Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mandela softens view on Bin Laden
Business Media Company ^ | Jan 2, 2002 | Sapa?

Posted on 01/02/2002 8:52:04 AM PST by Prodigal Son


Former president Nelson Mandela has repudiated his controversial statement that Saudi-born dissident Osama bin Laden should be held responsible for the September 11th attacks on the United States.

In a statement released by his office, he said subsequent discussions with family, friends and advisors had
convinced him that his view may be "one-sided and over-stated".

Mandela provoked the ire of the Muslim community in November last year when he vocalised his support for the war against Afghanistan at a Washington press conference held after his meeting with US President George W Bush.

In December, he reiterated his support for the war during a speech delivered at Durban's Grey Street mosque, saying bin Laden should be captured and tried for the attacks.

At the time, the former president told the audience that bin Laden's al-Qaeda network should be smashed and terrorist strongholds destroyed.

In response to the speech, angry Muslims said the elder statesman had no right to label bin Laden a terrorist when he had not been convicted in a court of law.

In his surprising about-face, Mandela said that he wished to register his sincere regret "if the manner in which we stated our position gave any offence to Muslims in South Africa and throughout the world".

It was pointed out to him that such unreserved support for the war in Afghanistan gave the impression that "we are insensitive to and uncaring about the suffering of the Afghan people..."

He also said he would be arranging meetings with Muslim leadership in South Africa early in the new year to personally convey this message to them.

"We are also writing to President Bush to appropriately qualify the view we previously expressed to him in person and in correspondence."

Mandela clarified his new position on the matter, saying labelling bin Laden a terrorist could "be seen as undermining some of the basic tenets of the rule of law".

He emphasised that his opposition to all forms of terrorism remained total and said he supported international efforts to combat and eradicate terrorism.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-31 last
To: XJarhead
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
21 posted on 01/02/2002 10:26:56 AM PST by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
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
22 posted on 01/02/2002 10:28:10 AM PST by jraven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Prodigal Son
What do you expect from the old communist?
23 posted on 01/02/2002 10:29:59 AM PST by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Prodigal Son
It's tough to be a hypocrite and look honestly at yourself in the mirror (unless your Bill Cinton).
24 posted on 01/02/2002 10:34:24 AM PST by TADSLOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PaulKersey
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.

25 posted on 01/02/2002 10:42:38 AM PST by Prodigal Son
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: XJarhead
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

26 posted on 01/02/2002 10:43:42 AM PST by JoeSixPack1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Prodigal Son
No one should be suprised. He doesn't condemn the terrorism in Zimbabwe either.
27 posted on 01/02/2002 10:51:46 AM PST by Eternal_Bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PaulKersey
Fascinating! Posting the article was worth it for that link alone! Thanks! :-)
28 posted on 01/02/2002 11:09:11 AM PST by Prodigal Son
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Prodigal Son
>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.

29 posted on 01/02/2002 11:21:25 AM PST by PaulKersey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: XJarhead
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.

30 posted on 01/02/2002 6:20:40 PM PST by tbeatty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo
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.

31 posted on 01/02/2002 6:35:07 PM PST by tbeatty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-31 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson