Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Come now, Arctic, everyone knows murder, rape, theft, bigotry are only evil when a white person does it. Black/Asian/Native American people doing these things are exempt due to historical circumstance and cultural differences. Let's not be racist now, shall we?
</self-hating white liberal>
No but when you do crime yo a different race its worse than to your own, because it is just that much more. Worse, hitler would not be considered evil if he only killed white people.
No but when you do crime yo a different race its worse than to your own, because it is just that much more. Worse, hitler would not be considered evil if he only killed white people.
Most of those killed by Hitler were Whites. They may have been "Jews" but they were Germans, Poles, etc., all of whom are Whites.
Most people, well white supremist don't conzider jews white. You will never meet a jewish kkk member as they are considered tainted. I'm not syaing they don't look white, i've meet jews who "got away" and look arayan as hell. But most jews have different hair, curly and black and so on. Generally not considered white or at least not pure white.
I am not disputhing that they had a large amount of white ancestry hell some can be probably 99% white like my jewish friend who is blond and blue eyed. It was a debate that he was having with a syrian, lebanese, and a palestinian, who were all telling him that even "white jews" are not pure white. They may look white but all middle eastern people are mixed of whites and blacks and a bit of asian.
Don't just make stuff up. It only demonstrates how questionable the rest of your claims are.
Ok so according to your resource north korea navy is about what the coast guard in usa has, gun boats. That is no threat to usa nuclear sub and destroyers.
Even looking at their fighter planes, I recognize many of those names from a flight simulator I use to play and they look like old soviet and israeli planes from the 70s.
Your right I'm not a military expert, my point I was making was simply that NK navy and airforce is not threat in comparaision to the usa, who could probably use a fraction of its highly advanced weapons to destroys NK outdated navy and airforce.
I did not skirt the fact, I said it was irrelevent to the discussion becuase it is ok to offend/do bad things to your own race more so than it is to another race. That why Hitler is worse than Churchill. Hitler killed jews but churchill and stalin killed people of their own race. Africa is full of black people who kill black people all day long and I never seen a white person who ever cared yet, so I don't think you do either. Your trying to say that one group of whites are somehow equally "african" as a group of black people who have been in the land for not only centuries but for mileenium, they have been in that land before england and netherlands was a country before christianity was even widely accepted in europe, before the birth of muhammad and the crusades. These africans have nowhere else to go, the brits and dutch do and that should be considered. If your black and you can't get a job in africa and can't escape white racism in africa, then you answer the question what country do you go to?
Absolutely wrong and pure racism.
The 1600's was not that long ago relatively speaking. And not one person alive today has been there centuries.
Quote:
Not to add that it was not really stealing of land until the rise of Shaka Zulu if you want to put it that way. There was never a use of intentional killing until he rised to power. It was actually very different. nothing was stopping a ndeble or san man from coming back to an area that was "taken" from him and hunting there. Obviously he could not do that in a city, but the main conflicts were from Zulu and other Bantu tribes. As is evidenced because the San and Bantu people actually mixed as opposed to a violent conflict you are trying to portray. Warfare was not part of southern africa traditionally. ONLY shaka zulu brought it and the generations after him
Was has gone on for a very long time there. You're sugarcoating pre-colonial African history, which is as bloody as the history of everywhere else.
Quote:
This is a huge difference between the europeans who came, set up fences, and started ethnic cleansing the khohikhoi, zulu and san. They were never invinted from day 1 they had warfare and it just continued until the khohikhoi were wiped out/ethically cleanse/genocided. No such thing happened with the Zulus, they never killed of races of people. Even under Shaka the choice was to join Shaka's empire, which basically meant the politicians pledge allegiance to him but no other real consequence. Whereas pledging allegiance to english or dutch meant death, and the evils of apartheid.
So one group of Blacks invited others to war with them, whereas they did not invite Whites? I hope you realize how absurd this sounds...
Quote:
LOL Ghandi was pro apartheid and he was in india for a long time. He only opposed the part of apartheid that seperate indians from whites. H e was a little racist you know. Ghandi was a member of the army, he wa snot so peaceful, it was becuase he got a taste of aprtheid that he decided to stop supporting the british who mad ehim take of his turban in court.
In 1903 the british declared war on the zulu nation and ghandi encouraged indians to take up arms against the zulu. This just goes to show you that there was an entire zulu nation in 1906, SA was not even really fully colonized at that time when USA and Canada and most western nationas had achieved their independece from britain.
Ghandi was my bo means shocked by apartheid, he said that indians and whites hsould work together against the black man. I am no fan of ghandi.
He was not pro-apartheid. The event that set his activism off was when he was kicked off a train in SA because he was not White.
He was in the Ambulance Corps, not in the fighting but treating the wounded. He did want the Indians to have a greater role in the Empire to improve their status, this was before he decided the British rule had to end.
His comments on Blacks were directed towards convicted criminals he encountered in prison. Segregationist ideas did influence him in the 1890's but as he experienced the dicrimination from the British he moved away from those ideas.
Quote:
Well aids didn't just pop up in 1994. I'm not saying their hands are completely clean, but if the crumbs of aprtheid were a good as you are claiming their never should have been so many people with Aids. If SAwas a first world country under white rule for everyone, you never could have had so much aids. Look at SA neighbours under black rule, they have much lower aids, even the "corrupt" eveil and terrible "dictator" mugabe has better managed the aids situation than a rich first world white aparthied government,
The ANC refused to confront the issue initially. Education could have prevented the "make love with a virgin child" AIDS cure myth that has spread it some, and effective police could have limited the widespread rapes, which has also spread it.
Quote:
Come on, Washington is an America hero, he was a terrorist, a man fighting against a nation with no recognized state at the time. The victors write the war story, if osama won he would also be a hero, but he didn't so he is a terrorist. The breadth and scale of the attacks suggest that it was directed form the top. When he said go capture a city he knew innocent people were being blown up. You sound incredibly naive to me, almost like one of those people from the 1970s who think they can blow up a federal building and kill no one.
Geroge washington was also a raicst and a sexist, he held slaves and thought blacks and women were down there, but we don't like to remember that about our heros. We don't like to remember that abraham lincoln wrote how he wanted to ethnically cleanse and genocide every "red faced savage" acccording to a documentary on him on the history channel.
Even if what you said was true, washginton would be considered a war criminal because he had the power to stop it, knew it was happening and chose not to. Its the same thing they did to the german and *** commanders and anyone ever accused of war crimes or terrorizism at the top. They would say Mr. Washington you are the commander of the contiental congress, yes, and is it not true you command the entire army, yes, and is it also not true that people were tared, feathered and murdered under your watch, yes but I had nothing to do with, then how is it possible that this could happen on such a wide scale the 100,000s of refugees had to flea the country, uhh, i dunno, it wasn't me man, ya you sound like the who ran enron. I'm sure if washington lost they could find some benedict arnold to say washington told them to totrture and kill to save their own skin.
Washington was not in charge when the most famous cases of tarring and such happened. He was at times barely able to keep his army under control because it was made up of people who were loyal only to their own homestates. Basically there was anarchy and chaos in the colonies at times during the Revolution. War then wasn't like today, there weren't that many civilian casualties from firing cannons at a city compared to the more destructive bombs now.
Washington did not support slavery and freed his slaves. He would have freed them sooner had it not been complicated because of issues with his wife and state law he was unable to change.
Quote:
I agree, but do you have a right to try and retrieve your car? Even if it was 5years.
There's limitations to what force you can use to retrieve property.
Quote:
The next leading man was a communist who had support from, cuba, soviet union, mozambique and angola and zimbabwe to fight an armed conflict and over throw the government. There were actually plans in place to have soviet union bomb the capital and basically gang bang SA andput in a communist regime.
The USSR was dead by that point.
You're thinking narrowly, there were many people in SA, you can't tell me Mandela was the best to be found.
Quote:
People are equal but cirmes aginats another race on mass are more hateful and hatecrimes, acts of geneocide and thenic cleansing. If a white man does the same act to a white man its not, its just murder and land grabbing.
I'm not an advocate of hate crime laws. I've never seen a murder done out of love for the person. Murder is the result of hate, always. Ethnic cleansing is a crime not because of the racial differences but because of what it does to people. There's a chance Hitler had a Jewish ancestor (disputed, unsettled at the moment), but that wouldn't change anything about his crimes. And, was it a greater crime when a Pole was killed by Hitler than one of Hitler's fellow Austrians or Germans who also fell victim to him?
Quote:
Its not that we don't care about the economy, we care about our freedom more. Its like saying george washington should have never rebelled because it disrupted the economy for decades. Whats the point of having a good economy where only one group enjoys the good and the rest stays forever poor. The whites fight reform at every step so there is no other choice. I would rather be poor and free of white oppression than to be poor under white oppression. I agree witht the ameican who said give me liberty or give me death. Money isn't everything.
A country with a poor economy will inevitably lose its freedom as well.
If SA went to a more industrial economy even with the Whites owning most land there could be plenty of well paying jobs available to all (use min. wage laws). In most Western countries the majority do not own their own land.
Quote:
I pointed to you that being born in a place does not always make you that ethnicity. Its like a chinese man being born in ireland calling himself and irish.
You confuse citizenship, race and ethnicity.
Quote:
So you are a white alaskan trying to tell me who I am. Interesting, and I am the racist? African=black or partial black heritage they are not african, because they are full blooded white men.
All humans may have originated in africa, but not south africa, so they do not originate from here. They are from europe.
You are being racist.
South Africa is just one part of the continent of Africa. As all humans originated in Africa you can't say one race of humans can never be Africans since, in fact, all humans are originally Africans.
BTW: interestingly enough, the ancient Egyptians were not Black either. They were White.
Quote:
They lived there ebfore Britain awas even a country. If ginger people are scottish or french men french then zulus are zulu. zulus did not colonise, they mixed with the indigenious without war. The zulu and xhosa have been warring for a long time only at the rise of shaka did it involve arms which was only a short time befre most europeans came here illegally. The zulus claimd it as their because it was theirs, the land was empty along the cost, so the zulus took it and intermarried with the san who also married the xhosa in the interior. No warring was involved until about 1650s when it began to be over populated.
You say they didn't colonize yet they spread out and took new land.
Double think?
Quote:
Why should africans pay for them to go anyways, they shouldn't they came here illegally. Let the british who sent them here take them away. If not they will just be kicked off. Should they get nothing, its not the most desirable thing, I do feel somewhat sorry for them, but its madness to think africans should pay for them. We opposed their being here, hte british since day 1.
The current residents were not sent by the British, and they lawfully acquired the land. They were born there, the current ones, quite legally.
Statutes, not a brief incomplete answer like that.
Quote:
Your are just making angry accusations with no base now.
wiki-mugabe was fighting violent terrorist, what was he suppose to do give them rose flowers. Thats like saying Obama is a tyrant for fighting al qaeda
No. All 20,000 of them in one massacre, men women and children, were not terrorists. Mugabe has been equally violent to other political enemies.
Quote:
Thats only on paper, show me a leader from a common law country in the last 200 years ever put on trial. Nixon commited crimes and he never went to trial, stole, broke and enter, corruption and tried to steal an election. canada has a history of political corruption and not on eleader ever stood trial. In theory
, yes the prime minster can be prosecuted but in reality never happens. America will never put a president on trial or convict him without pardonning him because
-It will "bring great shame to the nation"
-degrade the office
-too partisan, I don't see dick cheney in prison yet he lied to congress and its not even disputed- rebulicans just jump and say too partisan, divide the nation. Every country is like this. If a liberal is corrupt the liberals in parliament or congress will say it will divide the nation, shame the country we can't do it. The magna carta is in line with legal theory that say the right to possess arms and property. Outside america no common law country honours this. and america clearly will not prosecute its own, so in practice and convention-part of common law, law, the leader is above prosecution.
Leaders are not above prosecution. The Nazis were prosecuted, were they not? Clinton was prosecuted and only barely avoided removal from office. The Magna Carta established that the leaders are not above the law.
Quote:
Etnic cleansing of who? Mugabe is no more guilty of ethnic cleansing than george washington or migel castillo onto colonialistfrom britain and spain. Its not as if mugabe killed the white people he just order them off the land as owners. They were still free to lease or rent it, work on it, and otherwise travel anywhere in the country. Its no different than when the government orders people off of land that is being turned into any othergovernment work, aka railroad. The only difference instead of a railroad you had a new owner instead of rail lines.
Umm, torturing and killing them, etc., forced them out of the country. Yes Mugabe did have Whites tortured and killed. You are quite incorrect about what happened. Ethnic cleansing doesn't have to involve killing either.
Quote:
Let me be more clear, even if mugabe was prosecuted he can pardon himself as being president. even the icc admits it has no power to act against anyone who is a national of a state party. so anyone who is a leader in recognized country cannot be prosecuted so mugab like bush and blair is above the law.
Interesting. The 2000 amendment to Zimbabwe's constitution granting him protection from prosecution in zimbabwe, was rejected by the voters but the parliament put it in anyways. That can be changed as soon as he loses power. Mugabe has purchased property in Hong Kong. He evidently plans to flee at some point. He will not be immune once he's out of the country.
Quote:
Do they orginate from Sa. some scientist also believe that white, african, and asian man developed on 3 countients seperately.
SA is one part of Africa. If all people originated in Africa you can't say a White person born there isn't African. The science is pretty well settled on this, those who disagree are a tiny exception and not supported by the evidence.
Hitler was popular in his country until he was dead and people realized how bad he was. But evidently mugabe's popularity is slipping.
Quote:
Mugabe is a man who has many degrees from good western schools. even if he never became a leader he would have been wealthy regardless. The claims of corruption are silly. He is independenttly wealthy. Mugabe could not have been riging votes for ever. I don't get how one claim a vote is rigged when there was not 1 international observer in the last vote as they werre banned. This is african politics, every country in africa has a group of opposition who claims a rigged vote if they lose. Its the big barrier to democracy. Whenever a party loses that has lots of support, rigged election. Any election within 5 point=rigged election for the losing side in africa. People in urban areas don't vote mugabe so you look around and see 1 million morgan supporters and say how could we lose, rigged elections. what they forget is morgan did not campaign outside 1 city. Mugabe has support from the other 11 million zimbabweans in rural and suburban areas. This is why he has traditionally crushed the oppoents. Morgan was part of Mugabe party up until 2000s, he was able to skim some vote from suburbs and rural areas so elections are closer but not rigged. You don't rig and election to lose by a few points , you rig to win.
You have no EVIDENCE only hersay. These people are like the angry floridans who say bush stole the election. zimbabwe voted for mugab in free and fair elections for 30 years before any accusations came up of election rigging, he has had his run and can take a loss, and wanted to step down 8 years ago but has no predessor except black jesus.
Mugabe had a new vote, the opponent was threatened by violence from Mugabe's thugs and dropped out for fear of his life.
And, Mugabe stealing from the people in various forms has been well documented for years.
The vote also went against Mugabe in 2000 for the constitutional amendment granting him and his officials immunity from prosecution and enabling the land program to go forward, amongst other things. He had the parliament pass it anyways against the voters' wishes.
Quote:
have any proof?
Did you read the links? It's fairly clear.
Quote:
Well by your theory it would be in their best interest to keep the white farmers theeir and then just take their money, rather than to cease the land. Your accusations are baseless. There is no proof that mugabe ceased land from anyone to give to his friends. More likely was that those in higher government were the only ones with good jobs who could buy land from the whites at the prices they were selling it for.
It's been thoroughly documented. Including by poor Black refugees who've fled the country. As the stated goal of the land reform was to put land in the hands of the poor and landless, by your own admission Mugabe was doing otherwise.
Quote:
When Zimbabwe gained independence, 46.5% of the country's arable land was owned by around 6,000 commercial farmers.[65] Mugabe accepted a "willing buyer, willing seller" plan as part of the Lancaster House Agreement of 1979, among other concessions to the white minority.[66] As part of this agreement, land redistribution was blocked for a period of 10 years.[67]
In 1997, the new British government led by Tony Blair unilaterally stopped funding the "willing buyer, willing seller" land reform programme on the basis that the initial £44 million allocated under the Thatcher government was used to purchase land for members of the ruling elite rather than landless peasants. Furthermore, Britain's ruling Labour Party felt no obligation to continue paying white farmers compensation, or in minister Clare Short's words, "I should make it clear that we do not accept that Britain has a special responsibility to meet the costs of land purchase in Zimbabwe. We are a new Government from diverse backgrounds without links to former colonial interests. My own origins are Irish and as you know we were colonised not colonisers" wiki land reform zimbabwe
It seems that he took a big political risk, he told his people that the whites can stay because the british will buy them out, so everyone will get a fair deal. The whites will get money for land from england, the blacks will get their land back and everyone is happy. Then Tony Blair decided to backstab Mugabe and put him in a bad position. Mugabe looked like a liar for believing Britain would honor its signed agreement, so he decided that the land reforms would go ahead.
Leaving 53.5 percent of the land (a majority) in others' hands.
But anyways, you left out part of the message from the U.K., the following portion: "We do, however, recognise the very real issues you face over land reform. We believe that land reform could be an important component of a Zimbabwean programme designed to eliminate poverty. We would be prepared to support a programme of land reform that was part of a poverty eradication strategy but not on any other basis."
What the U.K. said was quite true, Mugabe had given the land to his wealthy friends, not the people who truly needed it. Why should the UK subsidize the wealthy getting wealthier when the original purpose was to get land in the hands of the landless? The U.K. did offer to continue funding land reform provided it met the original purpose. Mugabe had other plans obviously...
Quote:
Whose faulkt is that. white farmers who push up prices and take up government money through land reform
Mugabe's for his terrible economic and monetary policies.
Quote:
Makes no sense by 1999 when land reform started Mugabe was in power for more than 19 years.
And for most of that time the economy has been slowly dropping. The land program was basically the final straw.
Quote:
Russia against georgia is colnilaism. do this or else we inavde you, don't do it, ok we invade you. NK is not colonialism because they have no threat of invasion to USA, they have no navy, or airforce.
No it's just diplomacy and aggressive diplomacy at that, with the threat (and sometimes use) of force. Colonialism is where they conquer the land and send in settlers.
NK has a navy, airforce, and they have a nuclear weapons and missile program.
Most people, well white supremist don't conzider jews white. You will never meet a jewish kkk member as they are considered tainted. I'm not syaing they don't look white, i've meet jews who "got away" and look arayan as hell. But most jews have different hair, curly and black and so on. Generally not considered white or at least not pure white.
The KKK has no credibility. Non-racists will accept the Jews and even the Arabs as White because they don't fall in any other race.
Ok so according to your resource north korea navy is about what the coast guard in usa has, gun boats. That is no threat to usa nuclear sub and destroyers.
Even looking at their fighter planes, I recognize many of those names from a flight simulator I use to play and they look like old soviet and israeli planes from the 70s.
Your right I'm not a military expert, my point I was making was simply that NK navy and airforce is not threat in comparaision to the usa, who could probably use a fraction of its highly advanced weapons to destroys NK outdated navy and airforce.
If that was your point, then that is what you should have said. Of course their navy and air force are no real threat to the US military, but there is a huge difference between that and your statement of "they have no navy, or airforce".
Making such general (and false) statements does nothing to back up your credibility regarding any of your claims about Africa. You cannot expect people to assume that you are better informed than your posts indicate you to be. According to this logic, all of your posts be read assuming that you actually mean something other than what you have said. On the positive side I suppose, that would make them a lot easier to digest.
The KKK has no credibility. Non-racists will accept the Jews and even the Arabs as White because they don't fall in any other race.
I know pletnyl of arabs and have not meet any who describe themselves as white even when I ask are you white. They say no not really. arabs have mixed ancestry. Most don't look white and usually have some asian or african features.
From my background jews are not considered whites. Not to offend them but they are not really white. If jews come from judah as they claim and I believe, then they come from a country that borders africa and south west asia. Whites are generally caucasians, to be caucasian you must have caucaus descent, jews don't descend from the caucaus like other whites, they claim to descend from Israel.
lets not forget jews can be of any race, it is a religion and there are white, black, and chinese jews so in a way it is ignorance for either of us to claim them as one group over the other. I think jews fall better into the same category as arabs than whites, kinda of the other or mixed race category.
Arabs some displays clear african ancestry and there are black arabs and white arabs. So we must be careful not to confuse ethnic and race. I dont see other white people who look like jews, with curly hair and broad noase and dark skin and thick lips. I tend to say they are mixed race more than white, but some definetly look white
If that was your point, then that is what you should have said. Of course their navy and air force are no real threat to the US military, but there is a huge difference between that and your statement of "they have no navy, or airforce".
Making such general (and false) statements does nothing to back up your credibility regarding any of your claims about Africa. You cannot expect people to assume that you are better informed than your posts indicate you to be. According to this logic, all of your posts be read assuming that you actually mean something other than what you have said. On the positive side I suppose, that would make them a lot easier to digest.
Blame arch, he writes such dam long post
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
