Ln X wrote:
Let me say firstly that I appreciate your taking the time and effort to post information, as well as sources for that information. Having read through the sources you've posted, however, I find that nearly all of them are very biased, and in the case of the first link to Dr. Moller, outright hyperbolic to the point of unintentional satire.
To add, I don't see anyone here who considers Mandela a saint. What Mandela did was fight against a powerful, pervasive, oppressive, violent enemy with violence of his own. Mandela advocated armed conflict when it was deemed necessary. What he didn't do, however, was specifically target innocent people. Instead, he aimed to disable the government regime itself. That doesn't make him a terrorist by any stretch of that definition.
He is lauded because of his efforts to break the yoke of oppression and hate by a government that sought only to trample on the rights of others, a government that did so quite violently. His ultimate goal wasn't power or influence, but the liberation of human rights. There is a big, fat red line between the actions of Nelson Mandela, and those of a terrorist. He most certainly wasn't a saint, and he was the first to say so, but he also wasn't this terrorist that some people claim him to be.