Why are Palestinians such dumbasses? (1972 hits)
Category: PoliticsRating: -0.3 on 55 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Nefandus Maleficus <wuhoa.at.hotmail.com> (View user info) at 2003-05-28 18:40:59 EDT
I'd like to know why Palestinians are such dumbshits. They bomb Israeli children and women and other innocent civilians that have no control over what their Prime Minister does, says, or orders. What the fuck do they expect to accomplish? Them killing innocent children is doing nothing but enraging the average Israeli citizen with more hatred and anger towards Palestinians. And these dipshits wonder why Israelis kill them on sight, I would too, if some fucking Palestinian dude was running towards me I would gun his ass down fast as a mother fucker, for all I know he has a bomb strapped up his ass. Go Israel. Kill many rag heads for me, please.
User Reviews
Submitted by kehinde (user info) at 2004-09-30 11:04:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
hello am from nigeria and am 22years guy am here to takehere of lady,am nice guy.
Submitted by Daeron (user info) at 2004-05-13 12:10:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
The Israeli-Palestinian problem is nothing like aparthied. In south Africa the blacks wanted to be equal citizens with whites, in the middle east the Palestinians (and Arabs) want to kill ALL jews
Bad opinion and bad knowledge of history
Submitted by captain (user info) at 2004-04-18 05:20:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I think it's great that the Brits allowed Israel to be formed, what you have to remember is that no one else wanted you Kike shitheads in there country after the war and what better idea could have been thought up than to get rid of more of you by dumping you all in the middle east so that the genocide could continue for both sides, the Brits did a pretty good job of creating the same situation with Pakistan and India.
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-02-17 20:32:47 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by squattail (user info) at 2004-01-03 18:54:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Uneducated and vague, but true.
Submitted by Alabama (user info) at 2003-06-20 17:27:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Yidele, it just doesn't fucking matter anymore. The present situation demands that they should have their own state. Yeah, I know, there never was any such thing as "Palestine," and it doesn't fucking matter. The Americans did every conceivable shitty thing to the Native Americans to steal their land. I'm pretty sure Satan learned a thing or two. Does it fucking matter? Sure, we should stop treating them like ebola, but does our history mean we should give all of North America back to them? We should, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
I don't want anybody flaming the bejeezus out of me for saying that history is irrelevant. I didn't say that.
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2003-06-20 16:57:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Sorry, alabama, but the palestynian arabs already have a country of their own, it comprises more than half of the original territories which WERE supposed to be divided equaly. This country is called the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. They can have all the land they want in Jordan, but why should we give them Judea & Sammaria? Because they're led by people who consider ambulances a neat delivery system for explosives? I don't think so. Furthermore, while I grew up watching this conflict unfold, I think that it will be settled eventually, probably within the next 8-12 years. At least I hope so.
Submitted by Alabama (user info) at 2003-06-20 16:27:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm Jewish but not a Zionist. I think they should have their own state and let's be done with them. You can't pretend to be a democracy yet give an entire people no civil rights. I'd also like for there to be world peace with all children singing hand in hand. In other words, it ain't gonna happen. Why? The Palestinians could have everything they ever wanted if they ever decided to pull a Ghandi. But they won't, because they think that sort of thing is for pussies. So I really hope they enjoy being despised by nearly everybody who sees another bus blown up by a suicide bomber. Their "protests" are appreciated by the rest of the middle east, but not by any of the industrialized nations whose outrage is critical.
I've lived my entire life watching this shit on the news, and I'll bet you that my kids will too.
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2003-06-20 16:00:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
at a risk of repeating myself, there is no such thing as a palestynian. they're arabs, nothing more, nothing less. The same arabs you'll find over the border in syria, south lebanon or jordan.
...
from an earlier post:
Your question, "Why are palestynians such dumbasses?", could actually be phrased more lucidly " why are the arabs nationalists so desperate?" since there is no such thing, nor was there ever such a thing as a "palestynian" nation, language, tradition or history. Todays arab denizens of palestine are desperate because they know that their dream of a united arab empire is a fairy tale & they have let themselves be manipulated into a hopeless position by their own cousins in syria, Jordan, Lebanon, saudi arabia & Egypt. They are desperate because they see that any perace settlement in the mid east means the acceptance of Israel - something already acknowledged by two of our neighbors ( Jordan & Egypt) & the denial of their nationalist aspirations. Of course these reasons are the motive power for leaders - the average jihadi is a brainwashed religious extremist willing to die for Islam & paid for killing himself. A culture which values its children as weapons & pays people to blow themselves up is not going to look sane to a westerner.
I don't think the palestynian arabs are stupid - I've known a few of them - but they are caught in a unenviable situation; they can't settle freely in arab countries and they can't win a war with us. As long as organizations such as Hamas, Jihad Islami or PLO exist, you can be guaranteed that they will not have a chance to settle peacefully in palestine or anywhere ese in the middle east. Their own cousins are keeping them locked up in refugee camps, creating a pool of desperate, uneducated & poor men ready to strap on an explosive belt rather than live in the reality created for them. Too bad.
Submitted by Maleficus (user info) at 2003-06-20 15:47:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I would like to recall my last post. It was dumb and stupid and totally ignorant. I have wisened up much since it. The Palestinians aren't the ones attacking the Israelis, the terrorist organizations are. They're purposefully doing that shit so Israelis will retaliate against Palestinians causing a never ending war. And to all of you mother fuckers out there that posted supporting Palestine or posted hate of Israel (and of me for supporting them) I'd just like you to know that I never said anything about political support. I didnt say I hated Israel or Palestine, nor that I was content with them. I was merely trying to point out how they are taking such an ineffective approach to their situation.
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2003-06-14 08:01:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
actually it was hamas & tanzim that did the first shoting attacks since the Aquaba summit. In case your memory is that selective, Rantissi - the hamas leader who was the target of the first heli attack on the 10th, declared this on the 6th: "We are cutting off all dialogue with the Palestinian Authority". http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/06/mideast/index.html
Hamas has effectively cut itself off from the peace process by rejecting the authority of Abbas ( Abu Mazen) and the Aquaba summit BEFORE any attack from our side. They promised us more death & violence - the only thing I regret is that the heli attack wasn't more sucessfull.
To your highly selective attention I recommend the following timeline -
June 10, 2003 Strike Against Senior Hamas Leader, Rantissi
June 8, 2003 1 sraeli border police wounded in a gun battle resulting from terrorists shooting at worshippers in Hebron, cave of the patriarchs. 1 Israeli soldier killed in the Hebron Casbah later same night
June 8, 2003 Four Israeli Soldiers Killed in Attack on IDF Outpost in Northern Gaza Strip
by 3 arab terrorists who idenrify themselves as Hamas, Tanzim & Fatah operatives in their videotaped testament. Notice that Fatah & Tanzim are directed by Arafat, the man who supposedly supports Abbas & the peace effort
June 8, 2003 - closure of west bank due to warning of impending terrorist action
June 3, 2003 - Release of arab terrorist prisoners as negotiated at Aquaba
Submitted by Nobb (user info) at 2003-06-14 07:06:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Everyone should take note that Isreal started the lastest round of violence.
Submitted by squattail (user info) at 2003-06-09 08:47:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Yeah, I know, they suck. But their bombings are helping their cause. Israeli government indeed takes note when a cafe is blown up or a market is destroyed by PLO pieces of shit. Either way, it will probably all come to a close within the next couple of decades. In my opinion, the word "arab" won't even exist in fifty years.
Submitted by Agent_FUBAR (user info) at 2003-06-09 08:44:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
jeus mary and jospeh Yidele you are one boring opinionated-without-saying-anything-new assmaster. I can see why evryone here hates your ass you bag of shit.
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2003-06-05 21:02:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Parting is such sweet sorrow That I shall say good night till it be morrow
Submitted by momanlad (user info) at 2003-06-05 20:46:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
After battling away with you, writing a poxy exam should be a walk in the park. Only the ins and outs of Clintons Health Security Act (HSA) is stupidly boring and seems a trifle pointless.
i will try continue arguing when i can. Though my internet connection here ends very soon and i don't have it in my room at home!
Adieu, my polish, Jewish, American friend.
From you English/welsh/irish friend
Matt
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2003-06-05 20:00:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I know you find this hard to understand, but genticaly sabra jews are indistinguishable from Israeli arabs. There are recent studies which I may cite if you're interested, in print or on the internet.
There is no "ethnic" distance & as you know, there is no genetic basis for race. In consequence, there can be no racism or race based / ethnic predjudice since we're nearly indistinguishable geneticaly. in this context your claim is radiculous since the palestynian arabs do not form in and of themselves any definite race ( however defined), nation or ethnicity. Had is said something to the effect that "all arabs are..." this or that, you might have a point. as it is, I am characterising the _political_ misfortunes of undistinguished group of arabs physically indistinguishable from us, jews. I don't know where it is you're finding predjudice - certainly not in anything I've said about arabs in this discourse.
Regarding Chomsky, To my knowledge he's never used those words. You might notice that I wrote: "...Chomsky might have called it Manufacturing Discontent.." - Might - meaning had he pronounced on the phenomenon which to my knowledge he hasn't and won't for the simple reason that ideologically he is in support of antiglobalism. He is a fascinating writer & an interesting speaker to boot, it is a pity that I disagree with many of his ideas regarding my spiritual homeland, the very idea of a jewish nation & his ties to holocaut deniers/ french neonazi.( Chomsky is jewish ) I do agree with him on many points regarding his critique of the military-industrial complex' dominance in american politics & also on many of his insights about the manufacturing of consent in the west.
Best of luck on your exams. Write when you want - I will be here.
Submitted by momanlad (user info) at 2003-06-05 19:16:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
hahahah
i don't own any of my opinions!! What a laugh. I think Loki saying i won the debate on that other post pissed you off. The intellectual superiority complex which you wear on you arm is so evident when you make such suggestions. it gives me a laugh though and i commend you for that.
i like your pedantry in picking up on me using the word combat!! Think you might have read a little too much into this.
Anyway, as i have said about three times already, i clearly don't have as much time to devote to this as you, i have an exam on the 7th June about a completely unrelated topic, and then a job interview to prepare for. We could be on here for days and neither of us will consolidate. I think you are wrong in much of what you see (perhaps they are not your opinions!! perhaps you read them!!) and you think likewise. I will not name the academic who i showed this too, as i see no reason to involve him by name. What i will say is that he found much of what you were saying ludicrous and advised me to not to involve myself in it.
"Why are palestynian arabs such hopeless loosers?"
and then saying; "There is no streotype here, racial or ethnic, obvious or implied"
hahaha no, yidele, there is nothing obviuos or implied in that statement!! How silly of me. hahah. I just can't argue with someone like you, it's ultimately a fruitless exercise.
i also deal in published journals, periodicals, books etc. Not random internet sites. I also, as said before, do not have the time currently to look around for statistics to back up a point.
found you noam chomsky ref interesting, i have heard of manufacturing consent, but not discontent, he may have said discontent also, just i haven't read it. i have read:
• Chomsky Noam Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda (New York: Seven Stories Press, 1997).
• Chomsky Noam Necessary Illusions, Thought control in Democratic Societies (London: Pluto Press, 1989).
in said books he points to a "just supression". that people must be kept in relative ignorance and reduced to jingoistic incantations for their own good; they must be fed necessary illusions and emotionally potent oversimplifications to keep them ignorant and the masses disciplined and content. this to me seems the polar opossite of manufacturing discontent. But, hey. Maybe i just haven't read that bit yet.
i don't know whether it was this post or the other one, but the AID's point about it being better under apartheid, and rates increasing after it's collapse. As HIV is a virus, it normally spreads over time. i don't believe Arfikaner ruled S.Africa did anything to prevent it killing blacks, thats what they wanted to happen, and i also don't think ANC ruled s.Africa has done anything. However, in being a virus it will develop and spread. This has absolutely nothing to do with either of the governments as neither did anything. Just had to get that off my chest.
Anyway, i keep getting sucked in here, i really don't have the time for this shit. If i fail this exam i will blame you and ubersite. I just can't stop myself from arguing with you.
ta ta.
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2003-06-05 16:18:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
""Why are palestynian arabs such hopeless loosers? Because the brits created the situation by allowing unchecked arab migration into an originally almost empty palestine in order to check the jewish migration""
"What sort a pointless statment is that? it doesn't deserve any comment. Stereotyping a whole race/ethnicity in a bracket like that is a mind-set you can't rationally argue with regardless of his voacb and penchant for prolix. "
Nothing pointless about it. There is no streotype here, racial or ethnic, obvious or implied. What there is, points squarely at the reasons behind the present turmoil in the middle east & that is a direct result of brit foreign policy. Since you're mouthing off about race/ethnicities, allow me to notice that it is you who consistently attempt to pin some sort of "...Jew propaganda..." label to me while spouting off such broad generalizations about Israel as to make a farce of your opinions, should you actually have any of your own.
On to the issue. There is no such thing as a Palestynian "...race/ethnicity..." since geneticaly they are nearly indistinguishable from sabras, Israeli Jews. This really isn't south africa, despite whatever you professor told you. What there is to distinguish jews from palestynian arabs, syrian arabs or jordanian arabs is religion, culture, language & tradition. In the case of syrian, lebanese or jordanian arabs those are identical. They all speak nearly identical dialects of arabic, are almost all muslim ( some druse & christian as well, but mostly in lebanon ). They share a common history, which for arab denizens of Eretz Yisroel begins about 1200 years ago with a muslim invasion which colonized the holy land and converted some of the autochtons - jews to islam.
further, there is no such thing as a palstynian nation, nationality or character, despite many years & attempts at fabricating one. I can provide you many verifiable quotes by arab leaders regarding both the "manufacturing" of identity as a means of legitimizing terror and outright self identification of palestynian and lebanese arabs as "south syrian", which frankly points to the outright fraud of "palestynian identity", but I'm guessing you'll just ignore this much as you ignore any substantive data since your uni doesn't consider the world's largest ditributed database to be a worthwile source...
""Because the brits have been playing ducks and drakes with local arab leaders, setting them up against each other & providing them with weapons, which incidenatlly made any kind of pan-arab cooperation impossible""
"Please consider that the first paragraph i have adressed is more telling in explaining why any kind of pan-arab coopertaion is impossible"
Sorry, but you're drawing a blank here. The first paragraph merely describes HOW arabs came to be in palestine, has nough to do with pan-arab cooperation which was an early victim of british king making in the middle east. Of course the last thing that west would want in the m.e. would be a strong, united & muslim empire like the one they've defeated in the Ist war. To this day, arab nationalists fondly look back to the time of otoman dominion & would rebuild something like it if allowed. This is the reason why terrorist movements such as al-quaida refer to Islam & not to nationality when they want volounteers. This is also why the brits & french divided the mandate lands & set up reactionary, smelly little kingdoms. Middle eastern borders do not reflect natural boundaries of populations, but quite arbitrary choices made by the partitioning powers. Middle east is the way it is because the west, britain foremost, made it that way. Pan arab cooperation is impossible because the west propped up monarchies like the house of Saud or the Shah of Iran against the expressed wished of the population. As we have seen in the last 50 years, some hereditary monarchies ( most notably in Iraq, Iran & Syria have been replaced by socialist-style dictatorships ( in case of Iran a fundamentalist one)
To put it bluntly, pan arab cooperation is impossible in most cases because the west created & supported structures that developed a vested interest in keeping things as they are.
""What were the real motives behind the british policy in the middle east?
Power & influence over the world's richest oil producing region & continued dominion over the suez canal""
"you mean pursuing our realist international interests on a Hobbesian world stage. Woe forbid. Not something Israel would partake in, ohh no of course not. Nice one"
Thank you. I knew you'd appreciate he irony implicit in the fact that when Israel was fighting for her life, all the brits could think of was the suez.
Amazing in the light of this was not only the fact of returning the Sinai ( the gaining of which doubled Israel's territory) but allowing arabs back into the west bank. Kind of inconsistant with your insinuation, if you consider the fact that Israel could have captured damascus at least twice, had the Egyptian army pinned & cut off once and put the fear of God into the jordanians every time & every time completely swept arab air forces out of the sky, that each time Irael won a war, she handed captured territory back.... But you wouldn't consider that - after all we're all jews, spreading our jew propaganda....
"My world view isn't narrow, it's aware of the nature of the system. Also, i don't know from when i have been bracketted as a frustrated left international activist just from panning you quite often extreme right, fascist stance on some issues.
'Yes, a positively engaged, aware & motivated activist with no cause is a terrible thing to waste ; hence the anti-globalism movement, PETA, anti-logging/environmental activism and other forms of radical vagaries so much in vouge lately'
So you object to anykind of demonstration against such things as our (thats the worlds) environment. They are vagaries to you. Again, how can you combat an individual with a mindset like that? "
? I don't believe I labeled you as such - personaly I don't believe that you own any of the opinions you quote, but if the shoe fits....
As regards activism, especially of the kind exhibited by misdirected hooligans wrecking McDonalds in davos, hanging from trees about to be clear cut or defending the homes of terrorist against our army bulldozers, I believe that they get what they deserve. It is only too bad that the amoral manipulative fuckers convincing them to stupidly risk their lives, aren't in their place. Ditto for PETA which equates chicken farms to genocide. I also never claimed to "...object to anykind of demonstration..." - demonstrations are an esential tool in batgaining with those in power, except that the ones I mentioned aren't bargaining for anything except a burial plot. Fact is that anarchism & various flavours of antiglobalism as exhibited by youth are mostly fads. These are the same kids who consume until they bust & drive their gas guzzlers to save the earth rallies. Such movements are habitually manufactured & steered; Chomsky might have called it Manufacturing Discontent.
Such activist would gain the credibility they now lack if they decide to defend the countless millions in china, Indonesia, Sudan or ehiopia, but being superficial, vain camera hogs, they prefer to flock where they can be seen & not where they can do good. So much for the fad of activism.
Pointless, my momanlad, is arguing issues of national & cultural identity or politics in the middle east with you, since you seem to have so little knowledge of any of these
My opinions are my own, I do not seek the borrowed authority of a nameless professor to bolster my opinions - authority, which in the context of an internet debate or discussion is meaningless anyway. What does matter are verifiable facts - published data, economy, emigration patterns, historical precedents such as treaties or laws which can be verified. To this end, the internet is invaluable. to date you've managed to produce nothing of the sort, but insist in your chosen task as an apologist for brutal thugs & their ideoloques. This is very much your choice, but what it is not, is reasoned debate.
In closing, I'd like to add a nugget of wisdom you seem to have dropped: "...how can you combat an individual with a mindset like that?" - so this is combat to you? in this perspective, some things become clearer. Combat is not compatible with rational discussion. The desire to "Combat" ideas places you amongst those who consider ideas as weapons for combat - or ideologues, talking heads - incapable of forming own opinion or debating a point of view incompatible with their a-priori ideals held emotionally, not through reason.
yidele
Submitted by turveytopsy (user info) at 2003-06-05 13:10:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Hablañero = pepper
enema = well... if you don't know what that is, do a google image search of it.
Submitted by momanlad (user info) at 2003-06-05 12:58:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
ok Mickginny, what does that exactly mean? Whats a hablenero enema and why would anyone know what that is anyway!!
Submitted by MickGinny (user info) at 2003-06-05 12:45:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Every time I mention actual figures you run like an anal fistula sufferer from a hablanero enema."
love em or hate em, this guy says some funny chit!
Submitted by momanlad (user info) at 2003-06-05 12:39:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
yidele,
This is what is pointless:
"Why are palestynian arabs such hopeless loosers? Because the brits created the situation by allowing unchecked arab migration into an originally almost empty palestine in order to check the jewish migration"
What sort a pointless statment is that? it doesn't deserve any comment. Stereotyping a whole race/ethnicity in a bracket like that is a mind-set you can't rationally argue with regardless of his voacb and penchant for prolix.
"Because the brits have been playing ducks and drakes with local arab leaders, setting them up against each other & providing them with weapons, which incidenatlly made any kind of pan-arab cooperation impossible"
Please consider that the first paragraph i have adressed is more telling in explaining why any kind of pan-arab coopertaion is impossible.
"What were the real motives behind the british policy in the middle east?
Power & influence over the world's richest oil producing region & continued dominion over the suez canal"
you mean pursuing our realist international interests on a Hobbesian world stage. Woe forbid. Not something Israel would partake in, ohh no of course not. Nice one.
"Why is your world view so narrow? I don't know - I do know that SOuth africa is a minor player on the world stage & an insignificant one when it comes to the middle east ( at least now ). At one time it was one of the few countries that would trade with Israel. I do know that the notion of paiting Israel as an apartheid country is fashionable amongst frustrated left-international activists who've been trained to react with vitriol to any mention of Eretz Yisroel & with equal, uncritical accerptance to the mention of murderous wahabbi thugs masquarading as freedom fighters"
My world view isn't narrow, it's aware of the nature of the system. Also, i don't know from when i have been bracketted as a frustrated left international activist just from panning you quite often extreme right, fascist stance on some issues.
"Yes, a positively engaged, aware & motivated activist with no cause is a terrible thing to waste ; hence the anti-globalism movement, PETA, anti-logging/environmental activism and other forms of radical vagaries so much in vouge lately"
So you object to anykind of demonstration against such things as our (thats the worlds) environment. They are vagaries to you. Again, how can you combat an individual with a mindset like that?
Yidele, currently i really don't have the time with academic committments to go tit-for-tat on here.
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2003-06-05 05:24:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I really do wish you'd stick to the point, momanlad. Every time I mention actual figures you run like an anal fistula sufferer from a hablanero enema.
While from your point of view a comparison between Israel and South africa under apartheid may make sense, it can only be so if you ignore the basic facts. It is a pity that the evil smelling ghoul of pc correctness has invaded your mind, for I am afraid that it is doing terrible things to your reason.
Israel is not south africa, arafat is not mandela & Britain (thank God allmighty) is not the deciding force of Isreli issues.
Why are palestynian arabs such hopeless loosers? Because the brits created the situation by allowing unchecked arab migration into an originally almost empty palestine in order to check the jewish migration.
Why were the palestynian arabs left out of the political settlement of 1948?
Because the brits liked to keep their subject population fragmented & in eternal conflict with each other via their "divide et impera" policy. It just so happened that this did not work with us, jews, who've had a definite idea of nationhood for a few thousand years and did work with arabs who to this day have no clear concept of "national" allegiance.
Why was so much bloodshed necessary? Because the brits have been playing ducks and drakes with local arab leaders, setting them up against each other & providing them with weapons, which incidenatlly made any kind of pan-arab cooperation impossible.
What were the real motives behind the british policy in the middle east?
Power & influence over the world's richest oil producing region & continued dominion over the suez canal.
Why is your world view so narrow? I don't know - I do know that SOuth africa is a minor player on the world stage & an insignificant one when it comes to the middle east ( at least now ). At one time it was one of the few countries that would trade with Israel. I do know that the notion of paiting Israel as an apartheid country is fashionable amongst frustrated left-international activists who've been trained to react with vitriol to any mention of Eretz Yisroel & with equal, uncritical accerptance to the mention of murderous wahabbi thugs masquarading as freedom fighters.
Why are left leaning activists so frustrated? perhaps because their pet causes have been taking it up the ass all over the world; marxism is disappearing piece by piece since the fall of the Soviet Union. Yes, a positively engaged, aware & motivated activist with no cause is a terrible thing to waste ; hence the anti-globalism movement, PETA, anti-logging/environmental activism and other forms of radical vagaries so much in vouge lately.
While hereditary stupidity is incurable, ignorance is not - a sure proof of that was to be had during the last Iraq offensive, when international peace activists / human shields ( many of them british & american ) complained about the terrible unfairness of the Iraqi who insisted on placing them around objects of military importance & not population centers. Wisely, the peacefull warriors went home. Incidenatlly, the peacefull warriors are totaly ignoring places where real issues of life & death or human rights are decided - places such as china, malasia, indonesia, Eritreya, Somalia, sudan - where are those paragons of virtue & compassion when innocents are enslaved & stoned to death? where are those willing to sacrifice their lives so that another may not be enslaved? Where are those human chains of volounteers protecting the human rights of the falun gong, or China's prisoners of conscience? Where are the international initiatives? Why ask such difficult, embarrasing questions? hell, you can just boycot Israel or call us racists, aparthide-niks or whatever else takes your fancy - anything but face the real issues.....
Submitted by ScJ (user info) at 2003-06-04 21:17:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
:o holy crap...thats a massive post, almost as big as...well you know where im goin with this
Submitted by momanlad (user info) at 2003-06-04 20:42:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Yidele,
Again alot of discussion points, but again, i have an exam on Sat and must really focus on that. After that i am moving out of this house i am in. However, since i find so much of this complete pap informed by random websites and not proper primary of secondary sources i want to continue fighting tooth and nail against your endlessly narrow perspective. I feel duty bound.
keep an eye for it.
I am going to bed now.
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2003-06-04 16:46:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Yidele,
"Without making this thing run for ever you appear to be incapable of having a rational debate. I must admit that i enjoyed your point about Mobutu being a Marxist. Mobutu was a creature of the CIA for decades Yidele. This being the case, i think your understanding of Mobutu is woefully thin, and you use of him in this instance bears legitimacy to it. "
You might look at whet the marxists have to say about Mobutu - http://www.marxist.com/Theory/colrev.html
Quote "...We should not forget that two of the countries which were supposed to have smooth transitions to bourgeois democracy as part of the New World Order scheme were Mobutu's Zaire and Nigeria. In both these countries the military rulers had other ideas and cancelled the processes, much to the chagrin of the imperialists..." - as you see, your claim regarding Mobutu as a will-less tool of the CIA is suspect at least - but it is certainly what the marxists would claim, seeing as every single instance of a proto-marxsist system turns into a kleptocracy like Zaire. I know - I lived in one.
Some would have Mobutu be the anti-marxist bulwark erected by western powers in order to keep africa from "turning marxist" , but this is yet again an example of whitewashing soviet/cuban engagement in african affairs - I am attaching another quote:
"...In essence, Africans are increasingly taking matters into their own hands. A "new" generation of leaders backed by highly trained and fairly disciplined armies is assuming power. The most assertive of these "new" leaders are former guerrilla commanders who developed their character and world view as their movements defeated foreign-supported, post colonial despots in drawn out struggles. While highly nationalistic, these leaders were once students of Marxism organizing along democratic-centralist lines and planning to nationalize their economies. Though some still own Lenin's complete works, they seem to be pragmatists, favouring free markets and insisting that corruption, not class difference, is the greatest threat to national development. Steeped in the values of secular nationalism, each has sought to incorporate disenfranchised nationalities and religious groups. Yet not one of these leaders can easily be called democratic, as each still runs a defacto one-party state. We recognise that some of these states are coalescing into a new political and military bloc that, although relatively small, aspires to remake much of the continent. At its core are Uganda, Rwanda, Ethiopia, and Eritrea, with Angola, Zimbabwe and South Africa playing smaller roles."
http://www.aaps.co.zw/Publications/AIJP/Okoth.html
"Comparing Mandela to Mugable also tells me that you understanding of Mandela is pitiful, this is why you make such a fascile comparison in the first place. Having spoken to my lecturer recently i a brought this up (he is a leading published academic in South Africa/African politics) he indeed laughed at this, and commented that he has never heard of such a comparison being made before."
I hope that your professor, whomever he is, knows more about the Mandelas, ANC & south africa than he's letting on - it really doesn't take much of a mind to decipher Mandela's approach to power politics or race. A comparison with Mugabe is very much in place here. I know that to someone who idolizes Mandela this might be difficult, but when we come right down to issues, Both men took power as a result of terror, neither one is particularly democratic in outlook & made their political carriers out of manipulating race issues. Both supported & sanctioned open murder of whites & such of their own as get in the way.
The sources I quoted about the ANC's terror roots ( though you chose not to adress them) are still as valid today as they were in the hayday of "one settler - one bullet" - a slogan wholly endorsed & popularized by the ANC thugs & Mandela.
"South Africa under apartheid working better than things are now!! What a ridiculous point. The USSR would still exist under this level of thinking. Sometimes when massive change occurs things in the aftermath, the transition period as it were takes a while to get to grips with."
Tell it to the economists. South africa today is a poor & dangerous country ( 4th highest murder rate in the world( http://members.easyspace.com/football/2006/crime2ld.html)) , despite enormous mineral wealth. With a a GNP per capita of 3,170 USD and a negative GNP/capita growth rate of -0.4, and one of the world's highest AIDS infaction rates, it is a hellhole - and it has become that SINCE the assumption of power by the ANC. Don't take my word for it - i suggest lecture of http://www.southafricanemigration.com/SAEmigration.htm which lays out the reasons why people are fleeing the hellhole that ANC made of S.A in plain terms even you should be able to understand. There is no reason to credit your "...sometimes when massive change..." - the world is full of places which saw worse conflict ( open warfare) and have less natural resources and are somehow safer & saner places to live.
" South Africa under apartheid was a near perfect example of institutionalised violence. Israel and aprtheid South Africa are not polar oposites. Through their treatment of indigenous peoples they have much in common; what are the West Bank and Gaza if not bantustans/reserves of cheap labour where people are under the heel. Israel's role in the demise of apartheid was in fact non-existent."
Well, damn me with faint praise - Israel & south africa are not polar oposites because they're not even on the same map. I don't know who it is you're refering to when you mention indiginous peoples, because at the time Jewish return to palestine begun, it was mostly a deserted land with no population other than some indiginous jews and few nomadic arabs who are not the same people as the present day denizens of sammaria & judea. Since both the Balfour declaration & the united nations mandate for palestine stipulated the creation of two states on the territory of palestine ( which btw, meant cis & trans jordan ) and in fact 2 states do exist - the hashemite kingdom & Israel, there really is no comparison between bantustans and the west bank/ gaza - These people already have their country - Jordan - and are welcome to as much of it as they like. Arab labor is not cheap - it is very dear, considering the fact that each time they are allowed to work in Israel, Innocent people die in bomb blasts. Israel also didn't have a hand in the chinese cultural revolution or the fall of the berlin wall - neither did the UK
Another issue alltogether is the asumption ( false ) you're making about the indigenous peoples of south africa. As most now know, the bantus migrated in about the same time as the whites did, both groups pretty much exterminated the bushmen & hottentots that were "indigenous" before either the bantu or whites arrived.
While you "...concieve a distaste..." for white rule ( some 13% of south africans are white ) I consider the nationalist-racist policies of Thabo M'beki to be the first step in a progressive Zimbabwe-like transformation. IMO ( and not only IMO ) South africa was a safer, wealthier country under white rule.
"No the Boers wars to my knowledge was not fought about this issue especially baring in mind that South Africa withdrew from the commonwealth in the 1960's!! There is no hypocrisy. and why is having the Falklands invaded, a territory which regards itself as British, wants to be British and is British wrong. Rhodesia was under massive pressure from a popular movement of balck nationalists, i.e the majority of people in Rhodesia didn't want Smith in power. What was Britain going to do? Invade and murder blacks for wanting a democracy where they are represented? Not, we help facilitate a transition to what was then, a moderate black government. If popular power want's something it would be madness to go in their and kill them all. the strategic environments changed and actions were taken accordingly."
What a piss poor way of saying you fucked up. There were many, many options other than "...going in and killing them all..." - UK did not have to pressure the Rhodesian govt. into giving up power nor did it have to supply communist backed rebels. But they did, they backed Mugabe & as a result thousands died and a prosperous country was ruined. As I've said before - I am a big fan of what works & democracy doesn't work in africa - nowhere in africa is there a single, democratically elected, non authoritarian government. The result is definitely worse than the starting point - Rhodesia was a safer, wealthier country when ruled by whites AND a country that answered the british call to arms whenever soldiers were needed ( even in 1952, the suez crisis). You betrayed them - the fact that Migabe felt safe in warning you off recently makes that clear
" Comparing it to the Falklands is really stupid, they are not the same in any real sense of the word. As for why it's telling, well, maybe in your head it's telling you something, but in the real world that comparison reveals nothing at all."
Au contraire - it reveals that ambition of an insane menopausal bitch is more important than the lives & welfare of those who faithfully served your country in every war since the Boer one. There was no reason other than prestige for the falklands conflict - there you did not fail to invest lives & equipment. There was every reason to support Rhodesia ( a part of the commonwealth) & you failed in that.
"It's often called constructive engagement. The West can't seriously isolate a nation like China entirely from the international system. That would be foolhardy. I think you have been sucked in by many of the U.S's moral dichotomies that litter it's rhetoric. In reality, these nations need to be engaged and pushed, through maybe economic leverage etc towards slow transition. Ignoring them completely does nothing for anybody."
I don't know if I should cry or laugh when I read such drivel. "The west" couldn't give a rats ass about the poor, underprivilidged peoples of who gives a fuck where. This is and always has been about trade & profit. You want a positive example of engagement? How about the french built reactor in Iraq which we had to bomb? Constructive engagement, no? Cisco routers & switches with an IOS especially designed for chinese Internet police? Constructive, isn't it? GPS guidance for cruise missiles & bobms in the balkans and Iraq - constructive?
"I am also not singing peans for Marxism, i merely pointed out tha capitalism was the partner of exploitation and opression, hence when nationalists radicalised, they did so believing Marxism to be the alternative to capitalism."
Yes, and as ever, they were proven wrong - except that you have your head so far up Mandelas ass that you can't see him and the ANC for the manipulative thugs they are. Once again, for your edification: http://www.southafricanemigration.com/SAEmigration.htm
< silly ad hominem omitted >
" Your anti-British rhetoric is quite amusing. I would have thought Palestinians would be more pissed of since we sold them down the river after the Balfour Declaration. Some people might not be able to see through your stupidly verbose language and cock and balls rhetoric, i however, am not one of those individuals!! "
Why, thank you. I would be as amused as you if I didn't have to live with the after effects of your
foreign policy. The brits have made a royal mess of the middle east, africa, parts of asia and the indian subcontinent. Truly, the sun never sets on the rubble of your empire. As it is, we have to deal with resurgent arab nationalism & suicide bombers with british passports - raised in your cities & educated in your mosques. I really do hope nothing bad happens in your fair country, but can hardly credit that hope knowing what wahabbi/salafies
are capable of.
"i think i wll go and have a few more beers now. Thanks."
Cheers - I'm going to watch a movie
Submitted by momanlad (user info) at 2003-06-04 13:26:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Yidele,
Without making this thing run for ever you appear to be incapable of having a rational debate. I must admit that i enjoyed your point about Mobutu being a Marxist. Mobutu was a creature of the CIA for decades Yidele. This being the case, i think your understanding of Mobutu is woefully thin, and you use of him in this instance bears legitimacy to it.
Comparing Mandela to Mugable also tells me that you understanding of Mandela is pitiful, this is why you make such a fascile comparison in the first place. Having spoken to my lecturer recently i a brought this up (he is a leading published academic in South Africa/African politics) he indeed laughed at this, and commented that he has never heard of such a comparison being made before.
South Africa under apartheid working better than things are now!! What a ridiculous point. The USSR would still exist under this level of thinking. Sometimes when massive change occurs things in the aftermath, the transition period as it were takes a while to get to grips with. South Africa under apartheid was a near perfect example of institutionalised violence. Israel and aprtheid South Africa are not polar oposites. Through their treatment of indigenous peoples they have much in common; what are the West Bank and Gaza if not bantustans/reserves of cheap labour where people are under the heel. Israel's role in the demise of apartheid was in fact non-existent.
"...The Afrikaners themselves withdrew under their own decision from the British Commonwealth... You are missing the point completely by saying that people were left stranded. The fact is, the believe themselves to have a right in Africa..." - What hypocricy! Weren't the Boer wars fought over this very issue? What about Rhodesia, setteled almost entirely by Englishmen? England has a long tradition of leaving colonists to facte the native music - the fact that Britain saw Argentine in the Malvinas as more important than Mugabe in Rhodesia is telling indeed."
No the Boers wars to my knowledge was not fought about this issue especially baring in mind that South Africa withdrew from the commonwealth in the 1960's!! There is no hypocrisy. and why is having the Falklands invaded, a territory which regards itself as British, wants to be British and is British wrong. Rhodesia was under massive pressure from a popular movement of balck nationalists, i.e the majority of people in Rhodesia didn't want Smith in power. What was Britain going to do? Invade and murder blacks for wanting a democracy where they are represented? Not, we help facilitate a transition to what was then, a moderate black government. If popular power want's something it would be madness to go in their and kill them all. the strategic environments changed and actions were taken accordingly. Comparing it to the Falklands is really stupid, they are not the same in any real sense of the word. As for why it's telling, well, maybe in your head it's telling you something, but in the real world that comparison reveals nothing at all.
"the west casually deals with totalitarian governments, dictatorships & oligarchies which are anything but moderate. They simply have to have enough resources for such trifles as human rights to be swept aside. Vide china, indonesia, most of the oil producing arab countries or any of the festering african hellholes such as sierra leone"
It's often called constructive engagement. The West can't seriously isolate a nation like China entirely from the international system. That would be foolhardy. I think you have been sucked in by many of the U.S's moral dichotomies that litter it's rhetoric. In reality, these nations need to be engaged and pushed, through maybe economic leverage etc towards slow transition. Ignoring them completely does nothing for anybody.
I am also not singing peans for Marxism, i merely pointed out tha capitalism was the partner of exploitation and opression, hence when nationalists radicalised, they did so believing Marxism to be the alternative to capitalism.
to end it, it's clear that you have a relatively limited knowledge of what you are talking about. I am always weary of people that pronounce on issues with absolute certainty, it appears that you are one of those individuals. Your anti-British rhetoric is quite amusing. I would have thought Palestinians would be more pissed of since we sold them down the river after the Balfour Declaration. Some people might not be able to see through your stupidly verbose language and cock and balls rhetoric, i however, am not one of those individuals!!
i think i wll go and have a few more beers now. Thanks.
Submitted by momanlad (user info) at 2003-06-02 16:37:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
ignore the fact that i have quoted the same paragraph twice. Both my immediate, gut wrenching concerns were in this paragraph.
Submitted by momanlad (user info) at 2003-06-02 16:36:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Wow!! this is a real debate now!!
Can't answer all of it as i have exams to worr about but there were a few things you have accused me of saying which i wasn't. You have somehow miscontrued large elements of this and bent it to your will!!
Firstly:
"in 1967 Israel occupies part of Egypt. Israel had previously had good relations with black Africa as it had not been a colonial power. After this, it all changed" - in 1967, Israel defeats its neighbors in defensive war. The manouvre that gained us the Sinai effectively put the egyptians out of the war. Since it was a defensive war against overwhelming odds, accusing Israel of seeking to become or becoming a colonial power is nonsense. Equaly nonsensical is counting egypt as part of black africa, which it is not - egypt is the heart of arab africa - as are all the other north african islamic countries. Again, hypocrisy in the extreme - Brits accusing their former colony of becoming a colonial power when it has the temerity to successfully defend itself against agression from 3 former british colonies. Pot-> Kettle::black"
I wasn't accusing Israel of being a colonial power, i stated that Israel was garnering good relations with Africa on the basis that it had never been a colonial power. With the "winds of change" sweeping through the continent and a colonial powers being deposed i was making that point that this facet of Israeli history put them in good stead for better relations within Africa. Where you got me saying that Israel is a clonial power i will never quite know.
Second:
"in 1967 Israel occupies part of Egypt. Israel had previously had good relations with black Africa as it had not been a colonial power. After this, it all changed" - in 1967, Israel defeats its neighbors in defensive war. The manouvre that gained us the Sinai effectively put the egyptians out of the war. Since it was a defensive war against overwhelming odds, accusing Israel of seeking to become or becoming a colonial power is nonsense. Equaly nonsensical is counting egypt as part of black africa, which it is not - egypt is the heart of arab africa - as are all the other north african islamic countries. Again, hypocrisy in the extreme - Brits accusing their former colony of becoming a colonial power when it has the temerity to successfully defend itself against agression from 3 former british colonies. Pot-> Kettle::black"
i counted Egypt as part of Africa in the sense that was a member of the Organisation of African Unity. As you didn't read it i will say again, the war on the Sinai peninsula, a "defensive war" as you call it, yet it was a invasion!! like many defensive invasions throughout history! i would normally say a pre-emptive strike myself but hey!! Anyway, i digress, as part of the OAU Africa, in showing it's solidarity terminated relations with Israel. I didn't actually say it was part of black Africa i said that this move ended relations with black Africa, as Africa as a continent were united within the OAU, of which Eygpt is a member. I hope thats clear now, as it invalidates that whole paragraph.
I only wish i had the time to do all this now!! one other point i found interesting was accusations of us "cowtowing to a growing radical Islamic poulation in the UK, some of whom have taken up suicide bombing recently". Interesting that. I was under the impression that are already draconian anti-terrorism measures adopted against the IRA were under flak for contravening certain liberal civil liberties. interested to hear a little elaboration here about how we are cowtowing?
Like i said can't really get into the meat of this now as i have an exam on such interesting things as Clinton's health care reform in the early 1990's!! Please hold for me though.
Submitted by Agent_FUBAR (user info) at 2003-06-02 09:41:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Oh shut up, theyre both as bad as each other. if they wanted peace they could easily get by e.g. not killing each other, but they dont want peace cos theyre all stuck in the dark ages with modern weapons. Thats what religion will do to you folks.
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2003-06-01 20:03:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I was boating.
The ANC was a terrorist organization which killed & tortured their own people as well as white afrikaners both in South africa and Angola, fielding regular troops advised by both russians & cubans. ANC staffed & maintained death camps in Angola, something which is so easily overlooked now, that the west is again eager to do business with South Africa.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=19085
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/05/13/1021002430734.html
http://southafricathetruth.netfirms.com/anctruths.htm
I hope that you are joking when you claim that: "...The fact that power was handed to the ANC, and Western governments and business were willing to speak to them is testimony to their moderation. They would not discuss with militants." - the west casually deals with totalitarian governments, dictatorships & oligarchies which are anything but moderate. They simply have to have enough resources for such trifles as human rights to be swept aside. Vide china, indonesia, most of the oil producing arab countries or any of the festering african hellholes such as sierra leone.
A shithole is a shithole - no matter how it's dug - but in the case of south Africa, Rhodesia, zimbabwe or Zaire it was dug with the hands of marxist murderers who have managed not only to remove any vestiges of civilization but also, incidentaly managed to ruin their respective economies. What Mugabe is doing in zimbabwe today guarantees the perpetuation of misery for blacks. Driving white farmers off their land has pretty much guaranteed that Zimbabwe will have to depend on foreign aid in order to feed it's natives. Robert Mugabe is quite a typical example of an african "statesman" - a little milder than most. In Mugabe's case, purposely ruining the economy & driving away people who can make the difference is a way to power. Hunger is a mighty weapon, especially when wielded against one's own population.
While you are singing peans for Marxism, you should not forget about what well trained & indoctrinated marxists did for countries such as Zaire ( congo ) - Patrice Lumumba & Mobutu Sese Seko managed to turn a reasonably prosperous african country into a hellhole of cannibalism & tribal murders. Even today, under the benevolent rule of Laurent Kabila, a country which sports 65% of world's Cobalt supply as well as significant copper, gold & diamond deposits can boast of a whopping 100$ per capita GDP. So, while you may percieve a "...visceral distatse of the morally repugnant white rule in Pretoria", the natives making the theoretical 100$ per year must feel a whole gamut of other visceral ills, considerably more repugnant - hunger, one of world's highest mortality rates, etc.
"...are you suggesting instituting some kind of fascist oppression under the guise of economics because that seem to be what you have implied?" - no, I am flat out stating that all of these countries and many more besides are worse off now, then when they were colonies. I am suggesting that South africa has one of the world's highest violent homicide rates, IS one of the world's most dangerous palces to live, has one of the fastest growing AIDS populations AND it wasn't that way when the afrikaners ruled. I guess it's just a price you have to pay for ANC rule.
" Ok, Mandela was not that vocal on what responsibility whites should have, his successor Thabo Mbeki has said that whites should take more responsibility for re-apportionment of land and property. A politically sensitive issue, yet technically he has a point, why shouldn't things be evened up a little? Very hard issue to tackle and is still very salient in South Africa now...but what's you point here?" - my point is plain - if south africa chooses to go the way of Rhodesia ( zimbabwe) you will witness the same kind of behaviour as in Rhodesia ( in fact, some of that is happening already or still) - since 2001 nearly 3000 white farmers or their family members were murdered in South Africa. African countries ruled by Africans without the ability, motivation or civilization of white afrikaners do not work. Not a one. They are almost all ruthless dictatorships
ruled by clans and/or corrupt elites/military - the furthest thing possible from the marxist dream you sing peans of...
You claim: "...Mugabe is not an egalitarian, he is a dictator, and again I don't see you point in light of these facts" What you so lightly leave out is the fact that Mugabe like Mandela, lumumba, Mobutu is a marxist.
"...The Afrikaners themselves withdrew under their own decision from the British Commonwealth... You are missing the point completely by saying that people were left stranded. The fact is, the believe themselves to have a right in Africa..." - What hypocricy! Weren't the Boer wars fought over this very issue? What about Rhodesia, setteled almost entirely by Englishmen? England has a long tradition of leaving colonists to facte the native music - the fact that Britain saw Argentine in the Malvinas as more important than Mugabe in Rhodesia is telling indeed.
"in 1967 Israel occupies part of Egypt. Israel had previously had good relations with black Africa as it had not been a colonial power. After this, it all changed" - in 1967, Israel defeats its neighbors in defensive war. The manouvre that gained us the Sinai effectively put the egyptians out of the war. Since it was a defensive war against overwhelming odds, accusing Israel of seeking to become or becoming a colonial power is nonsense. Equaly nonsensical is counting egypt as part of black africa, which it is not - egypt is the heart of arab africa - as are all the other north african islamic countries. Again, hypocrisy in the extreme - Brits accusing their former colony of becoming a colonial power when it has the temerity to successfully defend itself against agression from 3 former british colonies. Pot-> Kettle::black
"What are you talking about???? We still are major investors in South Africa and are their biggest sponsor in their bid to host the Olympic Games in 2012 or whenever it is" - The world does not revolve around South africa, but even if it did, what I am talking about are the successfull military interventions by the french,belgians & dutch on behalf of the lives & interests of their countrymen & as a means of stabilizing their former colonies & now client states. This is something Britain does not do & it should. It is hypocrisy indeed when one criticizes others for doing what one hasn't the stones to do. British critique of Israel is just another example of this - much as it is cowtowing to a growing radical Islamic poulation in the UK, some of whom have taken up suicide bombing recently.
"Israel's backing of apartheid, whilst perhaps necessitated by broader geopolitical concerns, is still a sickening act for a people who were treated as badly as they were in the holocaust." - Indeed? what can the british tell us about sickening? how about sending shipfulls of escapees straight to the nazi death camps, is that sickening enough? How about active support for terror organizations the like of Fatah & its legitimate representativbes, the PA? How do you feel knowing that your taxes are used to fund suicide bombing attacks and wholesale wahabbi indoctrination? can the home of radical Islam in europe really tell us anything valid about the nature of the conflict which was the result of its foreign policy? I don't think so. Best have a few more beers. Cheers!
Submitted by momanlad (user info) at 2003-05-31 06:09:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Where are you Yidele? i want your rebuttle.
Submitted by momanlad (user info) at 2003-05-29 20:33:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Ok here we go then.
"Are you saying that the ANC weren't a bunch of terrorists?" I would say the ANC were a liberation movement who espoused non-armed political involvement in South Africa to institute a level of democracy and representation for the 75% of the population that were completely politically disenfranchised by the Afrikaner National Party. They did not promote Armed struggle, that is not, and never was in their political manifesto. They had a dissident armed wing called Mkonte um we Sizwe (spelling?) or MK which did take up an armed struggle. Were they terrorists? Such an amorphous phrase, given the fluidity of it's meaning depending on which side you are arguing is hard to say. However, i happen to believe that as Macmillan had stated "the winds of change" were sweeping through the continent. Pretoria though ignored this, refused to make concessions, adopted Verwoerd's vision of grand apartheid, created Bantustans and reduced blacks to second level citizenry in every level of life. The ANC, quite rightly saw this as wrong, as do i. Instances like Sharpeville and Soweto only demonstrate the severity of the measures South Africa was willing to take. Indeed the society's political elite saw itself as living in a world which was fundamentally hostile to Afrikanerdom and took drastic, draconian steps to fight this perceived total onslaught. When i consider that many older member of the ruling Afrikaner National Party were professed Nazi sympathisers i find your, what appears pro-Afrikaans approach a little misplaced. Especially considered your Judaism. I am going to say it, the ANC themselves were not terrorists. They even got flak from further radicalised black organisations and labour movements like COSATU to be more extreme in their approach. The fact that power was handed to the ANC, and Western governments and business were willing to speak to them is testimony to their moderation. They would not discuss with militants.
"shithole dug by their marxist leaning black brethern": you should understand that marxist leaning s originate from the black association with exploitation and opression with capitalism and apartheid as it's brother. Marxism was the antithesis of this and thus gained wider support. South African initiatives to deepen economic ties, and promote dependance amongst other Africa states (creating client states) under the auspices of wider development and stability was rejected because of the visceral distatse of the morally repugnant white rule in Pretoria.
"I am a big fan of what works. Unfortunately, south africa, former rhodesia, Uganda, Somalia and a dozen other african countries do not work, regardless their anti-apartheid stance": reasons too numerous to elucidate here as to the failing economies in these nations, not least exploitation from core economies likes Britain and the US. However, are you suggesting instituting some kind of fascist oppression under the guise of economics because that seem to be what you have implied? Again, very out of sorts for a Jewish person i would have thought. Maybe new arrangements in the balance of trade, not dictatorship!! Though i do appreciate that dictatorship is still a plague that afflicts Africa.
"Ask yourself how sterling egalitarians like mobutu, mugabe, amin & the mandelas deal with white folks who happen to live & have been born in africa" : Ok, Mandela was not that vocal on what responsibility whites should have, his successor Thabo Mbeki has said that whites should take more responsibility for re-apportionment of land and property. A politically sensitive issue, yet technically he has a point, why shouldn't things be evened up a little? Very hard issue to tackle and is still very salient in South Africa now...but what's you point here? As for Mugabe, whilst the press may pay attention to the small number of white farmers that have had their land taken and given to blacks, you forget that 99% of the brutality dished out by that regime is targeted at blacks. The focus on white people is wrong. Mugabe is not an egalitarian, he is a dictator, and again I don't see you point in light of these facts.
"The brits have simply got to be the masters of hypocrisy. Each one of these fucked up, savage hellholes is your doing - you've washed your hands clean of responsibility to the natives AND the whites you left stranded & you have the temerity to criticize anyone about support for the folks you left behind?" : This is complete and utter tosh. The Afrikaners themselves withdrew under their own decision from the British Commonwealth. The Afrikaners are also of Dutch origin, the English population is a white minority over there. You are missing the point completely by saying that people were left stranded. The fact is, the believe themselves to have a right in Africa. All the on tales of the Vortrekkers etc all lead to a distinct sense of almost 'manifest destiny' in Africa. They cannot therefore see themselves as "left behind" and stranded.
As for criticising Israeli support i do it under the acknowledgement that Israel in 1963 the Israeli Ambassador withdrew and in 1966 Israel voted with the UN to revoke South Africa's mandate in Namibia. However, this seems to all change when after the "six days war" in 1967 Israel occupies part of Egypt. Israel had previously had good relations with black Africa as it had not been a colonial power. After this, it all changed, the Organisation of Africa Unity (OAU) under it's own charter had to end relations with Israel to show African solidarity. At this time Israel was backing the liberation movements (ANC included), surely hypocritical of Israel considering it's later support for Pretoria. In short relations bettered with Israel and South Africa as they deteriorated with Israel and the wider world, they needed each other to triangulate trade around punitive sanctions introduced by a UN resolution. Hypocritical indeed my Yidele.
"the french, that pox of the western world, would prove more determined & responsible than the brits. I was wrong. The french, the belgians, even the dutch still feel responsibility for their african colonies & act to stabilize the situations they created, but not you... oh no, not tucland the chickenshit": What are you talking about???? We still are major investors in South Africa and are their biggest sponsor in their bid to host the Olympic Games in 2012 or whenever it is. You're talking pap.
"The most you can get up to do now'a days is to invade some argentinian sheep farm & rape the ewes": You are right maybe we should have let the Argentines invade a piece of British land in the Falklands and just leave it at that, let them have it!! Good point dipshit.
I think you really should get a grip of the nature of international relations. It's a Machiavellian world out there and people do what they need to do, post hoc ergo propter hoc, we have situations where governments can be seen as duplicitous vacillating and hypocritical. I am not saying i like it, i am just saying that's the nature of the beast. What i don't like is you working under the assumption that this is nation/culture specific because it's naive. Israel's backing of apartheid, whilst perhaps necessitated by broader geopolitical concerns, is still a sickening act for a people who were treated as badly as they were in the holocaust. To back any nation with morally bankrupt domestic policy like South Africa is sickening.
In conclusion you should shut you chops, eat an apple and tuck into a nice, juicy succulent bacon sandwich.
joking mate, i like this banter just apologise for it's length and the glut of mistakes which are undoubtedly throughout. its 1.29 am now, i have had a few beers.
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2003-05-29 17:02:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Are you saying that the ANC weren't a bunch of terrorists? Have you been to south africa lately? have you been to zimbabwe/rhodesia? I'm guessing not - 'cause if you had, you'd know that both of those countries are in a shithole dug by their marxist leaning black brethern.
I am a big fan of what works. Unfortunately, south africa, former rhodesia, Uganda, Somalia and a dozen other african countries do not work, regardless their anti-apartheid stance. Ask yourself how sterling egalitarians like mobutu, mugabe, amin & the mandelas deal with white folks who happen to live & have been born in africa.
The brits have simply got to be the masters of hypocrisy. Each one of these fucked up, savage hellholes is your doing - you've washed your hands clean of responsibility to the natives AND the whites you left starnded & you have the temerity to crtiticize anyone about support for the folks you left behind? I never thought i'd see the day that the french, that pox of the western world, would prove more determined & responsible than the brits. I was wrong. The french, the belgians, even the dutch still feel responsibility for their african colonies & act to stabilize the situations they created, but not you... oh no, not tucland the chickenshit. The most you can get up to do now'a days is to invade some argentinian sheep farm & rape the ewes.
Submitted by momanlad (user info) at 2003-05-29 16:34:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Yidele is doing some seriuos Brit bashing, as a Brit i feel compelled to respond, yet my lack of anything but rudimentary knowledge of the whole Israeli problem extends not much further than it's dealings with South Africa as a fellow pariah state throughout the 1970's until 1987.
What i will say is the British Empire did do a handy job of creating piles of shit all over the place and i am now glad that American's can take on that mantle. Some of your descriptions of our dealings are a little harsh as i am sure you must be aware in all situations like this numerous political concerns pervade, this always seems to end up in hypocrisy and double dealings. Something that America is very good at indeed. To be fair to the Jews though, they did effectively support Apartheid and the UN did equate Zionism to racism in 1975, which does suggest to me that their rather bigger than normal noses weren't quite as clean as Sergeant Yidele would have us believe. Given the holocaust you would have thought a little more conideration would be given to oppressed people by the Jews, however, arming Pretoria, denouncing the ANC as an organisation similar to the PLO doesn't seem to tally very well with this. Just to point out that, as i said, it's never as clear cut as, lets say South African Diamond exports to Israel were.
I really would love to get my mate he here who chose a module on Israel he would know a lot more about this than i could ever pretend to.
Submitted by Tom (user info) at 2003-05-28 23:48:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Yaasur Arafat is by far the ugliest man ever. He has like.....7 wives and 15 children. I don't care how rich that old fart is. I would never get in bed with him. NEVER
Submitted by Nobb (user info) at 2003-05-28 23:13:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
wat a fuckin retard, bet he's an American, or even worse an American Jew.
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2003-05-28 23:00:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The following link to an earlier discussion will give an an example of jihadi mentality:
http://www.ubersite.com/cgi-bin/message_get.cgi?message=103164436693128008#3723
Submitted by Hairsphincter (user info) at 2003-05-28 22:58:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I am calling Nefandus Maleficus a cunt. And I have never been more correct in a statement in my life.
What a cunt.
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2003-05-28 22:53:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Why are palestynians such dumbasses?
It starts with the british, really. When the british declared that us jews had a right to our historical land ( big surprise there), some arabs ( who since 1200 AD or so consider the whole middle east theirs) objected. The territory of present lebanon, Israel, Jordan, syria and parts of Iraq were then occupied & administered by the brits as a British Mandate for Palestine , granted by the United Nations.
In 1948 both a jewish state & an arab state were supposed to come into being in that area, but since the arabs couldn't find other arabs they could trust, in reality only Israel came into being ( again, in accordance with the UN, the balfour declaration & the desire of the brits to get the fuck out of the middle east where they were and are hated.
Why are the brits hated by the various & sundry middle east peoples? Because they are liars, oathbreakers & balless hypocrites, mostly.
The Jews don't like the brits because the brits didn't have the stones to implement what they promised ( a jewish state in Palestine, not just the cisjordan) and because while Hitler was killing us in europe, brave british tommies were sending boatloads of refugees who just escaped from hitler's Germany straight back where they came from & eventually to their deaths in concentration camps BECAUSE they, the brits, promised arabs to limit jewish immigration to palestine. In additiuon, the brits supplied the arabs with weapons & pretty much let them do as they pleased up to & including forming volounteer SS divisions which fought for hitler against the brits in the II war.
The arabs hate the brits because they ( the arabs) were promised a chance to advance their arab-nationalist cause by rebuilding an islamic empire out of the ruins of the ottoman empire. Facts are, the brits never intended to let them do that - they were mostly just interested in keeping what territories they had & oil revenues - but they were forced to give back the arab territories & did so a piece at a time while creating a whole slew of corrupt smelly little monarchies like the House of Saud, the kingdom of iraq, etc. The brits were not interested ( quite rightly) in creating an arab-islamic super state & to this end they made shure that when the middle east was carved up, the frontiers would be drawn in a fashion which quarantees future conflict. The arabs hate the Brits for all of these reasons & for supporting the Jewish cause (even if only on paper ).
Your question, "Why are palestynians such dumbasses?", could actually be phrased more lucidly " why are the arabs nationalists so desperate?" since there is no such thing, nor was there ever such a thing as a "palestynian" nation, language, tradition or history. Todays arab denizens of palestine are desperate because they know that their dream of a united arab empire is a fairy tale & they have let themselves be manipulated into a hopeless position by their own cousins in syria, Jordan, Lebanon, saudi arabia & Egypt. They are desperate because they see that any perace settlement in the mid east means the acceptance of Israel - something already acknowledged by two of our neighbors ( Jordan & Egypt) & the denial of their nationalist aspirations. Of course these reasons are the motive power for leaders - the average jihadi is a brainwashed religious extremist willing to die for Islam & paid for killing himself. A culture which values its children as weapons & pays people to blow themselves up is not going to look sane to a westerner.
I don't think the palestynian arabs are stupid - I've known a few of them - but they are caught in a unenviable situation; they can't settle freely in arab countries and they can't win a war with us. As long as organizations such as Hamas, Jihad Islami or PLO exist, you can be guaranteed that they will not have a chance to settle peacefully in palestine or anywhere ese in the middle east. Their own cousins are keeping them locked up in refugee camps, creating a pool of desperate, uneducated & poor men ready to strap on an explosive belt rather than live in the reality created for them. Too bad.
Submitted by crisko (user info) at 2003-05-28 22:37:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Who You calling cunt??
Submitted by dasteve (user info) at 2003-05-28 22:02:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by korthrun (user info) at 2003-05-28 21:45:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
This isn't general enough. All people are dumbshits.
Submitted by Hairsphincter (user info) at 2003-05-28 21:28:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Thanks for clearing that up for me, I was unsure how to solve the issues in the middle east, until now, of course. Truly inspiring insight.
Good reasoning, cunt.
Submitted by crisko (user info) at 2003-05-28 19:57:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I am really sick of this topic.
Both countries are wrong. If I had it my way I would invade both. They need to be policed.
Launching Nukes is not an option. It would piss some people off.
Fuke evict em and make both re-settle in Iraq. I dont think they would like that shit.
Then give that land they formerly occupied to the Native Americans.
Damn I did it again..another stoner post.
Submitted by momanlad (user info) at 2003-05-28 19:23:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
yodumbass: as i have no idea what you are talking about, i am going to throw a foreskin at you.
Have it.
Submitted by YoDumbass (user info) at 2003-05-28 19:19:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I'm 100% WASP.
This year many other WASPS murdered, raped, lied, stole, slacked off, drove drunk and pissed off old ladies. That does not mean I condemn the entire race and would hope that the rest of the world doesn't assume I'm of the same ilk.
Submitted by momanlad (user info) at 2003-05-28 19:08:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Arafat was struggling to control the violence, i don't condone it (though i appeciate my staunch defense of Palestinians suggest i do!!), only appreciate the visceral hatred over there. Ariel Sharon (i think?) is also a military fruitcake. He is just as bad. The real road map to peace will all settle on Jerusalem. Jerusalem is where the real tinder box is. Nobody wants to make concessions there. American's as a rule are very pro-israel though, you have too many powerful israeli lobbies and pressure groups. I think they should just have one great big foreskin fight and get over it.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2003-05-28 19:08:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
man, this is just funny as hell.
Submitted by momanlad (user info) at 2003-05-28 19:03:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i forgot, the push the Palestinians into the Gaza Strip as well. But, then they also illegally occupy Palestinian mandated territories and encourage Israeli's to settle there, effectively then pushing the Palesinians out of their own country.
I would be pissed off too.
Submitted by glam_daddy (user info) at 2003-05-28 19:02:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
maybe if arrafat didnt have it in the political beliefs to, and i quote "drive all jews into the sea", maybe then israel would be nicer. not defending one side or the other... just saying for any point someone puts forward i could put a point showing the other side... like i said below.
verdict: both guilty
solution: both need to back the fuck off
Submitted by momanlad (user info) at 2003-05-28 18:51:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
maybe because if somebody stole half of your country to create a new one, stole all your religious land, called it Israel and then pushed Palestinians out into the West bank and treated them as second class citizens in every structure and tier of society, maybe, just maybe you would be a little pissed off. Then when you try and fight back, Israeli forces role tanks into your village, kill 100 men woman and children, then you get even more annoyed. As you and your friends are so pissed off you become radicalised to the extent where it's a freedom fighting scanario. You are willing to die as a martyr to your cause. It means that much. Zionism is the apartheid of the middle-east.
Not pretending to know all that much about it, but this is my take on the situation.
Submitted by glam_daddy (user info) at 2003-05-28 18:50:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
you had me for a second but lost me quickly with the rag head comment...
in the israel palestine conflict both sides are guilty...
they both need to back the fuck off.
Submitted by catscradle at 2003-05-28 18:48:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Well...