KanoOnline.com Forum

Greetings to all,

Zimbabwen's enigmatic election issue has been for long a matter of discussion, one of the world most top stories, etc on numerous media around the world. This results to heated arguments among many comentators. But yet, this has not make the issue of any value to be discussed here. That really left me astounded.

Today, despite the shortage of my time, I decided to open a new thread, of few lines, concerning this. My questions are:

1- What do you think/know really is happening there?
2- Why the election result hadn't been announced for such a long time?
3- Do you think Mugabe (and his ZANU PF party) really won the votes the   electoral commission says he won?
4- Why US and EU countries have such a palpable interest in this election?
5- Don't you think this MDC candidate (Morgan Changa...) is just Western karen farauta?
6- etc and xnks.

The nation of Islam Leader, Minister Louis Farrakhan made a statement in his St. Savior's day speech that I  totally agree with. What he said was that the media, (especially the white media) can build you up and can totally destroy you. This is why many people are so distrustful of anything they read in the papers. The media can make a good person look wicked as well as make a wicked person look good.

When I look at the Zimbabwean situation, I see nothing but Western participation in all that has gone wrong there. President Mugabe used to be hailed as a leading African statesman by African and Western media. They always treated him with a degree of respect internationally. I also think Mugabe should have served his time, and quite honestly left office so others could carry on. African leaders unfortunately think they are traditional leaders that have come to stay for good. They fail to understand that democracy does not exactly work that way. But the problem with Mugabe really began with him repossessing farmlands that belonged to White farmers. In his land redistribution act, Mugabe reportedly redistributed lands seized from whites but rather than transfer them to black farmers, his corrupt associates that neither had farming experience nor owned Agricultural capital to maintain the food production output prior to the seizure became the beneficiaries. Of course, this single act of effrontery caught the eye of America and Britain who subsequently imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe. From that point on, the international White media turned sharply against Mugabe. They've imposed all kinds of Sanctions on Zimbabwe all aimed at crippling that country so that its people may rise up and topple Mugabe's administration.

This is the game that America and her Western allies have played for so long. They'll tie a noose around the neck of an African country or any other country where their interest was at stake until the leadership of that country refuses to comply with their policy. At that point, that non compliant country or its leaders had better watch out because they've just started a fight for their lives. They'll use all weapons at their disposal to destabilize that nation often beginning with negative propaganda. That part of the war is always very effective in assuring their own citizens that the person they were going after was indeed a bad person deserving of serious punishment. So negative campaign is often the initial ammunition. They control all the major international media outlets so that kind of propaganda has a way of reaching all kinds of audiences.  When negative propaganda begins to wear off its desired effect, the next round of ammunition is sanctions. Once America sanctioned Zimbabwe, copy cat Britain followed suit like a follow-follow monkey. If all else really fails, and they are serious about achieving their objective because it is central to their self interest, you better believe they will put some 'assets' together to remove the obstacle. If that would appear to be too implicating, then they'll sponsor a local uprising, usually a rebel force or an 'opposition leader' to square off in an 'election' against the individual and individuals they want to eliminate from power.

I have no idea who won the damn election, but Mugabe is now like a bear that has been backed into a corner and has no other alternative but to fight back. Changarai may well be a western puppet funded and supported by the West to further destabilize the country. This was a country that was quite progressive in Africa and had a lot of positives going just a few years ago.

I think it is time Africans in African really start understanding the games America and its Western allies play. African leaders are just puppets at the bottom of an apron string being dangled around, and until they open their eyes, bind closely together, and assume their responsibilities in earnest, they'll never be free of foreign control and colonialism.

I think it was just last week that a report surfaced in the paper about abuse suffered by some Nigerian passengers of British Airways. That wasn't the first time British Airways or other foreign airlines have assaulted Nigerian passengers. The irresponsible Nigerian government have always been spineless in taking a tough stance whenever the welfare and dignity of its citizens was threatened. The BA treatment angered many Nigerians at home and abroad, and many called for a boycott of British Airways. While I share their outrage, I think the real responsibility lies with our government. Europeans will always abuse and mistreat Nigerians because of the way our leaders treats its citizens. Our leaders abuse Nigerians when they embezzle billions of dollars and deposit the money in personal bank accounts while poverty and hunger spirals out of control in the country. It is an abuse on Nigerians, when our President, governors, Senators, etc, have to run to Germany and other EU countries for medical attention while neglecting to build and equip hospitals so that ailing Nigerians can access better health care and live more fulfilling lives. It is an abuse when Obasanjo and his cronies squander away 16 billion dollars under the pretext of  procuring reliable energy source, yet 9 years later, power supply is worse off than it was prior to his administration. It is an abuse on Nigerians for a party like PDP and its members to squander with impunity the resources of the nation without any consequence.

With all the governmental waste and misappropriation of finances, we could have done much better. If Obasanjo's government had thought of spending $4 billion on ordering new planes for a reinvented Nigerian Airways fleet, we could have had at least 30 brand new planes servicing domestic and continental routes. I actually checked with Boeing sales division, and it cost between $47$-$55 million to order and deliver a brand new Boeing 737 which is one of the most popularly used domestic carriers in all airline fleets. $1.5 billion will buy us at least 25 of these. Another $1.5 billion will buy us 10 Boeing 767 which is larger than the 737 and has a much longer range. These are good trans continental aircrafts and investing in these airlines could put people back to work, put the fun back in traveling, create a ease in air travel, and most of all ensure safety.
But our government would never think along these lines of action. Then poor Nigerians are left at the mercy of racist establishments like British Airways because we do not have a Nigerian airliner traveling the same route like BA so that at least they have an option and not put up with airlines that disrespect them despite shelling out tons of their hard earned money in outrageous air fare.

To show just how contemptuous British Airways White staffers are of Nigerians, when the Federal government postured ignorantly by summoning them to a meeting to address the mistreatment of Nigerian passengers, only the indigenous Nigerian employees of the airline showed up. The airline's senior white staffers never bordered to honor the summons. Does that not show their disdain for Nigerians and the Nigerian government? Not surprising, nothing happened as usual. A right thinking government would have immediately sanctioned the airline and banned them from further operations in Nigeria until damages were paid to the aggrieved passengers and additional fines paid to the government. Worst case scenario, BA pulls out of Nigeria if they really can. When exactly is Nigeria going to learn to flex some political muscle and damn the consequence? When is Nigeria going to grow balls and learn to stand up to defend her honor? As much as I criticize some Arab actions, I respect them because they never take a punch lying down. British Airways would never in a million years have treated an Arab or Arabs like they treated those Nigerian passengers. And if they do, they better well gear up for a chilling reaction.

The truth is we have spineless leaders. First off, they are not even leaders in the first place, but rogues. 90% of them have never been exposed to extended association with Westerners, so they have no idea how Westerners think, or operate. If anything, most of our people are so thrilled of white people even if those white people are acting in ways detrimental to their self interest, and that is that slave or colonial   mentality still at play. If we kick British Airways out of Nigeria, where in this World would they make up that market share they've lost? Nigerians travel by the thousands to and from England, and same for elsewhere. If that patronage disappears, it will impact them immediately. Reputable airlines here in America are folding up, declaring bankruptcies, or as a last resort, merging to prevent going under. World economy is tough for the aviation industry right now due to rising fuel cost, union actions, maintenance cost, and recession in America and rising cost of living in Europe. So for British Airways to act so irresponsibly with Nigerian passengers, and not worry about losing market share in a promising route indicates that they know Nigeria and Nigerians so well. Meaning they can mistreat our people, disregard a government summon, and most importantly, get away with it.

bro, you really try no be small, you no be lazy writer.  You
have extensively identified the issues and from what i see,
i doubt if the government and the rich people will ever get
to understand the situation the way we are viewing it, and
this is not unconnected to the type of investment these
groups of people invested in the white man's land.  So many
deals involving white man has been uncovered in Nigeria,
however, the case always die an artificial one.

God Save Us.

The British airways case makes me want to throw up.
It was so humiliating.The person was handcuffed,slammed on the wall and made to sit down on the airport ground just for begging the British police to lessen the molestation/force they were using on a Nigerian that was about to be deported.

For that all the 165 passengers were rudely asked to leave the airplane.
This same airline is known for loosing Nigerian passengers luggage and when you complain you are rudely attended to and when you show them you will take the matter to court they offer you $130 take or leave.Yet Nigeria(the state) and Nigerians still treat the airline like it is doing us a favour.....mtssssssssss  >:( >:(

I'd written a very long reply earlier on but my system went off. Or more rightly the power (NEPA) went off. Ok. Let me re-write few more lines.

As already acclaimed by DB, your words King are really on the good track. You have, to sum it up, said everything. Wallahi to be frank, I envy you and wish I could write as constructive,  comprehensive and extensive piece like this. Keep it up.


I'll, when I get back, write my further reaction to the whole issues discussed. Xanks you all.

World leaders reject Mugabe's election

TOYAKO, Japan (AP) — World leaders are rejecting the legitimacy of Robert Mugabe's election in Zimbabwe and have called for officials in that country to work for a prompt, peaceful resolution of the political crisis.

Leaders of the Group of Eight industrial powers, meeting in Japan, expressed grave concern about Zimbabwe. Violence and intimidation there prompted the opposition candidate to pull out of the race with Mugabe.

G-8 leaders say they will take financial and other measures against those people responsible for violence.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jzOLJ6vIlQLnsT7D9vQd0WjmLolAD91PNQRG1

Quote from: King on May 05, 2008, 05:18:12 AM
The nation of Islam Leader, Minister Louis Farrakhan made a statement in his St. Savior's day speech that I  totally agree with. What he said was that the media, (especially the white media) can build you up and can totally destroy you. This is why many people are so distrustful of anything they read in the papers. The media can make a good person look wicked as well as make a wicked person look good.

When I look at the Zimbabwean situation, I see nothing but Western participation in all that has gone wrong there. President Mugabe used to be hailed as a leading African statesman by African and Western media. They always treated him with a degree of respect internationally. I also think Mugabe should have served his time, and quite honestly left office so others could carry on. African leaders unfortunately think they are traditional leaders that have come to stay for good. They fail to understand that democracy does not exactly work that way. But the problem with Mugabe really began with him repossessing farmlands that belonged to White farmers. In his land redistribution act, Mugabe reportedly redistributed lands seized from whites but rather than transfer them to black farmers, his corrupt associates that neither had farming experience nor owned Agricultural capital to maintain the food production output prior to the seizure became the beneficiaries. Of course, this single act of effrontery caught the eye of America and Britain who subsequently imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe. From that point on, the international White media turned sharply against Mugabe. They've imposed all kinds of Sanctions on Zimbabwe all aimed at crippling that country so that its people may rise up and topple Mugabe's administration.

This is the game that America and her Western allies have played for so long. They'll tie a noose around the neck of an African country or any other country where their interest was at stake until the leadership of that country refuses to comply with their policy. At that point, that non compliant country or its leaders had better watch out because they've just started a fight for their lives. They'll use all weapons at their disposal to destabilize that nation often beginning with negative propaganda. That part of the war is always very effective in assuring their own citizens that the person they were going after was indeed a bad person deserving of serious punishment. So negative campaign is often the initial ammunition. They control all the major international media outlets so that kind of propaganda has a way of reaching all kinds of audiences.  When negative propaganda begins to wear off its desired effect, the next round of ammunition is sanctions. Once America sanctioned Zimbabwe, copy cat Britain followed suit like a follow-follow monkey. If all else really fails, and they are serious about achieving their objective because it is central to their self interest, you better believe they will put some 'assets' together to remove the obstacle. If that would appear to be too implicating, then they'll sponsor a local uprising, usually a rebel force or an 'opposition leader' to square off in an 'election' against the individual and individuals they want to eliminate from power.

I have no idea who won the damn election, but Mugabe is now like a bear that has been backed into a corner and has no other alternative but to fight back. Changarai may well be a western puppet funded and supported by the West to further destabilize the country. This was a country that was quite progressive in Africa and had a lot of positives going just a few years ago.

I think it is time Africans in African really start understanding the games America and its Western allies play. African leaders are just puppets at the bottom of an apron string being dangled around, and until they open their eyes, bind closely together, and assume their responsibilities in earnest, they'll never be free of foreign control and colonialism.

I think it was just last week that a report surfaced in the paper about abuse suffered by some Nigerian passengers of British Airways. That wasn't the first time British Airways or other foreign airlines have assaulted Nigerian passengers. The irresponsible Nigerian government have always been spineless in taking a tough stance whenever the welfare and dignity of its citizens was threatened. The BA treatment angered many Nigerians at home and abroad, and many called for a boycott of British Airways. While I share their outrage, I think the real responsibility lies with our government. Europeans will always abuse and mistreat Nigerians because of the way our leaders treats its citizens. Our leaders abuse Nigerians when they embezzle billions of dollars and deposit the money in personal bank accounts while poverty and hunger spirals out of control in the country. It is an abuse on Nigerians, when our President, governors, Senators, etc, have to run to Germany and other EU countries for medical attention while neglecting to build and equip hospitals so that ailing Nigerians can access better health care and live more fulfilling lives. It is an abuse when Obasanjo and his cronies squander away 16 billion dollars under the pretext of  procuring reliable energy source, yet 9 years later, power supply is worse off than it was prior to his administration. It is an abuse on Nigerians for a party like PDP and its members to squander with impunity the resources of the nation without any consequence.

With all the governmental waste and misappropriation of finances, we could have done much better. If Obasanjo's government had thought of spending $4 billion on ordering new planes for a reinvented Nigerian Airways fleet, we could have had at least 30 brand new planes servicing domestic and continental routes. I actually checked with Boeing sales division, and it cost between $47$-$55 million to order and deliver a brand new Boeing 737 which is one of the most popularly used domestic carriers in all airline fleets. $1.5 billion will buy us at least 25 of these. Another $1.5 billion will buy us 10 Boeing 767 which is larger than the 737 and has a much longer range. These are good trans continental aircrafts and investing in these airlines could put people back to work, put the fun back in traveling, create a ease in air travel, and most of all ensure safety.
But our government would never think along these lines of action. Then poor Nigerians are left at the mercy of racist establishments like British Airways because we do not have a Nigerian airliner traveling the same route like BA so that at least they have an option and not put up with airlines that disrespect them despite shelling out tons of their hard earned money in outrageous air fare.

To show just how contemptuous British Airways White staffers are of Nigerians, when the Federal government postured ignorantly by summoning them to a meeting to address the mistreatment of Nigerian passengers, only the indigenous Nigerian employees of the airline showed up. The airline's senior white staffers never bordered to honor the summons. Does that not show their disdain for Nigerians and the Nigerian government? Not surprising, nothing happened as usual. A right thinking government would have immediately sanctioned the airline and banned them from further operations in Nigeria until damages were paid to the aggrieved passengers and additional fines paid to the government. Worst case scenario, BA pulls out of Nigeria if they really can. When exactly is Nigeria going to learn to flex some political muscle and damn the consequence? When is Nigeria going to grow balls and learn to stand up to defend her honor? As much as I criticize some Arab actions, I respect them because they never take a punch lying down. British Airways would never in a million years have treated an Arab or Arabs like they treated those Nigerian passengers. And if they do, they better well gear up for a chilling reaction.

The truth is we have spineless leaders. First off, they are not even leaders in the first place, but rogues. 90% of them have never been exposed to extended association with Westerners, so they have no idea how Westerners think, or operate. If anything, most of our people are so thrilled of white people even if those white people are acting in ways detrimental to their self interest, and that is that slave or colonial   mentality still at play. If we kick British Airways out of Nigeria, where in this World would they make up that market share they've lost? Nigerians travel by the thousands to and from England, and same for elsewhere. If that patronage disappears, it will impact them immediately. Reputable airlines here in America are folding up, declaring bankruptcies, or as a last resort, merging to prevent going under. World economy is tough for the aviation industry right now due to rising fuel cost, union actions, maintenance cost, and recession in America and rising cost of living in Europe. So for British Airways to act so irresponsibly with Nigerian passengers, and not worry about losing market share in a promising route indicates that they know Nigeria and Nigerians so well. Meaning they can mistreat our people, disregard a government summon, and most importantly, get away with it.

Oh, for the love of Mike, King!  You spout such nonsense sometimes!  What did you study in school - Victimization Studies??

That poor, poor tyrant Mugabe.  The Americans and Brits have this worldwide conspiracy to make the old coot look bad.  What a helpless victim he is!

Let me quote from one of the foremost authorities on Zimbabwe:

"President Mugabe used to be hailed as a leading African statesman by African and Western media. They always treated him with a degree of respect internationally. I also think Mugabe should have served his time, and quite honestly left office so others could carry on. African leaders unfortunately think they are traditional leaders that have come to stay for good. They fail to understand that democracy does not exactly work that way. But the problem with Mugabe really began with him repossessing farmlands that belonged to White farmers. In his land redistribution act, Mugabe reportedly redistributed lands seized from whites but rather than transfer them to black farmers, his corrupt associates that neither had farming experience nor owned Agricultural capital to maintain the food production output prior to the seizure became the beneficiaries."

Well this balanced view shows what an old, corrupt tyrant he is.  Who wrote this?  YOU DID, King, right above this post.  The result is that Harare and other cities of any size are complete basket cases, inflation is over 900%, and food production has fallen through the floor.  This wasn't just some silly fancy that hurt just a few - the entire economy of the country is in serious jeopardy from this redistribution program.  He's clearly a danger to the other economies of Africa and should be isolated and removed like a cancerous tumor by all Africans, but what do you do?  You say that this is a "conspiracy" cooked up by the "white media."  Are you nuts?  This is a great example of the politically correct group think I've seen expressed in this forum.  White man bad!  Black man good!  You even go so far as to quote Minister Farrakahn, that racist anti-Semite old Nazi.  You remind me of Mr. Waziri on this board, quoting David Duke of the Ku Klux Klan to make a point. 

If you knew anything about the media in the West, you'd know that they're pretty independent of the government.  To suggest that they cooperate with the government, or even each other, is the height of naivete.  But if you believe that this is some sort of conspiracy, just what is it you claim they're making up?  The inflation numbers?  The facts you cite yourself (above)?  Don't you want the West to do something about Mugabe?  You guys don't seem to be able or willing to get rid of the guy. 

And to prove your "thesis," you bring up this stupid British Airways incident.  There's few countries more "politically correct" than Britain today, so what you describe must be the actions and decisions of a few employees of the company.  Don't try to paint the entire island with such a broad brush.  They even have laws outlawing "hate speech."  Good grief.  That's why I love living in the US - we have a constitution that protects speech explicitly.  (And guns, apparently.  Ain't that great, huh, Dave?)

Back to work.  Jack

Jack, if I know anything about the media in the west? I recall you using this same 'know all' attitude in a previous exchange between you and Husnna when you began bragging of your vast knowledge of World cultures. I was impressed how Husnna put you in your place by stating categorically that she has lived in more continents/countries than you have, and as such has more knowledge of cross cultural issues, and more exposure to people of other backgrounds than you. So I am getting really bored by your ridiculous chest thumping already. Why don't we just argue the facts? How about it Jack?

Yea the media in the West are so independent. Who is being naive here? Is Fox News Network independent? Is Fox not a conservative media outlet that is pro White house and by extension, the mouthpiece of the Republican Party? Does Fox not consistently present favorable reporting of the administration and in fact, go a great length to demonize opponents of the White house on any policy issue especially the War?

You keep going back to Mugabe, but whenever I remind you of the evils of your people, you become defensive. Why? Guilty conscience? I ask you again, if the farmers whose land President Mugabe repossessed were black, would America and Britain give a crap? Of course not. The only reason why America and their sidekick, the UK are all up in arms about Zimbabwe is because Mugabe had the audacity to dispossess WHITE farmers of land in Africa. (Land that was unjustly taken away from the natives in the first place). If America and Britain were so concerned about the plight of Africans, explain to me why the same level of sanctions and condemnation has not been imposed on Sudan? Which country is in greater crisis? Sudan or Zimbabwe? There are 2 million displaced people in Darfur. Several other thousands have been raped and killed and the crisis continues till this very day with full knowledge of America and the west, yet in their hypocrisy, they ignore that humanitarian crisis and focus their attention on Zimbabwe.

In the other thread, you spoke about people taking responsibility. This is the line that people like you like to toe. All of a sudden you demand responsibility from others, but when have you and your people taken responsibility for anything? In 1961, after Congo had  attained independence, the CIA and the Belgian authorities (Congo's former colonial Masters) plotted to assassinate Lumumba because they found him to be a 'threat'. The threat was that Lumumba was open to some communist ideals and preferred a more socialist system of administering the new republic. They of course killed Patrice Lumumba at 35 and imposed the dumb despot, Mobutu. With the support and assistance of the West, Mobutu remained in power for over three decades and within that span of time, plundered and destroyed Congo's economy which we all know has vast resources. Today, Congo is a mess and meshed in all kinds of conflicts that cannot be resolved. Who created that monster and what responsibility of your people taken?

To cap off your rabid rantings, you jump on the Farakkhan bashing. What do you all fear Minister Farakkhan so much? You call him an anti semite, anti white, anti everything. This is exactly what I said earlier of how the media can paint a good person bad and a bad one good. I also said the media brainwashes a large segment of the illiterate American population that are so lazy to think for themselves but rely on propaganda machines like Fox to form an opinion for them. What makes Farakkhan an anti semite? You are repeating the same useless sound bite that only ignorant and guilty people choose to believe because in a strange and twisted way, it soothes their guilt. Is Farakkhan anti semitic because he criticizes the Jews when they in fact deserve criticism? This is the typical white nature that I alluded to. It is ok for you to condemn others, but when someone returns the favor, oh, he/she is racist, anti semitic, etc. If Farakkhan is anti semitic, then Jesus Christ must have been a great anti semite as well don't you think? Afterall, he called the pharisees, "brood of vipers". He called them evil doers. He called them a stiff necked people and an abominable generation. So was Jesus anti Semitic? A yes or no answer will do just fine.

Sometimes, I just find it strange when a White person accuses a black person of racism. Jack, I have gone back to check Farakkhan's background and this is what I know. I know he did not bring Slaves from Africa to work on plantations in America. I know he did not establish Jim Crow. I know he did not create segregation. I know he did not "create separate but equal". I know he has never hung a white man from a tree and neither has he burnt crosses on the front lawn of your father or any other White man's house. I know he hasn't raped any white women. I also know he does not control the justice system that is anything but just. I also know that when Nelson Mandela was illegally incarcerated some members of the senate voted for a resolution calling on his release, Farakkhan was not against it. I know that when the Jews were being slaughtered in Germany, Farakkhan was not responsible, other white people were. So explain to me, how Minister Farakkhan happens to be racist when everything I have listed up there are crimes that WHITE people have committed against minorities.

Now, about what I want the West to do about Mugabe? For starters you all should mind your damn business and stay the hell out of African affairs. If you all have nothing else to do, go after Iran or go find Bin Laden for all I care. If that is still does not quench your appetite for conflict, go after Hezbollah and all the other groups you've labeled terrorist organizations. Does that answer your question? This is the same arrogance that African Americans have to deal with in America. White folks always wanting to choose the friends of black people. The minute black people gather in an event and invite someone that makes White America uncomfortable, paranoia sets in. They begin withdrawing support for black businesses that co-sponsored the event. is that any different from sanctions that we see imposed on regimes in Africa and other places that oppose American policy? Nonsense!!!!! A time is coming when these sanctions will mean nothing. Iran has dared you to pile sanctions on them for the next 100 years if you like. Mugabe has called your bluff, and your sanctions hasn't done shit. What next Jack?

I have news for you Jack. If America continues on this path, she will go down. she's already going down because of useless policies that aim to dominate, destroy, and sow seeds of discord around the World. But that being said, majority of white people that share your philosophy, are plain devils. I mean no disrespect, but I know people like you very well. You are a carbon copy of Fox's Sean Hannity. Are you guys related by any chance? 

Well, King, my recollection of the exchange with Husnaa was to explain that I didn't live in America's midwest, but instead live on California's coast.  I claimed that my upbringing in Los Angeles was very multicultural, and that my life in San Francisco is the same.  I don't remember talking about living on several continents, and neither talked about our knowledge of cross cultural issues.  And I'd suggest that if you're bored, you take up a hobby. 

Fox is very much independent of the government.  I don't know how old you are, but during the 1990s Fox news was constantly critical of the Clinton administration.  Many of the commentators on Fox have a political viewpoint, as do the commentators on MSNBC or CNN, and they are all independent of the government, as you well know.  To conveniently point to Fox during a relatively conservative administration, and say that their agreement with that administration is "proof" that the media in the US is not independent is just dishonest.  I think we're one of the few countries without a state-owned and operated media (like the BBC).  (Medium?  Which is it Husnaa?)  Who runs the news service in Nigeria?  The BBC?  How independent are your news sources?  Can you get all the news you want on the internet?  Are some sites blocked?  Do you know if they are?  In the US we are awash in news sources, all competing for our attention.  The government doesn't close down newspapers.  The closest thing they do to "control" the news is they release daily news stories that are written as though a reporter wrote them.  Sometimes some lazy reporter just copies them for his own newspaper, but this is rare.

It's funny you say that Fox is the "mouthpiece of the Republicans."  It's conservative commentators hate McCain, and many don't like Bush much.  They're very ideological and hate practical politicians.

BTW, King, these are "the facts."  Just in case you don't recognize them.

As for Mugabe, the reason the US and Britain responded so negatively to his redistribution scheme was because he was stealing property and giving it to others.  We had the same reaction to Castro when he did it in Cuba, and to Hugo Chavez as he's trying to do in Venezuela.  This has nothing to do with black and white - it has to do with stealing private property by the state.  This is something that happened under feudalism and the US Constitution prohibits this explicitly (they can't take my property without the courts getting into the process and, if it's for a good reason, they have to compensate me for it).  We believe that ownership of assets gives the owners an incentive to take care of it and use it productively.  If Mugabe had simply taken the property and transferred it to farmers with skills and experience (regardless of race), we might not have reacted much.  But he gave the farms to his relatives and political cronies who just ruined them because they apparently didn't know how to run them.  I would hope that Africans would oppose Mugabe on this, because it affects them through the overall economy.  What I see, however, are speeches about "white devils" and "white media" which completely ignore the economic realities of what's happening in Zimbabwe today.  As for Sudan, we boycott trade from Sudan, have officially stated that the government is committing genocide, and are working with others in Europe to impose further sanctions.  Darfur is the subject of much government as well as private charity work from the US.  I'd like to see more (like take out the fascist government there - but I'm sure you'd squeal like a pig about how the US has no right to do such things)(in fact, you say later in your post that you want us to "stay the **** out of African affairs.  Make up your mind, King.  Do you want our help or not?  Ask a refugee in Darfur whether they'd like to send that rice back to Nebraska)  You're wrong that Sudan is being ignored here - in fact I hear much more about Sudan in the US press than I hear about Zimbabwe (except for the recent elections, of course).

To suggest that the US created the mess in Congo is just another one of your "blame everyone else for my bad decisions" policy.  We don't even know who exactly caused Lumumba's death - a lot of factions wanted him dead, not just the CIA.  But even if it's true the CIA killed him, that was 47 years ago.  Why don't Africans just stand up, take care of business, work hard, and bulid a successful economy?  There's plenty of resources to work with.  Instead of sitting around and grousing about those "white devils" who did your daddy dirt, build roads and sewage treatment plants and power plants and hospitals and schools and work hard on your farms and factories and build a country that is known for its quality products.  Look at the Japanese - we bombed the goose liver out of those people but they just got up the next morning and went back to work.  Maybe they work a little too hard sometimes, but they're doing just fine, thank you.  My wife and I own a Honda and a Suburu car and just love them.  Why doesn't Nigeria build products like that?  They have plenty of resources and a large workforce.  Is everything just stolen by its leaders?  Do something about it.  We threw the British (and Dave) out - throw the rascals out.

As for Farrakhan, I don't fear the creep, but I certainly don't respect him.  His "victimization" rantings, blaming everyone from the white media devils to those horrid Joooooos and Zionists, instead of simply looking in the mirror, is tiresome and certainly harmful to African Americans trying to become part of the middle class.  He actually says that working hard and becomming part of the "system" is wrong, not because it doesn't work, but because it drains efforts from his own pet projects.  Michelle Obama has said pretty much the same thing.  The problem with all this is that, since I was a kid (about 1387) the percentage of blacks in the US who have become part of the middle class has skyrocketed.  Farrakhan and Sharpton and Jackson really don't like this development because they get most of their support from poor, uneducated blacks, and they see them leaving every day.  Some blacks even join the Republicans (horrors!).  As a lifelong Democrat, I'm pretty amused by this.

Farrakhan is anti-Semitic because he blames Jews for being part of whitey's conspiracy against black people.  This isn't even a close call for that jerk.  And I'd like to hear what others think about your absurd question about whether Jesus was anti-Semitic because he disliked the Pharisees.  How silly can you be?  Jesus WAS a Jew.  If Farrakhan is a reasonable guy and can be proved to be not anti-Semitic, why doesn't Obama embrace him and his organization?  Farrakhan has said so much in his life in order to appeal to the anti-Semites among the African Americans that he is extremely vulnerable to political attack here.

And yes, blacks can be racists.  In Los Angeles they seemed to hate the Asians who moved in, bought small stores and shops, and made successful lives for their families.  And at my high school there were fights between blacks and hispanics - racism on both sides in that conflict.  Farrakhan didn't bring slaves over, but neither did I.  My ancestors had nothing to do with that sordid business.  Slavery was very common throughout the world in the 16th and 17th centuries, but my people were scratching out a living in the dirt in what became Austria and the Czech Republic areas.  Slavery was also practiced in Africa back then, by the way.  This was just another way to get the work done, I guess, and people seemed to think that this was pretty legitimate until some Christian sects started asking questions about the morality of this tradition.  Your facts regarding Farrakhan's innocence regarding that cross burned on my dad's lawn are pretty silly, don't you think?  Are you saying that, because other people have done racist things, and Louis wasn't there, he's not a racist?  I think you need to sit down with Aristotle and check your line of reasoning.

And don't worry about America.  I have no idea what you mean by "going down," but it's doing just fine.  The underlying philosophy represented by the country has its roots in the Enlightenment, which emphasizes the power of individuals who are left to freely act in their own interests.  This means the power of the church and the government to make decisions for individuals should be limited.  These institutions should be used only to facilitate the actions and the will of the people.  If these principles are violated, as they are daily in Iran, for example, the US will object and "sow seeds of discord" to use your wording.  And I want my government to do this.  The best way to spread its way of life is to continue to be the large economy and driving force it has been during the 20th century.  If you have a better way, let's see what you can do.  Can you produce better than us?  Can you work harder than us?  I frankly haven't seen it.  Is this arrogance on my part?  Maybe, but you must grant me that there's some underlying truth to what I say, King.

And BTW, I notice you have a habit of swearing on the board.  I found out several years ago that this is insulting to the people of Kano.  I'm no angel, heaven knows, but I'd suggest you try to avoid such strong wording if you can.  Just a suggestion...back to work for me.   Hope you're not as hot in Nigeria as we are in San Francisco - over 100 degrees F today!  Whew!  My dogs are just sitting around panting like crazy.  I'll be next.  Jack

"As for Mugabe, the reason the US and Britain responded so negatively to his redistribution scheme was because he was stealing property and giving it to others".

Jack, do you know how ridiculous this sounds? Do you know how ridiculous you sound now? What crap!!!! Since when did the US and Britain care about who steals what in Africa? Get real buddy!!! There is a small African country called Equatorial Guinea. Exxon Mobile is engaged in on/off shore drilling in that country of 3 million people. In a deal signed with Equatorial Guinea, Exxon Mobile controls 70% of all oil revenue while the country gets 30%. This country despite its oil wealth is riddled with abject poverty, while the President, Mr. Obieng loots the treasury and hands out whatever is left to his cronies. CNN did an investigative report on this issue last year, when they challenged Exxon Mobile executives to explain the sucker deal they crafted which impoverishes millions of people in the tiny West African country. Of course they became combative. Not just that. President Obieng has attended a few White house dinners on the invitation of President Bush. so here is one criminal stooge that's stealing money from the people and enriching himself, but he's friend and does not draw condemnation from the West. Go figure.

The other thing, remember Mobutu? Did me manage Congo's wealth and economy with any ounce of fiscal accountability? NO!!! Why didn't the US and the West react to his leadership negatively?
You speak from sides of your mouth. At least I am consistent in calling a spade a spade regardless of what language I use or how strongly I express myself.

Going back to Farakkhan, why dodge the question I asked? If Farakkhan is anti semitic for what you claim he said about Jews and whites, was Jesus anti semitic also? The way I read it in the Bible, Jesus used some very choice words to rebuke and repudiate his fellow Jewish people. Was/is he anti semitic?

Quote from: Muhsin on May 06, 2008, 11:14:04 AM
I'd written a very long reply earlier on but my system went off. Or more rightly the power (NEPA) went off. Ok. Let me re-write few more lines.

muhsin, I have heard this excuse from you so many times on yr posts.  If you have nothing to say, dont write an excuse

Quote from: Jack Fulcher
As for Mugabe, the reason the US and Britain responded so negatively to his redistribution scheme was because he was stealing property and giving it to others.  We had the same reaction to Castro when he did it in Cuba, and to Hugo Chavez as he's trying to do in Venezuela.  This has nothing to do with black and white - it has to do with stealing private property by the state.  This is something that happened under feudalism and the US Constitution prohibits this explicitly (they can't take my property without the courts getting into the process and, if it's for a good reason, they have to compensate me for it).  We believe that ownership of assets gives the owners an incentive to take care of it and use it productively.  If Mugabe had simply taken the property and transferred it to farmers with skills and experience (regardless of race), we might not have reacted much.

Lol Jack how can one steal what belonged to one originally? Wasnt it rather the whites who went and STOLE from the Africans? What was a white man doing becoming a farmer in Africa? if it werent for the fact that we grew up and found this situation as a matter of fact, we would consider it grossly incongruous, dont you think so? At any rate, the issue of Mugabe's redistribution of the land did make me feel this incongruity (of Africa's 'indigenous' - what a laugh - white farmers). I applauded what he did actually. You said that if Mugabe had given it to skilled farmers with experience you (the white ppl, presumably) wouldnt have reacted so much.
This is making me think. when u said skilled farmers, are u referring to white farmers or black farmers? And when you refer to skill and experience, are you referring to the skill and experience of the way the white farmers practice cultivation or are u referring to the skill and experience of the way the African farmer practices cultivation. The African farmer is a small scale entrepreneur when it comes to farming but he still manages to get the job done and in the process feed himself and host of others, and even sell his produce nationally and internationally. Therefore your take on giving to skilled and experienced ppl depends on whom you mean. Both sets are differently skilled and have different experiences.
The problem lies in the fact that the white farmers look down on the African farmers' way of doing things. I have read times with out number, in standard text books about the  offhanded dismissal of the African mode of farming; how it was considered as wasteful and not in line with the large scale agricultural practices of the west, and yet these small scale farmers are responsible for the vast quantities of the market produce one finds in the African markets. The white farmer grew exotic crops on the land like coffee beans as  export products which required intensive capital outlay and manpower, something beyond the reach of the indigenous African farmer.  Therefore if the African farmer after getting what rightfully belonged to him in the first instance could not cope because he needed to employ labour and pay wages and invest in infrastructure and machinery as well as deal with an ecologically modified landscape, then who is to blame him if he is not succesful in carrying on where the white farmer left off? That wasnt his way of doing things was it?. So it wasnt a question of skill and experience, and if it was, as you put it, then it was because the black farmer didnt have sort of skill and experience which you thought mattered but which to the farmer wasnt as important because it wasnt his way of doing things and at any rate if the white farmers had thought of passing their skills to the black farmers instead of just employing many as unskilled labourers, things might have turned out differently.

At any rate, whether skilled or not, what was at stake here was that Mugabe took land from WHITE ppl and gave it to BLACK ppl. That is what Blair and co were all hot around the collar about. It has nothing to do with taking land from skilled personnel and giving it to unskilled personnel. If the African farmers could have turned in 1000% profit on the lands they were given, it wouldnt have made an iota of difference to Blair and his cohorts, because the issue was all about the colors black and white.
Its amazing how amnesia seems to bedevil white ppl. As an African, when I listen to the uproar that this land reallocation has caused amongst the white world leaders, all it does is remind me of the 1888 scramble for Africa, when  whites sat around a large dining table somewhere in Europe with a carving knife and a proverbial roast (Africa) and proceeded to carve it out amongst themselves as if it were virgin territory with no owner. Then they went in and killed whom they will, dispossessed whom they wished and took over what they will, and now 120 yrs later, the true landlords want their lands back and  take it back in almost the same manner as it was filched from them and the pseudo masters complain?  and as for the deteriorated Zimbabwean economy, let the west lift its barbaric economic sanctions and see if the country doesnt recover. For what is considered the sins of a few men, a million men have to suffer, that is how the western world operates and then turns round and blames its repressions on  victimized leaders like Mugabe.
I dont like that Mugabe is clinging to power at any cost, but you westerners make me love him with your whingings and whinings over what is essentially your own bad handiworks.

I'm afraid there is an unfortunate racist tinge to a lot of the careless comment on this topic. I don't like to being considered a racist simply because I'm "white" or a "Westerner".  I knew white and westerner racists but I knew many more who were not racists.
I met many black racists in my time as well and had very many close black friends who were not.

As I wrote recently the rise to power of Mugabe was the direct result of the dense stupidity of Iain Smith and his white supremists. That was then  - over forty years ago.
Nothing that happened in those days excuses any of the brutal and appalling behaviour of Mugabe now.
Morgan Tsvangirai , who was surely clearly elected the president of Zimbabwe, comes across as a man of huge courage, intellect and good judgement and if the contributors of Kano Online can lift their eyes from the comfortable delusion that all of Africa's problems can still be blamed on the "whites" they would see that they have a real hero in this man.

Dave, this is not racism, this is realism. We may all like to be buddy buddy and we are and I personally I am not a racist and YOU are definitely not and for all he may stand for, Jack isnt either, neither is King. But we have to be real. You may not like the tone or the 'careless' way the words whites and westerners are being bandied around here, but its the whites and westerners who are giving Mugabe a tough time arent they? Its they who raised a furor over the land reallocation issue, and ten to one, the western leaders bush and blair and merkel wouldnt have given a horse's butt if the land were annexed from blacks and given to other blacks. That is the reality of the situation. 
As for Mugabe's appalling behavior, as you put it, it is the direct result of the west's meddling in domestic affairs that doesnt concern them. Mugabe was considered alright before the land issue. The west tries to break him now and he is becoming ever so stiff necked as a result.  I support Morgan changirai but I also support Mugabe's redistribution of land to the poor, and I hope that if Changirai ever becomes president, he will rub the noses of Gordon Brown and co in the dust by not giving the lands back.

I agree entirely with all your substantive points but the "West" gave Mugabe a knighthood. The UK Queen made him Sir Robert Mugabe because of his great services to Africa.
That was then and the fact now is he is destroying his own country, has stolen an election by murder and intimidation and is a disgrace to Africa. The "West" has no interest in destroying Zimbabwe. There is nothing for them there and no reason to make Zimbabwe another state in need of food aid. As long as Mugabe can continue to confuse the rest of Africa by repeating all this guff about Western interference the sooner his people will starve. He doesn't care.
And I repeat using the phrase "the whites" to describe the very stupid behaviour of some Western governments in Africa paints us all with the same brush and that is racist.

Fine! If the West has no interest Zimbabwe or in her destruction, then the West should leave the darn country alone and let them sort out their domestic issues themselves. Like Husnna said, we are not racist, but we have to be real. If using the words Whites and racist interchangeably makes you uncomfortable, imagine how it makes us feel when blacks are referred to as Niggers or mud people. Did blacks begin racism towards whites?  Weren't we minding our own business in Africa when the Europeans showed up and began sowing the seeds of destruction? And no, nobody here is delusional Dave. We do not blame the West for all of Africa's problems. In many of our discussions on this site regarding our country and by extension Africa, we've properly assigned blame to our own leaders and our people for many of our shortcomings and failures. However, do not think for a second we would absolve Whites/West for the active role they play in ensuring  Africa's continued under-development and conflicts. Are white people saints? This was why I took issue with Jack when he kept repeating that useless self righteous line about blacks taking responsibility. What responsibility have Whites and the West taken for any of their own atrocities against black people Worldwide? 

Yes, not all whites are racist, but I'll tell you this, White people do not by any means have the same heart as black people. Black people are way too forgiving and forgetful. Do your research. Whenever whites commit injustice against blacks, there is never a consequence to be faced. The usual rhetoric that follows when the injustice supposedly comes to an end, is "reconciliation and the need to move forward". Am I wrong? During the apartheid regime in SA, America and Britain were allies of the evil White government in Pretoria. They were reluctant to sanction or boycott the apartheid government that was clearly committing crimes against Humanity. These are the same two governments that are all up in arms over Mugabe's land redistribution act where no white person was killed or armed. When blacks in South African were being slaughtered, hanged, massacred, these same government were so quick to react. Now you come here to refer to us as delusional. Go figure!!!

I commend Mugabe for digging his heels in and staying put in the face of Western onslaught. Sometimes, poverty and having little can be an asset. When the West impose their so called sanctions on an already impoverished African country where people have been conditioned to adjust to hardship, what exactly can sanctions do? Each night on Fox, BBC, CNN, etc, government officials of both US and Britain are asked by reporters if there's anything else that can be done to Zimbabwe given the fact that sanctions have not achieved its desire effect.

Let me ask you a question Dave. If black people were the ones with power and did all these evil against Whites, would Whites be so quick to forgive, and move on?