#1
are you allowed to own guns legally? If not why not own them anyway, if they will save your life?
How cohesive are the middle class or white folks on this do they help each other yet?
Posted by: Red Dawg ||
08/22/2007 7:38 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Perhaps Besoeker or Rhodesiafever could be more precise on that, but it is my understanding that legal gunownership in SA has been severely restricted since the end of the apartheid, which would be logical if the new power want the whites to be toothless (IIUC, criminals seem to have no troubel finding even heavy weaponry, often withthe help of private security forces or police).
#3
If you include Coloreds, Indians and many Zulus the ratios get considerably better. One of the non-PC facts about South Africa is that the Whites would not have been able to conquer and rule the country without cooperation from many Blacks.
One of the things that South Africans told me during Apartheid was that if the majority took over, the big violence would be Black on Black.
Al
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
08/22/2007 9:52 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Why are there any whites left? After the SA reaction to Zimbabwae I would have moved to Australia to farm. Reminds me of the Jews in Germany insisting they are Germans until it was too late to be honest.
As Democrats scramble in the wake of the realization that President Bush's surge is working in Iraq, Senator Clinton is suddenly talking about preparing to fight a new war. She's always been a master at hedging her bets, but her speech Monday to the Veterans of Foreign Wars where she admitted that the surge she opposed is "working," beats all. In the same breath she added, "We're just years too late in changing our tactics We can't ever let that happen again We can't be fighting the last war. We have to keep preparing to fight the new war."
New Yorkers can take that to mean that, for all her flailing, she will press for passage of the retreat she has sought to legislate, the Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction of 2007. She co-authored the measure, which, her campaign Web site says, "will end the war before the next president takes the oath of office." Like every other Democrat running for president, Mrs. Clinton opposed the troop surge she now concedes is working. Some of her other legislative meddling would cap the number of troops in Iraq to pre-surge levels.
So what exactly is going on here? It turns out that General Petraeus has been masterful in presenting the data of the military campaign to both Democrats and Republicans. He has made it clear that the president understands that his mission requires bipartisan tolerance, if not support from both parties. Another thing that is happening is that for the first time Iraqi sheikhs of both the Sunni and now Shi'ia stripe are joining arms with our GIs against Al Qaeda, the Iranian terror network, and the followers of Moqtada al Sadr known as Jaish al Mahdi.
All of these entities have sought to destroy any hope for a stable Iraqi democracy from day one, but in the case of Iran and Mr. Sadr it took nearly three years to unleash the military against the Mullah terror masters in Iraq. The new strategy in Iraq also commits our soldiers to protecting civilians and openly patrolling with Iraqi security forces the neighborhoods we left to the terrorists in 2005 and 2006. This means that the daily revenge killings and the ethnic cleansing are stalling. Baghdad may not be safe -- yet -- but in many swaths normal life is returning and with it the prospect of political reconciliation.
Neither Senator Clinton nor Senators Levin and Durbin and other Democratic party leaders are fools. They understand that the new strategy in Iraq presents the best chance we've had in a long time to leave Iraq better than we found it, which the Left needs to be forever reminded was a failed state in every sense of the word. Yet we have not won just yet. General Petraeus next month will say many things, but we hear one of his key points will be to say how fragile the progress in Iraq really is. Should Congress pull the plug on him now, we would be betraying the best allies we've ever had against Al Qaeda and Iran, pro-American Muslims.
So what exactly then is this 'new war' that Mrs. Clinton says we ought to be preparing to fight? And how does she think we will win it if we just allow our current allies in Iraq to be slaughtered by the enemies we will have to fight elsewhere if they drive us from Iraq? And how are the Democrats going to lead in a new war after beating the drums so avidly for retreat in the current fight? The truth is Mrs. Clinton doesn't believe all the clap trap she's been spooling to her party's base. We hear that in private conversations with military brass, she pointedly says she will not run the war, if elected, as she promises to during the campaign -- which is one of the most astounding things we've heard of late.
Once the primaries are done and the general election approaches and as we rack up more success in Iraq, Mrs. Clinton's handlers will bend over backwards to emphasize these hawkish qualifications she placed in the speeches when she was trying to woo those Americans who believe the president and his top advisers are war criminals. At some point, Mrs. Clinton will have to take on the left wing of her party. And that is going to be some donnybrook. It's conceivable that it will turn out to be the new war about which the senator is suddenly talking. She will certainly need to win it if she is going to abandon her commitment to retreat and seek to lead our troops to victory in Iraq and beyond.
#7
I second that, OldSpook. Most of Washington needs to be gutted and rebuilt. For the sake of our shrinking culture we must keep the word alive on the net and radio until we can get enough real Americans on TV to steer America to better days through honest leaders.
I remain optomistic on America.
#8
"She would sell her country and her mother for power."
The big question is would she sell Bill for power?
Posted by: kelly ||
08/22/2007 18:26 Comments ||
Top||
#9
"Changing our tactics..." ala TOWNHALL/WEEKLY STANDARD > "THE DAY PRESIDENT HILLARY CLINTON SURRENDERS AMERICA"??? Artiiikle - IOW, let the future USSA = anti-US OWG "Negotiate" Amer's problems away, espec on when is America Amerika. Let the OWG-NWO decide when to save Amerikans from Americans.
* "Sell out her mother and country for power" > wel-l-l, thats what God = Law of Unintended Consequences, Probabilities, Asteroids,.........
.................@etal is good for. GOD IS DEAD article > World will find out starting on a certain 12/8th known to Madonna-Headbangers Ball fans, Nostradamus, and Guam Taotamonas from the 1960's/70's, etal. First off though, a specific fiery object has to fly over WESTPAC but not strike the Region or Earth. *D *** nged MCDONALD'S DOUBLE-MEAT BIGMACS/MEGA-MACS!
Posted by: anonymous5089 ||
08/22/2007 07:02 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#1
If this involved clustering of fascist white supremacists forming 'militias', how many inches of column space on page one or how many minutes of daily evening news would be consumed in the media sharkfest?
#2
I see the general population is coming around to the debate roughly described as WHAT DO WE DO WITH THESE MUSLIMS ?
Some here would bury them all. (me too)
Some would deport them all. (costs too much)
Some would isolate and remove radical imams.
Whatever, I hope in the end, we demand Islam either change or be erradicated by genocide. I can't feature passing this cancer on to other generations. There's just no logic to that kind of cowardice. And yes, not dealing with the problem is cowardice.
#3
There's just no logic to that kind of cowardice.
Cowardice knows no logic. It s an emotional state.
I agree that there is a degre of that in our western societies. But not all of the patterns can be attributed as such. Many factors in play... for instance ignorance, or sheer inability to project trends, because the base you can build them on has been, shrunk or removed in the past 30 or so years.
It is rather ironic that our inability to deal with the problem as society at large, in rational ways, will be much more costly in the long run. People don't feel affected by it yet, it does not burn them so they don't feel like it should be them dealing with the fire that is yet somewhere in the distance--maybe it will pass them by, they think.
One hopes that they'll wake up before there would be no escape.
The current controversy between the ruling UPA coalition and the Left on the one hand, and the right on the other, is entirely a political confrontation. This unwarranted war of words and egos should never overshadow the very important accomplishments in the realm of research and technology but should be responsibly resolved within the political framework. The issue of nuclear energy at hand is not a laughing matter. Not only is it linked with the destiny of 1.2 billion Indians today, but it will be of remarkable consequence to innumerable billions in the generations that are to follow. What is at stake is not just the present but the future as well.
During debates and arguments it has come to the notice of intellectuals and concerned citizens such as this writer that the Muslim community in India as a whole is being seen to be opposing the current nuclear deal. This illusionary and concocted idea is presented before the people of India as the dominant opposition to the 123 agreement. Such allegations, with no evidence whatsoever, will throw the Muslim community in India into another confrontation with liberal and progressive-minded Indians in the future.
What is important for the world to know is that Indian Muslims, in their psyche, behaviour and views, are as progressive as, if not more than, other outwardly looking communities across India. The desires and aspirations of younger Indian Muslims are the same as those of Hindu and Christian communities in India. For example, one would find educated Muslim boys and girls lined up in as much number and in similar proportions as any other social group in front of diplomatic missions of countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada. The educated middle class amongst the Muslim community is no more inclined to be content with meagrely paid and often exploitative jobs in Saudi Arabia, Dubai and other countries in the Middle East. Above all, newly educated Muslims indeed have already become aware of the fact that future jobs and satisfying professional lives are to be found more in India than abroad.
Yes, Muslims of the older vintage do get sensitive at the utterance of the word Israel, but these are dying noises. What is common knowledge is that India has since long balanced foreign policy options with both the Palestinian cause notwithstanding the great personal affinity with the late Yasser Arafat displayed by many of its leaders and Israel. Who in India now does not know that Israel is one of the largest suppliers of defence equipment and ammunition to the country? It has partnered in a number of high technology agricultural projects. You will even find Israelis undertaking tulsi cultivation in some parts of Uttar Pradesh. One finds Israelis living in large numbers in many parts of the Himalayas, albeit as tourists. Even so, I have yet to come across any Muslim in these specific areas or elsewhere who is agitated over government policy.
It is, however, important to say that George W. Bush is not the United States and the United States is not Israel. The Muslims in India are now mature enough to know the difference and judge accordingly.
I am at pains as an Indian Muslim to understand as to how a highly respected and distinguished political party can use the Muslim community as a whole as canon fodder, so to speak, in order to make its own vulnerable position secure. It is also not uncommon to find heretic and self-centred and self-proclaimed leaders within the Muslim community. They are indeed far too great in number and we all know who they are and how much political and social support they actually claim from the larger community across India.
In this context it is important to highlight an important political reality: the Muslims in India are the most secular voters. I know of no political party in India for which the Muslims have voluntarily not voted. As psephologists will confirm, when the BJP came to power, a good proportion of Muslims did indeed vote for that party. This is evidence good enough to make the point that it would be wrong on the part of any single party to say that they represent the whole of the Muslim community in India or that any one single party can influence the community as a whole.
Political parties must not project the Muslim community as a whole as a political constituency. It is a sum of heterogeneous groups. In any case, now there is an educated class emerging within the Muslim community and no one can afford to ignore its point of view.
The writer is chief economist, NCAER, and was member-secretary of the Sachar Committee. Views are his own
Posted by: john frum ||
08/22/2007 09:28 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Interesting.. I think the fear of a backlash from the Hindus is growing.
Posted by: john frum ||
08/22/2007 9:40 Comments ||
Top||
WASHINGTON, Aug. 21 (UPI) -- Political Islam is an attractive concept for many Muslims, and some expect it to resolve some of the economic, political and cultural problems they face. But most dont know how this will happen.
From the early 19th to the mid-20th century, the Islamic world produced a string of scholars -- Jamaluddin Afghani and Syed Abul Aala Maududi in British India, Hassan al-Banna and Syed Qutub in Egypt and Ali Shariati in Iran -- who provided an intellectual basis for what is now known as political Islam.
What they wrote made sense in an era when most of todays Islamic nations were either under direct colonial control or had just regained independence and were still struggling under a colonial legacy.
But the Islamists, unlike the nationalists, never believed that the end of colonial rule will also bring economic, social and cultural freedom from Western influence.
When the British left the subcontinent, they also left behind a system, and enough people to run that system, which prevents the formerly colonized nations to attain full independence, says Khurshid Ahmad, a leading intellectual of Pakistans Jamaat-e-Islami Party.
At a recent lecture at the University of Birmingham, England, Ahmad argued that the developing world currently owes a total of $3.242 trillion to the richest countries of the world. He said the richest 1 percent of the world earns as much as the bottom 57 percent.
Ahmad and other Islamist economists blame the worlds interest-based economy for this disparity and want to establish an interest-free economic system.
But the problem is that the Islamists have been unable to implement this system. Individual financial institutions have tried to implement this new system in some countries, but at best they offer cosmetic changes or rephrase the economic jargon to justify the prevalent interest-based system.
Another major complaint Islamists often voice is the Wests cultural domination. They want it to be replaced by an Islamic culture.
But Islamic culture itself is a contentious term. Muslims in Iran or South Asia are culturally as different from Arab Muslims as all of them are from Western culture. In fact, all of them have borrowed more from Western culture than they have from one another.
Politically, the Islamic world is even more divided. Perhaps the only common factor in more than 50 Muslim nations is that most of them are run by autocratic rulers.
Several major Muslim states have serious differences with one another and have also often gone to war against their co-religionists.
To provide an intellectual basis for the unification of more than 50 nations with such major economic, cultural and political differences is a huge task. And since the 1960s, the movement known as political Islam has not produced any major intellectual.
Islamic political parties also have had very little experience in running a modern state. The only country that has remained under religious rule for a considerable period is Iran, where Islamists toppled the shah in 1979.
But there is little in the Iranian experience that fascinates ordinary Muslims. Most Muslims outside -- and many inside -- Iran blame the religious elite that is running the country for creating more problems than they resolve.
Another example is Afghanistan, where extremists like the Taliban and al-Qaida had an opportunity to create a model Islamic state but failed miserably.
For almost five years the Taliban and al-Qaida movements had an entire country at their mercy, with full freedom to do what they wanted. Osama bin Laden and his clique had enough resources and plenty of connections in oil-rich Arab states to get the finances they needed to build roads, schools, hospitals and factories destroyed in 20 years of war and civil strife.
They did not.
Instead, they turned Afghanistan into a launching pad for terrorist attacks against the Western world. Many in the Islamic world believe the Taliban and al-Qaida failed in running Afghanistan because they did not know how to run a modern state.
Political Islam also has been unable to resolve the differences that exist between their version of an Islamic state and the modern nation-states that exist in todays Islamic world.
Their ultimate goal is to create an international fraternity of Muslim nations that can slowly be guided toward a united caliphate. But they are unable to explain how they will make modern Muslim nation states accept such a caliphate. Will nation-states such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and Morocco be forced to join such a caliphate? Will they willingly give up their sovereignty for the sake of a greater unity or be forced to do so?
How would the rest of the world react to the emergence of a new religious bloc in the world? Will it lead to a greater jihad against the rest of the world?
Within an Islamic caliphate, how much power shall the caliph have and how much freedom should be given to its citizens? Will there be a free media? Can women appear on television and cinema screens? Can there be music in an Islamic state?
How would people dress? Will the veil be imposed on women living in an Islamic state, whether they like it or not? Will all men be forced to grow beards?
Each of these questions evokes emotional debates within the Islamic world, sometimes causing violence and bloodshed.
It is not that political Islamists do not have answers to these questions. They do. The problem is that their answers are not acceptable to an overwhelming majority of Muslims.
It is not that political Islamists do not have answers to these questions. They do. The problem is that their answers are not acceptable to an overwhelming majority of Muslims.
The modern, interest-based banking system is well-entrenched in many Muslim countries. Poor Muslim nations depend on financial assistance from the United States and other Western nations and financial institutions. They cannot defy them.
Rich Muslim states neither have the desire nor the intellectual depth needed to create an alternative economic system. They are even less willing to share their riches with poorer Muslim countries.
Workers from poor Muslim countries in these rich states are often treated like slaves and return home with a taste of bitterness that remains with them for the rest of their lives.
Middle-class and educated Muslim women are not willing to wear the veil, at least not the type presented by the mullahs and the Islamists, though many cover their heads with scarves.
Both Muslim men and women are addicted to Western-style television shows, films, music and other cultural influences and are unwilling to give them up. They are unwilling to go along with the Islamists or the traditional mullahs, like the Taliban.
They fear that in a Taliban-like state, or the Iranian-style Islamic republic, they will be marginalized and will be forced to accept an orthodox version of Islam that they do not believe in.
Muslims have become so used to the modern nation-states, many of them will put up a fight if forced to give up their Pakistani, Afghan, Syrian or Algerian identities in return for a new identity introduced by the likes of bin Laden or Mullah Omar.
Rich Muslim states are not likely to abolish visas and open their doors to poorer Muslims just because Islamists want them to do so.
Posted by: john frum ||
08/22/2007 11:08 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#1
Workers from poor Muslim countries in these rich states are often treated like slaves and return home with a taste of bitterness that remains with them for the rest of their lives.
Many Indian and Pakistani Muslims have discovered that their Arab hosts consider them second rate Muslims, because they are not Arab. The shock of being at the bottom of the heap, way below kaffir westerners for example, in a place like Saudi Arabia, which Muslims are taught to idiolize, can be overwhelming.
Posted by: john frum ||
08/22/2007 11:17 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"Many in the Islamic world believe the Taliban and al-Qaida failed in running Afghanistan because they did not know how to run a modern state."
It is irrelevant whether they know how to run a modern state - they do not DESIRE to run a modern state. Their goal is to run a 7th century feudal theocracy.
#3
The typical Taliban are incapable of running a public toilet, far less a village, a city or a state.
Posted by: john frum ||
08/22/2007 13:31 Comments ||
Top||
#4
And since the 1960s, the movement known as political Islam has not produced any major intellectual.
And neither has the US, at least in the MSM's view of "intellectuals." John you hit the nail on the head in #1...that's a weakness that we need to exploit wholesale. Preach from on high the dangers of Islamic Fundamentalism, not only to Western/Free nations, but to the "other" co-religionists. Pakistani/Indian muslims are virtual slaves in the more 'western' Muslim nations (Dubai comes to mind). They (native African Muslims) are getting slaughtered by the janjaweed in Sudan(Darfur). Heck, we had the latest use of chemical weapons in the 80s during the Iran-Iraq war. All of these are internal sect/race wars that we need to play off each other.
Posted by: BA ||
08/22/2007 19:42 Comments ||
Top||
#5
A veritible goldmine. Where, oh where, to begin:
He said the richest 1 percent of the world earns as much as the bottom 57 percent.
Which is less an indictment of capitalism than it is a blasting of Islamic tribalism.
But Islamic culture itself is a contentious term. Muslims in Iran or South Asia are culturally as different from Arab Muslims as all of them are from Western culture. In fact, all of them have borrowed more from Western culture than they have from one another.
Which stands as irrefutable proof of Western cultures superiority despite all the mental gymnastics and cognitive dissonance that Islam summons forth to explain this away.
Politically, the Islamic world is even more divided. Perhaps the only common factor in more than 50 Muslim nations is that most of them are run by autocratic rulers.
Which takes us right back to that dreadfully inconvenient 57:1 ratio.
And since the 1960s, the movement known as political Islam has not produced any major intellectual.
Which goes a long way towards explaining why Islam is spread more often at gunpoint than by popular word of mouth.
Most Muslims outside -- and many inside -- Iran blame the religious elite that is running the country for creating more problems than they resolve.
Which serves as the template for political Islams leaders everywhere.
How would the rest of the world react to the emergence of a new religious bloc in the world?
High temperature plasma is an answer that readily springs to mind.
Will it lead to a greater jihad against the rest of the world?
Is a frogs ass watertight?
Within an Islamic caliphate, how much power shall the caliph have and how much freedom should be given to its citizens?
Lets just say that, in this case, the 57:1 ratio is off by several orders of magnitude.
Will there be a free media? Can women appear on television and cinema screens? Can there be music in an Islamic state? How would people dress? Will the veil be imposed on women living in an Islamic state, whether they like it or not? Will all men be forced to grow beards?
Why does he ask such silly questions?
It is not that political Islamists do not have answers to these questions. They do. The problem is that their answers are not acceptable to an overwhelming majority of Muslims.
Unfortunately, Islams clerical elite are in far more general agreement about this and, at days end, that is what will finally determine the ummahs dismal fate.
Muslims have become so used to the modern nation-states, many of them will put up a fight if forced to give up their Pakistani, Afghan, Syrian or Algerian identities in return for a new identity introduced by the likes of bin Laden or Mullah Omar.
This is where wingnuts like Ayatollah Khomeini came up with how patriotism is paganism. Remember what he said at Qom in 1980:
We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah, for patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.
This is why Islam is doomed. Any true resurgence of it will require so much destruction of Islamic and Western lands alike that none of the major nuclear superpowers will tolerate any such thing.
#6
All of these are internal sect/race wars that we need to play off each other.
BA, sounds callous on the surface, but it's really not. We need to turn Machiavelli mode on. Blowbacks? Maybe, but I suspect it'll be a child's play in comparison if we get stuck in the see-no-evil mode.
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.
