Quote Mintball="Mintball"I don't know that anyone has said that the deaths were "OK", but I think that there is an understanding that, in certain situations, there is little choice but for resistance to be violent in nature.
There's a reason that I mentioned WWII resistance fighters.
As in South Africa under apartheid, there was hardly a peaceful option available to those who were opposed to the state: those had been tried and put down with violence in SA; in WWII Europe, the Nazis acted quickly to get rid of any political opponents. So were resistance fighters then terrorists?'"
There probably is a difference. In WW2 Germans had invaded other countries. It is only right that people should attack the aggressor. In South Africa some would argue that the whites were invaders and so the situation is the same. However, the whites (more than arguably) had a legitimate right to be there by NMs time and they had "developed" the country.