The African Crisis is an interesting ressource about SA, with coverage of the ongoing crime wave the site owner compares to a low key guerilla war waged by the gvt to chase whites out; it's true some farmer murders are beyond anything one could imagine with a "mundane" greed-motivated crime (for example, in one "incident", the farmer is incapacitated by the gang, he will be shot in a separate attack months later, while is wife is asked where's the clothes iron; she's then stripped and gangraped, then covered with oil, and burnt with the red hot iron until her skin falls off in shreds...).
[Here are just the 3 latest posts on the crime page on my webste. Take a look at the kind of things which go on, and how people feel about our Police. The Minister of Safety & Security & the Chief of Police (Selebi), announced, after a week of meetings, that crime is not out of hand. Jan]
Randburg, Johannesburg
My elderly parents' home was broken into and my father was stabbed to death as he was woken by the intruders. My mother is seriously wounded and is in hospital in intensive care. The police are totally incompetent and are doing NOTHING.
Dinwoody, Germiston
A young South African Greek man (last name Papadellis) aged 29 (?) was attacked in the living room of his home by three gun totting blacks. The motive was robbery. However, they shot Papadellis in the stomach sending him to hospital where his spleen and half his liver and intestines were removed. The man died one week later. His father was left with a medical bill of over half a million rand.
Although I support Mbeki, I also support the death penalty. The current government is doing nothing to curb crime. Stay away from South Africa until they reintroduce the death penalty and reduce crime effectively.
A letter I received:-
Dear Sir
Interesting website, glad I found out about it.
It makes me sick to see how bad crime has become in South Africa. The fact that most of them are never solved or that the Dockets disappear, gets me going even more.
I am a statistic. So are many of my friends. A quick Run-Down:
Zelda Myburgh - Benoni - Murdered in her home by their garden boy who hit her on her head with a shovel. Due to lack of evidence, he is a free man.
Claire Andrews - Kempton Park - Gang raped by a group of black men in her home. I believe that they have never been caught.
Mr. & Mrs. Ellinas - Boksburg - Hijacked in their driveway just after spinal surgery. They pushed her around like a toy. They have never been caught.
John - Ireland - Moved to Benoni and was a good friend to all. Was stabbed to death in Nelspruit after a road rage incident. Not sure what happened with the murderer.
Tracy Thompson - Ekurhuleni - Hijacked and Murdered. Body found close to township offramp. Cops stuffed up evidence. No closure.
Duncan H Cramer - Modderfontein - Shot in the head during an armed robbery. He was trying to protect me from harm. Positive prints left behind on many household items, case closed after about 8 months.
Cherith Anderson - Benoni - Hijacked outside my home when I lived in JHB. No closure.
Dion Edwards - Benoni/Port Shepstone - Arrested on a case that was closed (drunken driving), placed in a cell with twenty other men and was raped by them. He committed suicide.
Well, those are just some of them. It doesn't even include the petty crimes and the plain pesty ones that some of us experienced.
Funny Thing is, this has all happened in the last 6 years.
Wow, Democracy is working well. All the housing projects have now been completed. All our people now have clean, safe running water. We have no poverty and no starving people. ARV's are supplied by government and our ministers no longer say "If you don't like the crime, Leave" or take their whole group of friends on shopping sprees in Dubai. Our police force also get paid decent salaries and our children now all attend decent, clean and healthy schools. Oh, and our new stadiums have been built for the 2010 World Cup Soccer too! And the best of all, we still have money left over!!!
I'm sorry that my sarcasm has taken over here. But it seems that this is the kind of country I would like to live in. Not the one where everyone knows at least 5-6 people who have been affected by crime. I am sure most people know of at least 1 person who has been murdered.
It is truly sad to think that the lives of our children will be even worse. Because God knows, I have tried, but my hand has been smacked away so many times, that I have given up.
And look at what our beautiful country has to offer.
It's just scary getting to all the places of grace what with Hijackings on Highways, Boulders being thrown off bridges into moving cars, Shootings at petrol stations and Cash in Transit Heists. Once you are there, you have to put up with Smash and grabs at intersections, rapes or murders taking place on beaches, and your caravan, tent or rental home being emptied by unknown parties.
Hey, it does affect us all at the end of the day. It is just frustrating.
I will be making this one of my regular stops during my quiet days. Trust you will have interesting articles!
#1
I lived in Jo'berg in the mid-seventies. Crime was a concern then, but at least the police combatted it. It is in times when civil authority becomes totally impotent, military authority seizes power. I lived in Greece when the "Colonels" held power.
#3
As people straggle back home from Germany after a brilliant World Cup (party-wise anyway), talk has naturally turned to SA in 2010.
Between poor to middling infrastructure, inability to complete stadiums on schedule, and rampant crime and disease, I won't be surprised if the US or UK are asked to step in as a late replacement host nation as Mexico did for Colombia in '86.
Despite it's best efforts, an SA WC would be a disaster.
#4
Two sister missionaries from the LDS Church were just raped--one was also shot--in an area just outside of Durban. I don't have words to describe how angry I am about that but it's just one more reason why I don't have any hope whatsoever for any part of Africa. It truly is "the Dark Continent" and as colonial rule recedes farther into the past the more precolonial savagery comes to the fore. Any white with brains should be out of Africa even if all they can leave with is the clothes on their back. The alternative, sooner or later, will be far worse.
Posted by: mac ||
07/10/2006 12:40 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Some of the worst of it are the brutal murder of white farmers. It's all taking the same course as Zim, they're just not as open about it. The ultimate goal is a black Zuid Afrika, very clear to most. Nothing will ever be said at the UN or in Washington.
#6
When I was a kid, South Africa was one of the worlds premier economies. It was a competative and highly productive place of industry and trade. Then it changed hands and I can only see one difference now from then. Unfortunately decorum prohibits mentioning it here.
#7
We all know what happened Big Jim. African self-rule following "colonialist" governments is an unmitigated disaster all over Africa, not just the South.
PC: I know all of Africa is 'suposed to be Whiteys fault, but are there ANY nations in Africa today 2006, that are both socially egalitarian and modestly safe?
From Jewish World Review online.
We all have watched what is happening to Britain, but this brings it home.
By Diana West
Just in time for the one-year anniversary of 7/7, a poll conducted for The Times of London indicates that 13 percent of British Muslims believe that the four Islamic suicide bombers who murdered 52 people in London last July should be regarded as "martyrs."
With a Muslim population in Britain estimated at 1.6 million, this means that some 208,000 British Muslims regard these killers with what can only be described as a worshipful attitude. Which is despicable. But Mother England, it seems, is home to an awful lot of despicable people.
One of them, surely, is Anjem Choudary, who made related news this week. Choudary is a former leader of Al Mujahiroun a defunct, jihad-inciting group, whose venomous pronouncements on Islamic supremacy have earned him a strange prominence in the British media. He refuses to condemn the 7/7 attacks, says Muslims shouldn't help police combat jihad terror, and advocates sharia (Islamic law) for Britain. During a BBC "Newsnight" appearance this year, the host asked Choudary why he didn't simply move to a sharia state like Iran.
"Who says you own Britain, anyway?" Choudary replied. "Britain belongs to Allah. The whole world belongs to Allah. ... If I go to the jungle, I'm not going to live like the animals, I'm going to propagate a superior way of life. Islam is a superior way of life." And there you have it, folks. The Superior Way of Life defense. If you want to reason with the likes of him, go howl at the moon. It will be more productive.
In a way, the 39-year-old Essex man was just found guilty of a charge connected to propagating that "superior way of life." It all started last February when Choudary organized a march on the Danish Embassy in London to protest Muhammad cartoons first published in a Danish newspaper. This wasn't one of those anti-Danish protests in which people were killed hundreds died around the Islamic world in this year's Days of Cartoon Rage but it was definitely murder-minded. "Behead Those Who Insult Islam," said one placard. "Slay Those Who Insult Islam," said another. "Kill Those Who Insult Islam," and (for variety) "Butcher Those Who Mock Islam," said others. Hundreds of demonstrators marched through London, praising the 7/7 killers, or calling for the murder of journalists who publish Mohammed cartoons.
And the police stood by.
More accurately, they made sure the protest went off smoothly, as the Times Online reported. "People who tried to snatch away (the placards) were held back by police," the newspaper said. "Several members of the public tackled senior police officers guarding the protesters, demanding to know why they allowed banners that praised the 'Magnificent 19' the terrorists who hijacked the aircrafts used on Sept. 11, 2001 and others threatening further attacks on London."
Why, indeed. The "Newsnight" show on which Choudary subsequently appeared included news footage of an English bobby vigorously silencing such a citizen, described as a van driver, who, according to the televised report, had angrily criticized the Muslim protesters. It is tragically enlightening.
"Listen to me, listen to me," said the policeman, shaking his finger at the van driver. "They have a right to protest. You let them do it. You say things like that you'll get them riled and I end up in (trouble). You say one more thing like that, mate, and you'll get yourself nicked (arrested) and I am not kidding you, d'you understand me?"
Van driver: "They can do whatever they want and I can't?"
Policeman: "They've got their way of doing it. The way you did it was wrong. You've got one second to get back in your van and get out of here."
Van driver: (bitter) "Freedom of speech."
This vignette wasn't law and order in action. It was desperate, craven appeasement. As the bobby put it, "You say things like that, you'll get them riled." And we mustn't get them riled. Let Choudary and his band of thugs praise mass killings, threaten more attacks and advocate murder by beheading on London streets in broad daylight but don't get them riled.
Still, Choudary did end up in a British court of law, and this week a British judge handed down a verdict. Choudary has been found guilty of ... staging a demonstration without giving the required six days' written notice.
Tsk, tsk. That'll be $1,400 in fines, please easy enough to pay since Choudary, the Online Sun reports, receives more than twice that per month in government handouts. All of which makes Pax Britannica seem quite cheap at the price.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
07/10/2006 12:45 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"Okay, lissen up you tin-head primitives! THIS is my BOOM STICK!"
-- Ash
#2
Law enforcement has to realize that there is no third side when the conflict erupts into street violence. You are either with evil or against it.
No third option. The state will side with the stronger. Twas ever thus.
#3
During a BBC "Newsnight" appearance this year, the host asked Choudary why he didn't simply move to a sharia state like Iran.
"Who says you own Britain, anyway?" Choudary replied. "Britain belongs to Allah. The whole world belongs to Allah. ... If I go to the jungle, I'm not going to live like the animals, I'm going to propagate a superior way of life. Islam is a superior way of life."
Choudary, the Online Sun reports, receives more than ($2,800) per month in government handouts.
Probably pays better then being Omar Bakri's favorite love toy back in Beirut, don't it Anjem? And I'm figuring Lebanon's welfare bennies ain't nearly as lucrative.
#4
Who says you own Britain, anyway?" Choudary replied. "Britain belongs to Allah. The whole world belongs to Allah. ... If I go to the jungle, I'm not going to live like the animals, I'm going to propagate a superior way of life. Islam is a superior way of life." This guy is seriously deluded--except that his kind are dangerous because they believe their own bulls*it.
Is this believable?
Sabotage potential
We have no evidence that the U.S. was able to sabotage North Korea's Taepodong-2 missile, which malfunctioned 42 seconds into launch on Tuesday and crashed.
But we do note that special operations forces (SOF) are playing an increasing role, overt and covert, in the world under Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's rule.
We also note that one of the reasons that SOF procured the powerful .50- caliber Barrett's sniper rifle was to have the capability to disable ballistic missiles. It's a scenario for missile defense you won't see in any literature from the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency: insert a commando behind the lines, who positions himself within shooting range of the launchpad.
"One of the original reasons for procuring the .50-caliber sniper system was to disable missiles," a SOF source says. "A round pumped in prior to launch, or during to cover the noise, in the right place would cause a catastrophic malfunction."
#2
NoKo failure occured at Max-Q, the portion of the flight when the vehicle is undergoing maximum stress.
Nothing to do with sabotage. The rocketry learning curve is steep, expensive and littered with failures.
For a county like North Korea with only a rudimentary scientific and industrial base, failures will be even more common.
Posted by: john ||
07/10/2006 17:19 Comments ||
Top||
#3
A missile with a half-inch hole in it is more likely to fail at Max-Q than one without.
#6
Someone has taken serious license with the name of the Taepodong-2 unless, of course, this means "no dong" in Korean.
The NorKs have three missile designs, the "Hwasong," which is a back-engineered Scud, the "Nodong," which is a larger missile based loosely on the Scud design, and the "Taepodong," which is more or less a Hwasong stacked on top of a Nodong.
I don't know what the Korean names translate to, though I'm pretty confident that they don't name their missiles after penis jokes. Can't imagine that would sit well with the Dear Leader.
Posted by: Mike ||
07/10/2006 18:34 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Well, I am no small arms expert, but a quick Google search for the M107 sniper rifle shows a maximum effective range of less than 2500 meters. This would mean that the sniper would have to be probably within 1000 meters of the launch pad. I cannot believe that anything larger than a mouse get that close to the missile. (and the mouse would probably have been eaten.)
#8
As I've speculated elsewhere, wouldn't it be hypothetically interesting if we had some kind of device that could invisibly interfere with a rocket at launch from a great distance away, say very high altitude or even from space?
All it would have to do is affect the metal in some way--not even an obvious way--that weakens it just a little bit. All sorts of radiation can do that. Just make it a tad more flexible, or a scoonch more brittle.
Metallurgy sometimes seems indistinguishable from magic.
#10
Mike: I don't know what the Korean names translate to, though I'm pretty confident that they don't name their missiles after penis jokes.
The Nodong is just the Korean word for "labor". The Taepodong is named after the launch site (whose name translates roughly to "big hole on a beach", kind of like the way many places are named after distinctive geographical features).
All the good feeling at the White House at President Bush's early birthday party on July 4 couldn't hide the fact that the president finds himself in a world of hurt.
A grinding and unpopular war in Iraq, a growing insurgency in Afghanistan, an impasse over Iran's nuclear ambitions, brewing war between Israel and the Palestinians -- the litany of global crises would test the fortitude of any president, let alone a second-termer with an approval rating mired in Warren Harding territory.
And there's no relief in sight. On the very day that Bush celebrated 60, North Korea's regime, already believed to possess material for a clutch of nuclear weapons, test-launched seven missiles, including one designed to reach the U.S. homeland.
Even more surprising than the test (it failed less than two minutes after launch), though, was Bush's response. Long gone were the zero-tolerance warnings, "Axis of Evil" rhetoric and talk of pre-emptive action.
Instead, Bush pledged to "make sure we work with our friends and allies ... to continue to send a unified message" to Pyongyang. In a news conference after the missile test, he referred to diplomacy a half dozen times.
The shift under way in Bush's foreign policy is bigger and more seismic than a change of wardrobe or a modulation of tone.
Bush came to office pledging to focus on domestic issues and pursue a "humble" foreign policy that would avoid the entanglements of the Bill Clinton years. That was before 9/11 dumbass. Having 3,000 innocent civilians blown away in a terrorist act is bound to change foreign policy...
After September 11, however, the Bush team embarked on a different path, outlining a muscular, idealistic, and unilateralist vision of American power and how to use it.
They aimed to lay the foundation for a grand strategy to fight Islamic terrorists and rogue states, by spreading democracy around the world and pre-empting gathering threats before they materialize. And the U.S. wasn't willing to wait for others to help.
The approach fit with Bush's personal style, his self-professed proclivity to dispense with the nuances of geopolitics and go with his gut. "The Bush Doctrine is actually being defined by action, as opposed to by words," Bush told Tom Brokaw aboard Air Force One in 2003.
But in the span of four years, the administration has been forced to rethink the doctrine by which it hoped to remake the world. Bush's response to the North Korean missile test was revealing: Under the old Bush Doctrine, defiance by a dictator like Kim Jong Il would have merited threats of punitive U.S. action. Instead, the administration has mainly been talking up multilateralism and downplaying Pyongyang's provocation. And helping Japan build a missle defense which would help defuse both North Korea and the real master here China.
The Bush Doctrine foundered in the principal place the U.S. tried to apply it. Though no one in the White House openly questions Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq, some aides now acknowledge that it has come at a steep cost in military resources, public support and credibility abroad. No mention that Iraq and Afghanistan are now free. Saddam is under arrest and on his way to a well deserved execution. AL-Q is on the ropes and bleeding heavily.
The administration is paying the bill every day as it tries to cope with other crises. Pursuing the forward-leaning foreign policy envisioned in the Bush Doctrine is nearly impossible at a time when the U.S. is trying to figure out how to extricate itself from Iraq. We are?
Taking note and taking advantage
Around the world, both the U.S.'s friends and its adversaries are taking note -- and in many cases, taking advantage -- of the strains on the superpower. The past three years have seen a steady erosion in Washington's ability to bend the world to its will. As compared to the Clinton years when we bent-over to the will of Kimmie, Saddam, Koffe, etc....
The strategic makeover is most evident in the ascendance of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who has tried to repair the administration's relations with allies and has persuaded Bush to join multilateral negotiations aimed at defusing the standoffs with North Korea and Iran. The six party talks (read: multilateral) were always a cornerstone of our handling of Kimmie.
By training and temperament, Rice is a foreign-policy realist, less inclined to the moralizing approach of the neoconservatives who dominated Bush's cabinet in the first term. Which explains how just about everyone on Rantburg thinks she's great (even without the boots and black trenchcoat)
Her push for pragmatism has rubbed off on hawks like Vice President Dick Cheney, the primary intellectual force behind Bush's post-9/11 policies.
"There's a move, even by Cheney, toward the Kissingerian approach of focusing entirely on vital interests," says a presidential adviser. "It's a more focused foreign policy that is driven by realism and less by ideology."
To much of the world, that's a relief. The whole 'Cowboy Deplomacy' thing has always been a media creation. Bush has always, as far as I can see, tried to use deplomacy before resorting to military action -- look at all the sessions at the UN before invading Iraq.
The real problem is that Bush didn't get U.N. approval before defending our vital interests, or going after terrorists who killed 3,000 innocent victims. Kerry would have required U.N. approval before commiting anything beyond a strongly worded letter.
#5
The real problem is that Bush Administration, and the country, don't have the stomach to finish the Axis of Evil, now, when it can be done inexpensively. Instead, we'll pay later.
#6
Think how much more efficient it could have been NS, if the Clinton Administration hadn't punted in the first place. Think of how much cheaper all this would have been if Sunday School Carter had back the Shah in the 70s. The Shah was no kinder gentler type guy, but neither was Stalin with whom Franklin Roosevelt hung out. The whole prattle is about people wanting to avoid getting blood on their hands even though they know that basically nothing else really works. Their problem is that they drag the rest of us down with them.
#7
Yup, it was obvious in '94. It was also obvious that we should have stayed out of the Balkans, but WC had to be a hero to his Euro buddies. And he had to send thos guys into Mogadishu without armor and then abandon the position instead of kicking ass. All in all, in the Jimmah Cahtah class of president.
#10
There hasn't been an intelligent analysis of international relations in the MSM since 9/11. These fags think their prattle has some bite to it, but it's meer fantasy. The cold war goes on, with China replacing USSR as the main opponent, and the absurd attempt to destroy civilization by mother Islam sheds blood far and wide. However, the world is still led by the USA. This will remain unless and until the socialists lefties are able to trip up our better intentions. The Islamist will bring about their bloody end before the Euroabia experiment bears fruit, and the advanced Oriental races will overtake the Norky hermit and embarrass China. Tomorrow's world will be two groups. One industrialized and engaged, and the other backward and isolated. Neither will be because of oral sex liberalism.
#13
Wasn't it Time magazine that first coined the term "cowboy diplomacy" in referring to the Bush administration? That makes it easier. Just declare that your hated political opponent is something, then after a time, declare that he is no longer that something, having learned the error of his ways.
That's right up there with "Has he stopped beating his wife, yet?"
#15
Who reads Time anymore? News magazines are artifacts of a bygone age. Time, Newsweek, and their ilk have become leftist broadsheets where propagandists like Joe Klein can print their screeds.
Introducing Eric Lichtblau
By The Prowler
Published 7/10/2006 12:09:37 AM
Despite the Bush administration's giving the New York Times and Los Angeles Times the courtesy of full briefings leading into the papers' decision to publish top secret information about the SWIFT terrorism financing monitoring program, the N.Y. Times reporters involved never gave the Bush administration the courtesy of informing it of what specifically they would be reporting before the stories hit the papers, according to a Department of Justice source.
"Usually reporters will give us a heads up about what they will be breaking a day or so in advance for stories like this so we have some inkling. We don't expect to see the stories, or get tons of specifics, it's just a courtesy. But in this case, we got nothing, which is standard M.O. for the New York Times reporters involved," says the DOJ source.
That would appear to be a reference to New York Times reporter Eric Lichtblau, who has covered the Department of Justice off and on for more than four years, and who at one time had his press credentials suspended by the DOJ press office. Only after his Times bosses interceded and promised a more even-handed approach to reporting was his access to the Department restored. Releasing classified information is more even-handed?
In the realm of intelligence and law enforcement work, such a tipoff is helpful, particularly if there is concern that potential targets of the investigations might run or destroy evidence.
In the case of the SWIFT program leak, the Department of Justice and the Treasury Department are both attempting to confirm how much material damage the Times's stories have wrought.
"We aren't going to get into specifics in public now, but I think when we brief the House and Senate in the coming days we will be able to make a clear and persuasive case that the SWIFT leak has severely set our efforts back on a number of fronts and on a number of investigations," says a Treasury official familiar with the preparations of the Congressional briefings. "Depending on where we come out of things, some of us are of a mindset to recommend that as much information as possible that we can allow to be declassified should be declassified, so that the American people can see just how much damage the Times has caused."
#3
Maybe I'm the only one that feels this way, but unless Republicans grow some sack and prosecute the Times and the leakers, I don't want to hear any more about it. What's the point if they are only going to wring their hands like whining wimps?
July 10, 2006 -- THE British military defines experience as the ability to recognize a mistake the second time you make it. By that standard, we should be very experienced in dealing with captured terrorists, since we've made the same mistake again and again.
Violent Islamist extremists must be killed on the battlefield. Only in the rarest cases should they be taken prisoner. Few have serious intelligence value. And, once captured, there's no way to dispose of them.
Killing terrorists during a conflict isn't barbaric or immoral - or even illegal. We've imposed rules upon ourselves that have no historical or judicial precedent. We haven't been stymied by others, but by ourselves.
The oft-cited, seldom-read Geneva and Hague Conventions define legal combatants as those who visibly identify themselves by wearing uniforms or distinguishing insignia (the latter provision covers honorable partisans - but no badges or armbands, no protection). Those who wear civilian clothes to ambush soldiers or collect intelligence are assassins and spies - beyond the pale of law.
Traditionally, those who masquerade as civilians in order to kill legal combatants have been executed promptly, without trial. Severity, not sloppy leftist pandering, kept warfare within some decent bounds at least part of the time. But we have reached a point at which the rules apply only to us, while our enemies are permitted unrestricted freedom.
The present situation encourages our enemies to behave wantonly, while crippling our attempts to deal with terror.
Consider today's norm: A terrorist in civilian clothes can explode an IED, killing and maiming American troops or innocent civilians, then demand humane treatment if captured - and the media will step in as his champion. A disguised insurgent can shoot his rockets, throw his grenades, empty his magazines, kill and wound our troops, then, out of ammo, raise his hands and demand three hots and a cot while he invents tales of abuse.
Conferring unprecedented legal status upon these murderous transnational outlaws is unnecessary, unwise and ultimately suicidal. It exalts monsters. And it provides the anti-American pack with living vermin to anoint as victims, if not heroes.
Isn't it time we gave our critics what they're asking for? Let's solve the "unjust" imprisonment problem, once and for all. No more Guantanamos! Every terrorist mission should be a suicide mission. With our help.
We need to clarify the rules of conflict. But integrity and courage have fled Washington. Nobody will state bluntly that we're in a fight for our lives, that war is hell, and that we must do what it takes to win.
Our enemies will remind us of what's necessary, though. When we've been punished horribly enough, we'll come to our senses and do what must be done.
This isn't an argument for a murderous rampage, but its opposite. We must kill our enemies with discrimination. But we do need to kill them. A corpse is a corpse: The media's rage dissipates with the stench. But an imprisoned terrorist is a strategic liability.
Nor should we ever mistreat captured soldiers or insurgents who adhere to standing conventions. On the contrary, we should enforce policies that encourage our enemies to identify themselves according to the laws of war. Ambiguity works to their advantage, never to ours.
Our policy toward terrorists and insurgents in civilian clothing should be straightforward and public: Surrender before firing a shot or taking hostile action toward our troops, and we'll regard you as a legal prisoner. But once you've pulled a trigger, thrown a grenade or detonated a bomb, you will be killed. On the battlefield and on the spot.
Isn't that common sense? It also happens to conform to the traditional conduct of war between civilized nations. Ignorant of history, we've talked ourselves into folly.
And by the way: How have the terrorists treated the uniformed American soldiers they've captured? According to the Geneva Convention?
Sadly, even our military has been infected by political correctness. Some of my former peers will wring their hands and babble about "winning hearts and minds." But we'll never win the hearts and minds of terrorists. And if we hope to win the minds, if not the hearts, of foreign populations, we must be willing to kill the violent, lawless fraction of a fraction of a percent of the population determined to terrorize the rest.
Ravaged societies crave and need strict order. Soft policies may appear to work in the short term, but they fail overwhelmingly in the longer term. Wherever we've tried sweetness and light in Iraq, it has only worked as long as our troops were present - after which the terrorists returned and slaughtered the beneficiaries of our good intentions. If you wish to defend the many, you must be willing to kill the few.
For now, we're stuck with a situation in which the hardcore terrorists in Guantanamo are "innocent victims" even to our fair-weather allies. In Iraq, our troops capture bomb-makers only to learn they've been dumped back on the block.
It is not humane to spare fanatical murderers. It is not humane to play into our enemy's hands. And it is not humane to endanger our troops out of political correctness.
Instead of worrying over trumped-up atrocities in Iraq (the media give credence to any claim made by terrorists), we should stop apologizing and take a stand. That means firm rules for the battlefield, not Gumby-speak intended to please critics who'll never be satisfied by anything America does.
The ultimate act of humanity in the War on Terror is to win. To do so, we must kill our enemies wherever we encounter them. He who commits an act of terror forfeits every right he once possessed.
Ralph Peters' new book, "Never Quit the Fight," hits stores today.
Posted by: Steve ||
07/10/2006 11:43 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
07/10/2006 13:34 Comments ||
Top||
#3
We hanged people at Nurmeburg for doing precisely what Peters suggets. Maybe he has a sexy new balck and silver uniform design to go along with his ideas.
#6
We should execute all ILLEGAL-COMBATANTS in the field unless they give up actionable intel in the first 5 minutes of their capture.
HH. He is talking about ILLEGAL COMBATANTS. Those who do not wear identifying insigina and hide in the civilian population. One of the reasons the GC was written is to protect the civilians which is why it outlaws hiding in civilian populations and specifically allows the execution of people who do without trial - this is the 'teeth' behind the GC which encourages combatants to abide by the rules and the reason we should not be giving these illegal combatants the same treatment as legal combatants.
I beleve that if the 'insurgents' wore identifying insigina (an armband or something) incidents like Haditha wouldn't happen a tenth as much. But since the 'lions of islam' hide behind women and children (sometimes literally) these things happen. The fact that we then allow these cowards to then demand three-hots-and-a-cot is plain-ass stupid. It is telling the world thats its ok and 'honorable' to hide behind women and children civilians.
#7
A really good site on the history of British judicial hanging:
http://tinyurl.com/6wx6v
In its heyday, the British use of the gallows so terrified bad actors around the world that many other nations developed different means of execution altogether.
And to its credit, the only group not moved by the noose were the Thughees, so vicious a sect that they had to be entirely wiped out, twice, with conventional military means.
America, likewise, lost a fine deterrent when it discontinued hanging.
#13
I think the state of washington has hanging or lethal injection. Used to be that hanging was the preferred sentence (if the prisoner refused to choose) until one inmate made himself so fat on prison food while waiting on death row that everyone went batshit worrying if the scumbag would 'suffer' during his hanging that they communted his sentence to life. (kind of like worrying if the needle to give a lethal injection is sterile...)
I seem to recall later this same person later got a free liver transplant at taxpayer expense -- least he suffer anything. Might have been someone else but I think it was the same person.
Personally I think they should be given 5 (or 10) years to file their appeals then they are taken outback and shot without fanfare. Particulary if the evidence is overwhelming (they were caught in the act).
#15
It's my understanding this was going on in Vietnam too. A friend of mine told me they didn't take prisoners nor did the NVA, except if they were high value.
He later became a spotter on a loach and was allowed to carry captain bars so if he was shot down he had better chance of survival if captured.
Posted by: bruce ||
07/10/2006 20:17 Comments ||
Top||
#16
"We hanged people at Nurmeburg for doing precisely what Peters suggets. Maybe he has a sexy new balck and silver uniform design to go along with his ideas."
#17
Under Roman law, actors such as these were considered bandits and killed on sight. Which is pretty much the way it has been done, always and everywhere in every culture, until now, or the 1960s. Sheesh.
Over at the Jawa Report, I saw some of the pictures of the 2 soldiers from the 101st who were cruelly murdered. What disgusting and cowardly animals these 'people' are. Lions? Yeah, right. More like hyenas. Pfeh. Add all of these we capture to the body count and we will see a mmarked decrease in violence as they are sent right to hell where they belong. A true "dying breed". The Hyenas of Allen.
Our jihadi enemies are truly "the enemy of life itself" and must be ruthlessly, relentlessly and totally exterminated, just like the Thugees. TO.A.MAN.
We need a return to the old rules for an old problem. Luguolo Latrunculus (kill the bandits), I say.
#18
Crazyfool got Ballz and he be correct!
Lookit. let's all of us get real. The time for "Revolution" has come. Things are so out of kilter now, both at home and abroad, that we'd might just as well pick up the pace (or get buried)and begin to "Git 'er Done"! In the interest of staying focused, and to marshall studliness during these crucial new revolutionary times, I propose that a notional prioritization list be developed...All are welcome to nominate the leftists and perverts of their choice and to assign them the next ascending number after MINE. Again, just for fun. My #1 fish in the barrel---George Soros.
#2., do I hear # 2? Kick it back so we can build on it. It's all in fun!!! (Not)
#22
We hanged people at Nurmeburg for doing precisely what Peters suggets. Maybe he has a sexy new balck and silver uniform design to go along with his ideas.
Maybe NAH has already been here.
Looked at the picture on JAWA. There also is a report on FOX tonite that the Shura Council has tortured, murdered, and mutilated three more of our soldiers. It's past time to go Roman on these animals.
Yesterday morning I posted about the pirates in the Strait of Malacca, including the two recent attacks on UN aid-carrying ships. It made me wonder if the UN should designate the pirates as NGOs, and thereby eliminate piracy with a bureaucratic stroke of the pen.
Well, Fellow Peacekeeper does not really consider this a joke. In the comments he said this:
Actually, you may be joking about not joking but I think its not a joke.
At a guess the UN-hired ships were in cahoots with the pirates (if the pirates were not actually hired for the purpose) and took a cut of the profit. And that is pretty much UN standard practise. The aid was probably purchased from friends and relatives for inflated prices, and quite possibly destined to be resold commercially by the party receiving the aid. Consequently it is only logical that the transport side join in the game, and oops! pirates stole the aid! For extra bastard points the stolen aid may be sold again to the UN in order to be stolen again to etc. All this insecurity demands more security staff, who may or may not be qualified but since they are not actually providing security that doesnt matter. Of course security staff decrease the margin for piracy by adding another layer to those receiving a cut, but hey, as long as New York is happy
You see? International cooperation at work. Corruption is your friend, and Kofis! It cuts out that uneccessary violence and everybody profits. The UN staff, their friends and relatives and associates in the logistics and supply and security and distibution businesses and NGOs, and governments both receiving and giving and transiting. Thats many many many people. Just neither the ones who pay for this, nor those who really need it.
Anyone think Im joking?
In a later post yesterday I wrote about the Demonic Convergence of Islam and crime:
The theology and ideology of Islam are eminently compatible with criminal behavior, and an operational jihad organization is functionally indistinguishable from a criminal enterprise. Is this why the UN and the Arab League get on so well together? Does this help explain the virtually unanimous votes against the rule of law by the representatives of Muslim countries in the General Assembly? Turtle Bay, Barbary Coast how can you tell the difference?
I do not doubt for a minute that there are numerous such games afoot, courtesy of the UN. It is the most anti-American, anti-Freedom, anti-Accountability pile of kleptocrats and shysters on Earth.
Understandably, most people in the world fail to understand Palestinian ideology and strategy today largely because it is so bizarre compared to politics as usual.
Before examining the basic principles of the Palestinian approach it is useful to consider how things usually work, and thus what people who don't know much about Palestinian politics think they are like.
Normal politics features realizable goals, paying keen attention to the balance of forces, avoiding losing conflicts, and seeking a stable state.
They also include such things as putting a high priority on raising living standards and building effective institutions to serve the people.
Every day Western governments, media and academics try to impose this model on Palestinian behavior, politics and ideology. Yet it just doesn't work. The things many in the West think motivates Palestinians - getting a state, ending the occupation - are of no interest in their own right. Indeed, the only way to maintain the pretense is a combination of amnesia and abandoning of the kind of rational analysis used to view any other political situation in the world.
I must add that in private (though virtually never in public) Palestinian intellectuals sound a lot like me. Over and over again, one hears disgust, despair and profound cynicism along the lines described below.
Given the current Palestinian ideology and strategy the conflict is unsolvable, and there is no way to stop the violence. On the other hand, as a result, Palestinian tactics are unworkable, politics are disorganized, and military strategy is self-defeating. The Palestinians can harass Israel, but not much more.
HERE ARE the basic points for understanding Palestinian politics:
There are hardly any moderate Palestinians in public life and even those few generally keep their mouths shut, or echo the militant majority. With few exceptions - countable on your fingers - a Palestinian moderate in practice can usually be defined as someone who apologizes for terrorism in good English. The mantra of "helping the moderates" cannot work under these conditions.
Fatah and PLO strategy rests on the belief that defeat is staved off as long as you keep fighting. Their only true victory is to continue the struggle. Of course, the cost of this is not only violence, suffering and disruption, but also a failure to achieve anything material.
This is why the "cycle of violence" concept is useless. Palestinians don't attack Israel because Israel attacks them, but because that is their sole program.
Whatever the common people think privately, the vast majority of activists believe everything must be subsumed to the struggle.
Democracy, living standards, women's rights and so on have no value outside contributing to the battle against Israel. This is why the idea of appealing to Palestinian material interests or finding some leader who puts the priority on achieving peace and plenty fails.
The interim goal is to be able to claim phony victories, which are actually costly defeats. If after 40 years of armed struggle the movement's great triumphs are destroying one Israeli outpost a year or kidnapping a single soldier, this shows its remarkable weakness on the battlefield. Inflicting damage on Israel via rocket attacks serves no Palestinian strategic objective except to make people feel good about damaging Israel (even while they suffer far more damage themselves).
Celebrating martyrs simply means bragging about your own casualties.
The movement's social policy is remarkably reactionary. Despite its leftist veneer it does not activate the masses except as an audience to cheer on the heroes. Fatah has no economic or social policy; Hamas seeks to turn Palestine into Iran or Afghanistan.
They have more in common with the world view of the Middle Ages than with Chinese or Cuban visions of guerrilla war. Palestinian groups use only a tiny proportion of the potential for large-scale social mobilization, a feature far more characteristic of the supposedly soft Israeli society.
Not only is infrastructure unimportant, it interferes with waging all-out struggle. If Palestinians become obsessed with job creation, educational or health systems or a successful economy this makes them satisfied with their lot and less willing to fight and die for the cause.
This concept, jarring for Western observers, is common in the Middle East. Consider Saddam Hussein's irresponsible aggressions and the Syrian rulers' preference for stagnation over reform.
Use your people's suffering to win international support. No fear of destruction or popular suffering deters Palestinian leaders. After it was charged that Hamas laid mines on a Gaza beach killing civilians last month, an American newspaper opined that Hamas would never do this to its own people.
On the contrary: There is a long pattern of sacrificing Palestinian lives and welfare for propaganda gains. Children are encouraged by the official Palestinian media to become terrorists and hence martyrs.
Lie endlessly, not only to everyone else but to yourself, portraying Israel as always wrong and America as always hostile. Their inability to transcend propaganda and the incessant demonization has ensured - except for rare times during the Oslo process - that the Palestinians cannot maneuver successfully in dealing with these countries.
THIS IS A losing strategy: Destroy your infrastructure, subvert international and even Arab support through extremism - no one is now even surprised that Arab states do nothing to help the Palestinians out of their mess - throw away chances for interim gains (like getting a state) to avoid compromising the chance for total victory, repeat old mistakes, rejoice over defeats as producing martyrs, taunt the world's sole superpower, exalt anarchy, and forfeit any chance of winning sympathy on the other side.
Such a suicide strategy, like suicide bombing, can inflict losses on the enemy but cannot defeat it. Indeed, by sacrificing so many possible benefits it ensures that the gap steadily widens in favor of the other side.
Far from any sign of resistance to this disastrous approach it seems capable of providing decades more of glorious defeat and martyrdom. Maybe it will even go on long enough for those in the West who keep expecting something different to understand what's going on. Some of us, especially here, know this.
#1
Sorry, I find this to be rubbish, even though it's true that Hollywood is aweful. I can't think of an obeservation more mundane or unoriginal. How lame are people such as this who rant about communist conspiracies and the evils of "Midnight Cowboy"? This article is like a parody of some evil combination of Church-lady, Archie Bunker and Grandpa Simpson.
The good news is that Hollywood never had as much influence as it wanted to believe it had, nor the amount its alarmist critics attribute to it. No matter because this influence is waning. Better to focus on offering alternatives than clownish fulminating the wickedness of "Hollywood".
#2
Well, then. Based on MM's review, I shan't waste my time with this article.
Posted by: Bobby ||
07/10/2006 6:18 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Pure rubbish? How easy to dismiss the overall point by looking at ONE movie and saying ... with regard to this one movie or that one movie, I declare the premise to be an exaggeration.
The only good thing I can say about the Hollywood Gospel is that it's high priests and priestesses have become as hypocritcal, predictable, overly dramatic, shrill and insular as Tammy Faye Baker and the 700 club bunch. I know they still have a following, but they such a bunch of geezers now that the can't escape that rotting stench of " I used to be cool"
#4
I'm going to disagree. It's a rant, not a great rant, but not a bad one either. Most of the bases it touches are on the money.
I don't think Hollyweird should be peddling a milk and cookies view of life/America, but it shouldn't be peddling a 'everything is a conspiracy by really really evil people' either, not least because there are much better and interesting stories out there.
While I like some hollywood movies - Terminator 3 was great and my daughter raves about Pirates of the Caribean, but too much feels like agitprop and I switch off or walk away.
#6
There's plenty of great movies available at Netflix. Just about anything made between 1934 and 1962 is worth watching. That's about the time when we had the Hayes Code. Funny how censorship helps artists be creative and "freedom" takes away the challenge.
#8
The average person, especially young person, need a role model. Hollywood has not provided a worthy role model since Patton. Without a good role model, a person needs a moral creed. Hollywood has invented anti-morality. Today, some young people just don't know how to act. But, in corporate America, only the proper dress and behavior are allowed. Because of a disfunctional Hollywood, corporate America has taken up the slack left by religion.
Nobody walks around with their pants below their ass in my office. Bet on it.
#10
I didn't see it in the article but they shoud've mentioned "Passion of the Christ." A religious movie produced by a pre-Vatcian II Catholic that made tons of money. Though Mel is hardly normal hollywood person other then his stance on the environment. Private Ryan would be another good pro-American movie (imho) that deservedly made good cash.
#12
MM, though it may be 'unoriginal', the writer makes an extremely valid point. If I were looking at this from a purely secular standpoint, devoid of any moral foundations or 'antiquated' notions of right and wrong, I'd agree with you. But alas, color me antique.
I have nothing much to add other than these people and their supporters are racial con artists/victimology shysters and should be banned from Academia. Were any of these people slaves? Their parents? Their grandparents? Nope.
Advocates who say black Americans should be compensated for slavery and its Jim Crow aftermath are quietly chalking up victories and gaining momentum. OK, I lied ...what "victories"?
Fueled by the work of scholars and lawyers, their campaign has morphed in recent years from a fringe-group rallying cry into sophisticated, mainstream movement. Most recently, a pair of churches apologized for their part in the slave trade, and one is studying ways to repay black church members. These assholes with their liberal guilt speak for nobody other than their own membership, and I doubt they speak for all of them Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/10/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I'm still waiting for them to go after (a) the Muslims that are trading slaves today and (b) the Mulsims and African tribes that sold the slaves to whitey in the first place.
Until you show concern over those issues you are not worried about redressing wrongs but about cashing in.
#5
So long as reparations consist solely of exchanging one's US citizenship for a one-way ticket to whatever nation the reparee believes will treat them more fairly I'm all for it.
#6
IIRC, which I probably don't, Mr. Jacques Heers, a noted french historian, estimated the western slave trade at about 11 millions individuals; arab slave trade was about 17 millions (and the whole economy was built on it), while intra-african slave trade was over 23 millions.
Regarding the arab slave trade, mortality in transit was about 80% (compared to the very high 20% for slave ships, african missionaries in the 19th had a saying it was easy following the traditional slave trails there, because one had only to follow the open human bones graves), and while the western civilization was the ONLY one to ever voluntary cease slavery, the arab trade halted in its massive form (it continues hidden to this day) only thanks to colonization; this was one of the motive behind colonization, by the way.
Uh, no. Not so fast, white girl. My family has only been here since just before World War I. The parts of Europe that they came from had nothing to do with the slave trade, either.
If you are feeling particularily guilty, Ms Browne, that's your issue. My conscience is just fine, thank you very much.
#9
Ms. Browne needs to do pennance at a ZimBobwe war veterans farm. As for the rest, your choice of oneway ticket to Congo, Somalia or Zim.
Posted by: ed ||
07/10/2006 7:01 Comments ||
Top||
#10
A morality that makes one guilty of the sins of ones ancestors is an abomination and an atrocity. It is not moral or just in any way, manner, shape, or form, and those who say or claim otherwise are morally warped themselves.
#11
I have English ancestry, and I think some of them were enslaved by Caesar or one of those other old Roman guys, so I think the Italians owe me some money. A small estate in Tuscany would do just fine.
#12
Also in June, a North Carolina commission urged the state government to repay the descendants of victims of a violent 1898 campaign by white supremacists to strip blacks of power in Wilmington, N.C. As many as 60 blacks died, and thousands were driven from the city.
Bill the party responsible -- they're still around. Look up "Democrats" in the phonebook.
Wasn't slavery in the Americas, an English imperial innovation?
More likely Spanish.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
07/10/2006 8:21 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Even if we accepted every premise of the "repatriation movement," there would still be no possibility of payoff.
After all, a "thief" can't make restitution with "stolen" property, can he?
I.E. there is another ethnic group that is owed everything, and who African-Americans profited from (see the 9th and 10th Cavalry) and who suffered everything they did first and worst...
Posted by: Ernest Brown ||
07/10/2006 8:22 Comments ||
Top||
#14
I.E. there is another ethnic group that is owed everything, and who African-Americans profited from (see the 9th and 10th Cavalry) and who suffered everything they did first and worst...
Eh. There was a guy who might be a distant relative of mine who was burnt at the stake by the Miamis. One of my great-great-grandfathers was a Cherokee.
Should I just slip myself some cash?
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
07/10/2006 8:30 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Sure! (G)
Posted by: Ernest Brown ||
07/10/2006 8:52 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Every year, lots of black taxpayers are suckered into a now-common scam, variants of which say that they can withold some amount of money from their income taxes, or demand a refund from the IRS for reparations. But it has fallen from their "dirty dozen" list of scams:
#17
Over 250,000 white federal soldiers died for the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendment. Debt paid in blood. Do an extrapolation of the casualties and the period population against say 1970 and the Vietnam period data. An amazing bill paid. And Jim Crow? Just stand behind the Chinese and other Asians who had similar treatment, but who haven't played the victim game. BTW, how are their children doing in schools and employment these days?
#18
Slavery reparations are complete and utter bullpucky. Just about any group in the U.S. could make similar claims, Chinese, Irish, Native Americans, etc. These folks are trying to cash in on a cash cow gravy train. They need to quit this "cottage industry" of victimhood. People need to think of themselves as Americans first and whatever their origins are second.
#19
The victimization of america needs to stop. The buther's bill was already paid. Now shut up, grow up and buck up. Look in the mirror to see who is keeping blacks down nowdays. I't ain't whitie, that is for sure.
(and for the record I'm Irish-scottish-Cherokee, the european part arrived after the potoato famine so I ain't done nottin' to blackie)
#20
Everytime a black American talks reparations and what has white men ever done for them. I always tell them to go to Gettysburg, Bull Run 1 and 2, Antietiem, Fedricksburg and any other battle during the civil war and read the names of the northern soldiers who died to free slaves that usually shuts them up.
#22
sooooo... once the descendants of black slaves get their reward, or whatever beads and whiskey these hucksters plan to throw at them, how are they going to properly compensate the Indians? I mean, ultimately, the Indians have the final trump card here. How can you take what rightfully belongs to the Indians and give it to the slaves of the people who stole it from the Indians. I'm so confused!
Accountability for ones own actions-not being laden with anothers burdens.
***
Tell me, what realizable price wouldnt insult the recipients? What would enough compensation for my great grandpa to have enslaved your great grandpa and great grandma be?
And I would love to see the math in these proposals-what is the total sum estimated for adequate and just reparations nationwide? Then, who will determine who owes this huge sum? How will that sum be raised?
I think the best thing we can do is acknowledge what was wrong in the past and behave as decent people now. If we see racism in action before us, we should call it out.
When can we start living like race really doesnt matter?
#28
Yep, I can't wait to pay the most free, most educated, and most wealthy black folks on the planet more handout money. These people advocating this crap are not truly patriots as they are trying to steal from other Americans.
I've been around the global mudball a few times *visiting* third-world shit holes and have come to a few realizations on race and poverty:
If you own a car, you ain't poor. If you have air conditioning, you ain't poor. If you are obese, you are not truly poor (maybe only in spirit and that is on you). If you own cable, you ain't poor. Race irrespective - If you decide to use drugs, have children out of wedlock, drop out of school, or just choose to act like a general shit bag - then those are your personal decisions. I apologize to no man for what happened before my birth and without my culpability or for their own present stupidities and lack of self-discipline. Slavery has been dead about 143 years, Jim Crow about 44 yrs, get over it. You are not helping our country. If that makes me a insensitive racist, I can live w/that.
I'm not going to ask the Brit gov't to repay me for their lack of humanity toward my ancestors. Actually I'd like to thank them for *pushing* my great-grandfather into coming to the states. Best thing that ever happened to our clan. God Bless America.
Posted by: Spike Lee ||
07/10/2006 11:26 Comments ||
Top||
#30
I am full agreement that we should pay reparations. Now if someone can prove that they (not their ancestors) were born into slavery I think we should give then a new pony. If you were born post Civil War then you dont get a pony, you get squat. You can however take advantage of being a citizen in a country that allows you to go from rags to riches based solely on your ambition and not your social status, skin color, or religious affiliation (or lack thereof). This issue is gaining momentum like the anti-war movement is gaining momentum (that is strictly in the Mo0nb@+ fringe).
#31
Even though I don't live in the US, I'm sure I'm entitled to reparation, as some of my relatives back in the 1600's would surely have been transported as slaves to the America's
#32
But Tipper, this is different. Slavery caused the Black Americans irrecoverable harm. Its not like the good times of the Gauls, Brits, Spaniards, and Germans had under Romans Rule. Or those happy-go-lucky days the Jews and Africans had living under the kind Egyptian Kings. The Blacks in early America obviously had some real hard times because it lasted long after they were freed.
#36
My family didn't get here until the late 30's. Came from Ireland and Wales, not a slave to be found in either place. So, we don't all inherit guilt, just you.
#37
Now the fun part will come when the 400 billion are divided up amongst who be who lines.
Now my grandgranny was a Beautiful Mullatto Creek Indian, so I don't get any dough. But maybe my 1st cousins thrice times removed who are decended from my same grandgranny the Beautiful Mullato Creek Indian can get a chunk.
#38
If these folks want an all-out race war that makes the civil war, reconstruction and Jim Crow look like a sunday school picnic, I can think of nothing better than to cram 'reparations' down our throats.
#39
Should the reparations folks bill the heirs of Lyndon Johnson for the damage done to the black family and blacks in general by the War on Poverty? The Great Society, through its destruction of the black family by enabling and encouraging single motherhood to the point that in some parts of the country more than 70% of black children are born bastards, has more than offset the gains of the Civil Rights movement. Democrats going to pony up?
#40
The only real discrimination in the US today is against Asians. Almost all universities have quotas restricting the number of Asians so that, for reasons of diversity, there will be some slots left for whites, blacks, and native Americans. Asians succeed because they have nuclear families in which parents inculcate their children with the values of hard work and honor.
#43
I put in a bill for reparations with the Tsar for taking the lands of my Russian Jewish farmer ancestors. I sent copies to the Kremlin and at the Tsar's summer home. They both came back:
Return to Sender
Address Unknown
No Such Number
No Such Zone
Ima sh!t outta luck, and Putin sez he is not responsible for the previous proprieter.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
07/10/2006 20:13 Comments ||
Top||
#44
My Slavic ancestors were enslaved by practically everyone at one time or another. Including Africans, via trade with Arabs and Mongols, among others.
Just look at the first four letters in the word "slave". Coincidence? Uh uh.
Meanwhile, my parents came to this country about a century after emancipation.
If anything, African-Amereicans owe me reparations.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
