would be revealed to them once they landed here. /sarcasm

[jraven]

Another political jerk giving into pressure from those who did not care one itoa for the people murdered in the towers, airlines and on the ground on Sept 11. He should not be supported in any way by any America. YOU ARE WITH US OR AGAINST US

[EternalVigilance]

What do you expect from the old communist?

[TADSLOS]

It's tough to be a hypocrite and look honestly at yourself in the mirror (unless your Bill Cinton).

[Prodigal Son]

This is how South Africa looked before Mandela came to power: South African Diaries

Thanks for that link. I'm perusing that as we speak.

[JoeSixPack1]

Mandela can go chew rocks.

1. He did not give his almighty powerful endorsement of our retalitory attack on the Taliban or Al-quida and we didn't ask him and this PO's him to no end.
2. The USA told him to butt out.
3. To save face and play global politician he can now do his IX42 impression and play mediator for dead islamic extremists with a tear in his eye.
4. If you look real close he is screaming - "HEY I'M IMPORTANT, REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT" (NOT!)

Semper Fi

[Eternal_Bear]

No one should be suprised. He doesn't condemn the terrorism in Zimbabwe either.

[Prodigal Son]

Fascinating! Posting the article was worth it for that link alone! Thanks! :-)

[PaulKersey]

>Fascinating! Posting the article was worth it for that link alone! Thanks! :-)

My pleasure. Glad you enjoyed seeing what South Africa was like in much better days.

[tbeatty]

Like I said, I still think Mandela's wrong because there's plenty of evidence linking bin Laden to this and other terrorist actions. And I agree that no formal trial should be required. But at least Mandela's not excusing the action or arguing for leniency.

By arguing that it is unfair to label him a terrorist is an argument against our response. If you entertain the idea that bin Laden is not responsible, our actions are unjustified. Words mean things. When Mandela says that it is premature to label him a terrorist, then he is certainly saying it is premature to bomb the crap out of him. That is certainly an argument for leniency.

[tbeatty]

We are NOT at war with Afganistan, we are at war with the Taliban and Al Quidea, and bin Laden.

Ummm, we are at war with Afghanistan. When you take down the government, install a new government and target their leaders for elimination, it's called "war". It's justified and I'm glad we're fighting for total victory. War is not evil if it's conducted with righteous purposes, methods, means and ends regardless of what the libs would want you to believe.

What I think is amazing is the amount of subtle propaganda that goes on like "we're not at war with Afghanistan" and "we're at war with terrorism" when in reality we are at war with Afghanistan and terrorist is too hard to define to really be at war with them. For example, the Northern Alliance was probably considered "terrorists" by the Taliban and they probably were before they came to power. Certainly the Contra Rebels/Freedom Fighters were labeled as terrorists by the left. Kurds are labeled terrorists. As are Chechens. We're certainly not going after them and we wouldn't even call them terrorists.

I like the term "evildoers" myself. I think it pretty much sums up who we are after. Evil seems a little more universal for condemnation.