South Africa's COIN war in SWA/Namibia/Angola

[ganulv]

[…] and other claiming he was more akin to a terrorist (Begin in the Stern Gang) than insurgent (Washington in the American Revolution).

‘Terrorist’ is such a subjective term IMHO it tells you a lot more about the person applying it than it does about the person it is applied to. There seems to be some semantic slippage around ‘insurgent,’ too. Your usage above suggests (to someone who went to elementary school in the United States, at least) that an insurgent is a revolutionary undertaking justified violence. Recent use of the term in relation to the adversaries of the United States in Iraq and the narco side of the drug–related violence in Mexico doesn’t really suggest that connotation, though.

If you have ever been to or ever go through central New York you’ll see a number of plaques and monuments singing the praises of the Sullivan–Clinton Expedition against the Iroquois. Contemporary Haudenosaunee, on the other hand, are not unlikely to relate to you that their ancestors gave Washington the sobriquet ‘Town Burner’ because of his role in ordering the punitive expedition (despite the existence of evidence that the name predates the Revolutionary War) and will often portray the expedition as tantamount to a crime against humanity. In my eyes both of these portrayals of the past are politicized oversimplifications.

So back to your question: Was/Is Mandela a terrorist or an insurgent? Yes. No. Maybe. False dichotomy. Both. All of the above. None of the above.

[Strickland]

For exactly the reasons you cite, I am attempting to use words with precision. For that reason, from a historical analysis of the South African Insurgency, did Mandela intentionally target or sanction the deliberate use of violence against civilians?

[ganulv]

For exactly the reasons you cite, I am attempting to use words with precision.

Ummm, okay…

For that reason, from a historical analysis of the South African Insurgency, did Mandela intentionally target or sanction the deliberate use of violence against civilians?

Anyone who is in doubt as to whether the ANC conducted attacks sanctioned by Mr. Mandela in which civilians died can have their doubt removed within 30 seconds with the search function on Google. But good luck with answering the question of whether any of the attacks sanctioned by Mandela intentionally targeted civilians or deliberately used violence against civilians. Part of the difficulty with such as that is the fact that state sanctioned use of force is guided (or not) by a definition of proportionality formulated by state actors. Non-state actors may point out they are not able to avail themselves of all of the resources available to their state actor adversaries. In addition, there is the question of whether the principle of distinction makes any sense in an existential conflict. In the context of a true life–or–death struggle (and some would argue that some or all of the parties to the struggle of which Mr. Mandela was a part were hyperbolic in referring to it as an existential conflict, so there’s another issue to grapple with in coming to anything approaching a clean answer to your question) some would say that nobody standing by is innocent.

[JMA]

Now that it is quiet around here I can slip in with my piece.

To discuss whether Nelson Mandela was or wasn't a terrorist is pointless. Here's why:

If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. – Bertrand Russell