It was not a comparison but a general point about the definition since others (and their supporters) also justified violence according to their world view, to improve things for "their people".
Well yeah, murderous lunatics do tend to try and justify their actions. But Hitler, Bin Laden and what they were fighting for are not in any way comparable to Mandela and his cause. But then, you weren't comparing them apparently, so...I have no clue as to why you brought them into the conversation...
And those were actual statistics from that research paper. Calling me an apologist just for stating that is as dishonest as me calling you a terrorism/violence apologist.
It is not the statistic itself that is the problem (though you fail to cite where you got it). My problem is why you chose to mention it. And why else would you have randomly brought up that little titbit of information if it was not in an attempt to downplay how disgusting, racist and abusive the apartheid system was? Honestly I'm asking you, what point were you trying to make?
"in a way it got worse".
And in many ways it got better too, but you didn't mention that, which would lead one to believe that you feel South Africa was "better" under apartheid. Sometimes what is missing can be as telling as what is included.
You're kind of set on labeling those with criticism as pro-apartheid anyway. Just because I don't list obvious bad things about it and criticize a person's actions doesn't mean that I defend that regime.
I'm not really set on labelling anyone anything, but if you make a post stating obvious bad things about South Africa now, yet completely omit any mention of the obvious bad things about South Africa under apartheid, while also throwing in a couple evokative "statistics" and phrases, then your going to come across a certain way. For the record, I don't think your pro-apartheid or anything, but for the future you should be aware of how people will read your posts.