Africa: the Prison Continent

page: 12
2
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rebel_Lion
The US government along with others even go abroad and kill people who talk too much. I could go through a list of people who've said/done too much and ended up dead at the hands of the state for it.

Its said that,

''In America they shoot you, in England they assasinate your character''

I'm not sure which is worse.

Tabs are even kept on libary take outs so people don't get too deep. Either that or you get dubbed anti America for not allowing them to commit crimes in your name... i won't go into the arms industry and distubing their sales in the Carribean like Garnett Silk or Bob Marley did... Could post a list... they even killed that scientist over here in the UK, forget his character! The man even left a note saying he'd be found dead in the woods and voila! He was found dead in the woods at the back of his house... Princess Diana?


...I really don't know what to say to this ball of vague accusations. Bob marley died of cancer. Now, unless you're saying the arms industry has power over space, time, and nature your accusations go from vague to plain ridiculous. "that scientist"? I think you're referring to David Kelly , whose death has been ruled a suicide. It's suspicious, yes, but then again it's not exactly Georgi Markov. Diana died in a car accident. I rather believe that since the driver was shown to have had three times the legal blood alcohol limit, and be prescribed antidepressants.


This is an example of you people feeling threatened and standing up for something ie; a system, you don't understand.

I'm Jamaican... if my people heard me talking about how, ''we're all African'' they'd jump me. Those Af' Ricans sold us out and got played by the Europeans afterward. Most of us still don't like them for it. I know what Af' Rica has given to the world and its a whole heap belive me but I'm not on here saying its all good, I just don't stand for it when I see an injustice being commited and look around to notice how I'm surrounded by people who'd rather deny that injustice and play ignorant to it... watching ''my'' people (I haven't traced my heritage yet) starve rather than give them a fair chance.. Ie; Fair Trade. Amongst other things.


I understand the system. I'm not threatened. You, however, claim extremely tenuous links to the Olmecs. Most people with a little anthropology behind them can dissectit with ease. Here's an example: if Africans were in contact with Olmecs, why don't they have similar feats of engineering, or any signs of MesoAmerican influence on their technology? Why don't the Olmecs have any signs of the ability to work iron, like the Africans had? How about the bow and arrow, which might have led to the survival of their civilization?

I see plenty of injustice, most of it African on African, Jamaican on Jamaican, etc. Fair trade won't do anything put funnel more money into the pockets of folks like Mugabe.


Yes I know that, The Olmecs were there before that and shared knowledge with the Incas and Amer-indians. A people we consider to be our brothers. Back then it was about Knowledge, they shared, it wasn't about money and materialism. The Pagans are another bunch who would agree. Which is why theres so many theories as to what changed in the world. David icke and what not... not that I belive in his stuff.


The Olmecs were natives, not Westerners. They weren't from Africa. So, how can you consider these people your 'brothers'? Is it based on the tenuous works of an africa-centrist?

Back then, knowledge was survival. It wasn't shared. You learned about iron when an iron sword shattered your bronze shield. You learned about gunpowder when an enemy blew down your castle walls with cannon. The Pagans? Which ones, specifically? because, as I recall, pagans killed each other over the same things everyone did back then. Celts killed Celts over territory. Iroquois fought Hurons. Everything was not hunky-dory amongsts the pagans or anyone else for no reason.


Again, you're talking to a Jamaican here.

You feel threatened and with my readings into psycology i can tell its you thats getting hairy. I have a reason to. I only took your quote as my sig to piss you off, its all part of the debate man. You're on here talking abut a topic you dont know about... about people that are starving, people that are dying for no damn reason except peoples ignorance be it that of a fustrated Af'Rican dictator or the governments of the major nations who'd rather those people die than let go of their hold on their economy.


Yep, you're right. You pissed me off. But then again, I tried to stay above namecalling and juvenile tactics.

I know plenty...namely that yes, people are starving. But guess what, it's not the west's fault. That is, unless you're blaming Kenya's drought on the west now, too. I'm not ignorant of the massive humanitarian crisis. But I'm also aware of the west pouring money on the problem for decades, with no visible results. Now, someone's taking the aid, and that's not whitey. It's the people in africa, stealing from each other. In the Kenya thread I linked to, look what Zerotime said:

"I actually see what Souljah is trying to say but I think there is one huge detail being left out. I have been to 37 different countries on business, pleasure, missions trips and when I worked with the Red Cross. There is a huge problem getting people food. It is not as easy as these people are hungry lets give them something to eat – it does not work that way. It would be fantastic if it were that easy. Anyone who thinks it is that easy is either avoiding the big picture or they are super naive. A problem with almost all of these places is that they are extremely poor, uneducated and out of touch locations. These places are suffering for one big reason - the governments, drug dealers and warlords are siphoning (stealing) all of the resources away from the people who need it the most. We can't get food, medicine or supplies to many parts of the world because the people with guns come in and take it away. Why continue to give hard-earned taxpayer money hand over fist to governments that we know are not using it for the people? We can give all the aid in the world to these places and it won't make one bit of good because the leadership of these nations is corrupt and have no desire to help their poor and needy. Of course we could go in with an army and wipe out these corrupt governments and kill these warlords but then everyone would hate us again for invading a country and sticking our noses in where we don’t belong. It is a no win situation – send aid to places where it will be stolen and misused or don’t sent aid and look like jackasses. "

Africans are doing more stealing from Africans than the monolithic, evil west is.


Its the government policies that I don't stand for... its the fact that I am treated as though I am poor or as a criminal when if Af'rica was given back its status, if the media would stop portaying it as some crappy continent that hasn't contributed to society everything would be fine. I think you're kinda messing with Karma when you just bounce things off in the way you do man, i'd like to bring you to a meeting so you can see some of the people there and let you have the floor for a minute. You'd have a rethink belive me.


By who, hmm? Who mistreated you? And, guess what, the media portrayals are light on Africa. Governments let people starve on teh streets. They trade diamonds for guns instead of food. Ever heard of Mohammed Farah Aidid? He deliberately starved his own country, blockading or stealing inbound Red Cross aid. Yeah, you'd like me to talk to Africans, have me tell them what they already know- the government doesn't care about whether they live or die. That the militias and bandits are stealing the tonnes and tonnes of food bound for them.

Subsequently, I'd be shot by their the militias, or the government, or both.


I'm part of a group, a freedom group that does its part for those people, you're on here trying to tell me whats going on when I've sat with those people, my friends wont even talk about half the stuff on here

they break down and cry when they try and talk about it its that bad. lol. This is no free world if you're one of us my friend trust me, we're persecuted something you can't understand. Police stopping me with my old man outside my house... being jumped in the street by drunk English people with nothing else to do... Drug dealers (turkish and others) that think cause my family isn't poor we must deal drugs and feel to shoot me because they don't like Af'Ricans and think bad of us.


Police stopping you? Did they beat you? Did they arrest you for being black? Because if they didn't, the polcie did nothing wrong. I have been subject to a random bag check walking home. I showed them what I had, no big deal, everyone walked away. I can't help what INDIVIDUALS think or do. But, of course, individual responsibility doesn't exist, right? It's the entire west that's wrong.


Its no blame game when you know whats going on and its not your fault, back to my talk about guilt, YOU haven't gone to Af'Rica/the 3rd world and signed contracts with terrible people to export diamonds for weapons have you? Its the GOVERNMENTS of the major nations playing power ball with peoples lives and holding down YOU with the rubbish they put up in the media/schools.


According to the Final ODA Data for 2004 report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD):

* A combined total of $78.568 billion USD, with subsets as follows:
o The G7 countries donated $56.686 billion USD
o The European Union countries combined donated $42.919 billion USD
o The United States donated $18.999 billion USD
o Norway donated $2.200 billion USD, but were the largest contributors as a percentage of GNI at 0.87%


from en.wikipedia.org...

So...billions of dollars of GOVERNMENT aid from the West go to the third world, which you hold so dear. That doesn't make sense. The west quite literally pours aid into the third world, with NGOs, foreign aid and faith-based charities. So where's it all go?


Canada is a liberal country I've been there, I've got family there, even you guys don't like it when you're dragged into war with the US. It does you no good, eh? (sorry) I was out in CA when 9/11 happened. I was talking to my US cousin abuot what we are now and she hit me back with a whole heap about the Civil war and how England this and England that... woha man... I wouldn't even call myself English but it was the same thing,

''we do this'' and ''we do that! why should america police the world?!''

As though I was commenting on HER. Those people at the top are a seperate class. At least here in the UK, their feet aren't on the ground man. Its their actions, ones that the pubilc don't vote for, that myself and other are against. Not ''whitey''.


Yes, because so many Canadians are in Iraq right now. Tons. I supported action in Afghanistan. Oh, the myth liberal Canada doesn't really exist outside of Toronto, Vancouver and a few other cities. That's why there's a Conservative in power right now, right? You and Souljah have consistently made no distinctions between 'the west' and 'westerners'. Even in this post, you painted the english as the bad guys. In fact, any authority figure can be the target of your ire, I'm guessing.

I think that seems to be the issue with you, lack of the concept of 'individual responsibility'. People are responsible. Those guys that stole your stuff because they're too proud...they still stole. But that doesn't mean every African stole. It means they, the individual, stole. just like they, the african dictators stole. They are responsible. Just like the roving bandits and militias are responsible for the horrible violence.

DE




posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
1) US do not DO Bodycounts, Remember?
2) What about Rwanda?
3) But genocide anywhere implicates everyone.
4) So - YES, Ace, I think United States is Responsible form Rwanda Genocide, which caused the Deaths of around a Million People.

[edit on 13/2/06 by Souljah]

1) We do do bodycounts. We just do it through the UN human right division.

2) Dude you are killing me by stating that just because we think we know about something and later turns out to be right we are to blame for not acting. We get intelligence ALL THE TIME about stuff that amounts to nothing. If we acted on everything, you'd complain we are even worse aggressors than we already are...make up your minds...

3) Then put the blame squarly where it belongs, in your beloved UN, and by implication the WORLD at large. You can't saddle the US with every leaf that falls because we didn't change the weather to make the leaf stay up there and defy the natural cycle of things. Governments have a natural cycle, and while ours may yet come it is not yet.

4) You are entitled to your opinion, but please try and stay in the fabric of reality and not trump up facts to suit your cause. Let me put it this way, "What is a little bit of a lie in the message of truth"...a lie.





[edit on 14/2/06 by OneGodJesus]



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Ok, first off, what ball of accusations? This has nothing to do with you as I explained. You over stepped a line actually going into my last post something I left just to see what you'd do.

You carry on beliving what crap people tell you in the media like some brainwashed mug.


Bob marley died of cancer


There was more to it than that. There were previous attempts on his life and he knew what was up. He didn't have cancer. You'vegone from holding a debate to just being plain ignorant on a site whos motto is;

DENY IGNORANCE

Fine if you don't want to belive anythng about Bob Marley but to carry on into my post, which I left just to see how lame you are, just shows how dispicable you really are.


You, however, claim extremely tenuous links to the Olmecs. Most people with a little anthropology behind them can dissectit with ease.


Idiot. I don't claim links with the Olmecs you half wit.

Your use of language, ''most people with a little anthropology'' when talking about something you don't know about just shows what an ignorant low life you really are.


Fair trade won't do anything put funnel more money into the pockets of folks like Mugabe.


Yeah, giving the citizens a chance to do their own thing and not rely on the west or their dictator.


The Olmecs were natives, not Westerners. They weren't from Africa. So, how can you consider these people your 'brothers'? Is it based on the tenuous works of an africa-centrist?


WTF is an Africa-centrist? Were you dropped on your head as a child? First off if you trace your bloodline you'll find it goes back to ETHIOPIA. And if you read my last post in which i was actually sympathising with you you'd know that I'm not AFRO-Centric but can see a system that promotes ignorance and is killing people as it does so.

I pray God curses you and others like you. How on earth you can even come back on here after I've told you of the suffering in the 3rd world, of people I know dying in poverty and carry on some ignorant tirade of crap?


Yep, you're right. You pissed me off. But then again, I tried to stay above namecalling and juvenile tactics.



Well you haven't, you've fallen off Deus. Again I curse you and and anyone that thinks and acts in anyway like you. I was being apologetic. I could have gone into your post and taken the parts about being born into some Cosmic balance of chance and torn you part but I didn't.


It's almost like you care about us.



zed my family had never owned slaves. I haven't commited genocide, I haven't stolen from Africa


Something I've being saying through out this thread. You ****. I wonder why you'd assume that I care about ''you''? Read my posts and realize that I know many white people in the same situation as my people. South Americans. The Irish. Some English, mainly northners. I don't see racial lines as it seems you are stuck doing.


I won a roll of the cosmic dice, and ended up being a have instead of a have not.


Heaven is Hell and Hell is Heaven. You haven't won a thing belive me. Those poor people have Gods spirit with them, they laugh in the face of adversity and strife and are so much more human, so much stronger than people like you will ever be.


And, guess what, the media portrayals are light on Africa.


They show nothing of that continent. Not the cities. Not the Ancient relics that predate the Pyramids nothing.


Police stopping you? Did they beat you? Did they arrest you for being black?


.... No comment. You've hit an all new low.


You and Souljah have consistently made no distinctions between 'the west' and 'westerners'. Even in this post, you painted the english as the bad guys.


Are you illiterate? What school did you go to? Thats EXACTLY WHAT I'M SAYING! Painting the English as the bad guys?!


I was talking to my US cousin abuot what we are now and she hit me back with a whole heap about the Civil war and how England this and England that... woha man... I wouldn't even call myself English but it was the same thing,

''we do this'' and ''we do that! why should america police the world?!''

As though I was commenting on HER.


Now apply that part of my post to yourself because you really are missing some brain cells.

Again I curse you and your ignorant low life disregard and disrespect. Don't you ever talk about the people I know with such a lack of respect. You're not worth a thing compared to those people and never will be.

When its time for God to judge you he won't miss a thing.

I'm printing out this thread and using it as a talking point in the next few PAC and other humanitarian meetings I'll be attending. It shows the attitude toward those in suffering and toward a few faulsities I've posted. It also has a few good statistics in it.

I intended to do this from the beginning and did mention it so consent has been given.

Thank you.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Do enjoy, then.

I sure do hope more people adopt my opinions about Africa. To sum it up: Damn shame.

It's a damn shame all those people suffer. It's a damn shame dictators run those countries. Most of all, it's a damn shame that everyone blames the West for all of Africa's problems.

We've gone over this- Arabs and other africans have consistently screwed up Africa for ten centuries, but the focus always goes to the west. In fact, Africans and Arabs are currently STILL causing havoc, but you and Souljah's insistence that the west is at fault merely belies your own ignorance. You claim that the west does little but steal and sell arms to Africa. You gave the statistic that the US sells 12.1 billion dollars of weaponry to 'third world countries', which apparently includes Israel. However, the US also give almost 19 billion dollars in taxpayer's money to those same third world countries. That 18+ billion dollars of course does not include aid through private organizations, such as churches or the Red Cross.The concept that we profit so extensively is simply ludacris.

Africa, to be frank, is totally FUBAR. The west has been funneling massive amounts of aid into the continent for decades, and nothing changes. And after this thread, I'm starting to think that it should be cut off.

We send food, folks like Aidid steal it.

We send money, folks like Mugabe steal it.

So what do you want us to do? Yoru answer goes back to either become socialists or the ambiguous notion of free trade. Of course, when a country barely produces a surplus of anything, or a country's natural resources are government owned, where's all this free trade money going to go? Into the pockets of dictators.

My position is clear. The human suffering is terrible, but all the west has done to help is spat upon. No matter what, we're the bad guys. It's getting to the point where if we're going to be considered the inhuman monsters you and Souljah paint us as, we might as well play the part.

DE



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why?
....in Africa?

I can give you that answer in one word....
but then the PC police would call me racist.



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 09:59 AM
link   

And after this thread, I'm starting to think that it should be cut off.


Damn right.

----------------------------------------------------------------
UK arms sales to Africa reach £1 billion mark

Antony Barnett, public affairs editor
Sunday June 12, 2005
The Observer


British arms sales to Africa have risen to record levels over the last four years and have reached the £1 billion mark, The Observer can reveal.
Analysis of official figures shows annual weapons sales almost quadrupled between 1999 and 2004.

Campaigners and MPs called the increase 'obscene' and 'unacceptable' at a time when the government is putting so much political capital into relieving poverty in Africa.

Many exports approved by the Department of Trade and Industry involve selling arms to some of the most deprived states and to countries with poor human rights records.

Among the most controversial exports since 2000 discovered by The Observer are:

· More than £30 million of military equipment sold to Angola, including armoured vehicles and body armour.

· Export licences granted by the DTI last year to sell £3.6m of military equipment to Malawi, one of the least developed nations in the world.

· Licences for military exports granted to Eritrea, Ethiopia, Algeria, Sudan, Zambia, Uganda, Namibia and Somalia.

· Arms sales to South Africa that trebled last year to £114m, including components for combat aircraft, missiles and radar.

· UK arms sales to Nigeria up tenfold since 2000 to £53m, including armoured vehicles and large calibre artillery.

According to the DTI's annual reports, specific licences for arms sales to Africa total more than £631m since 2000. But experts believe the true figure is closer to £1bn when the value of 'open' licences are taken into account. Such licences allow for smaller arms sales to take place with much less scrutiny from officials.

Paul Eavis, director of Saferworld, which campaigns for the control of the arms trade, said:

'The government is to be congratulated on leading the charge on debt relief, but if it is serious about helping Africa develop as a continent, then it should think again about its arms sales policies towards these countries.'

Andrew George, Liberal Democratic spokesman on international development, said:

'It would seem obscene that at a time when one arm of government is focusing on debt relief, behind the scenes another arm is boosting this unacceptable trade.'

*Exactly what Souljah was saying*

In 2004 the global total spent on munitions rose above $1 trillion for the first time since the height of the Cold War. In contrast, the amount spent on aid over the same period was $78.6bn.

The DTI refused to comment on any of the arms export licences it had approved to Africa, on the ground that such transactions were subject to commercial confidentiality.

politics.guardian.co.uk...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

And the west should do as your quote in my sig says.

End of 'discussion'.

Can't hold talks with anyone as ignorant as you. You need to read up on what it means to discuss a topic. It seems that the failing education system has gotten to you. You can check them up those statistics if you want, along with others. Not that you will because you can't get a thing past your ignorant shallow sighted veiw which is why I've had to ignore you on this forum. You can't seem to weigh up facts and come to a conslusion even when I did you still carried on with your pig headed veiws.

Ignorant Bstard.

I'm finished with this topic and unless you have something decent to say I'm leaving you on ignore.

If you find your tounge I'll lend an ear.



[edit on 15-2-2006 by Rebel_Lion]



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 10:35 AM
link   
So let me get this straight- Africans are buying arms, and commiting atrocities.

But it's the west's fault that these people choose to buy arms, and then choose to massacre each other. The West gives Africa fistfuls of money every year (400 billion USD since 1970 in government foreign relief alone), and what do they do with it? Buy guns.

Yes, clearly, the west MAKES them buy guns. MAKES them slaughter one another. You don't seem to get that whether or not the west sells them guns, they will buy guns. They will buy guns from China, from freelancers, from anyone who has guns. Nothing can stop this. Hell, there is about one gun in africa for about every five people, why do they need more?

Before they used guns, they used machetes. Before they used machetes, they used rocks. Nothing but africans themselves will stop africans from killing one another. The issue isn't in what they do with anything the west gives them, that's a given- they'll misuse or embellezle it. The issue is that Africans still want other Africans dead, and will do just about anything to make sure that happens.

DE



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeusEx
So let me get this straight- Africans are buying arms, and commiting atrocities.

But it's the west's fault that these people choose to buy arms, and then choose to massacre each other. The West gives Africa fistfuls of money every year (400 billion USD since 1970 in government foreign relief alone), and what do they do with it? Buy guns.

Yes, clearly, the west MAKES them buy guns. MAKES them slaughter one another. You don't seem to get that whether or not the west sells them guns, they will buy guns. They will buy guns from China, from freelancers, from anyone who has guns. Nothing can stop this. Hell, there is about one gun in africa for about every five people, why do they need more?

Before they used guns, they used machetes. Before they used machetes, they used rocks. Nothing but africans themselves will stop africans from killing one another. The issue isn't in what they do with anything the west gives them, that's a given- they'll misuse or embellezle it. The issue is that Africans still want other Africans dead, and will do just about anything to make sure that happens.

DE


Yowza -- Big ditto on that statement 100%
......................................................................
......................................................................



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Death on delivery

James Bond never lived so luxuriously. But Bond only had a licence to kill -
arms dealers have something much more lucrative, as Janice Turner discovered.

Joe is the arms trade’s equivalent of a used car salesman. He dresses in silk and his cufflinks, tiepins and chunky rings sparkle with diamonds set in gold. He owns a string of companies and conglomerates in West Africa and has supplied arms to many countries in conflict across the continent, like Chad, Uganda and Nigeria.

His office is in London’s Mayfair district, where the cars are so big they take up two parking lots. His suite is lined with tasteless burgundy leather panelling - even on the doors. Lying across his slim briefcase is a copy of The Sun - the kind of newspaper that requires a reading age of 12.

Joe owns four Rolls Royces and two private jets. He also bought a couple of helicopters for transport when he was attempting to win a seat to the Nigerian senate - in the days when Nigeria still had elections. Aside from his London office he has property in several African capitals and a farm in the affluent southeast of England.

Much of Joe’s work involves supplying second-hand weapons or unmarked arms so the manufacturing country is untraceable. And rather than asking for commission from suppliers he often buys the weapons himself and sells them at a profit.

Joe likes to think he has a soft heart: when selling arms to guerilla groups with whom he sympathizes, a few bombs are thrown in free. He appears to operate by phone as well as through personal meetings in African and European capitals, and most of his weapons never see British shores. He might buy them in one country and ship them to a warehouse in Rotterdam where they stay until he finds a buyer for them. He sees nothing immoral in his business: if he didn’t do it someone else would, he says.

But Joe and his methods of dealing are an exception rather than the norm in the arms-dealing world. Most dealers - invariably male and calling themselves middlemen, consultants or businessmen - tend to keep their dealings quiet and work on a commission basis rather than actually buying the hardware themselves, like Mohammed.

Mohammed is Lebanese and in his mid 40s. He lives with his wife and three children in London’s wealthy Kensington district, works in a book-lined study and reads the Daily Telegraph and the Financial Times - both good for stock-market coverage.

‘I got into the arms trade as an idealist,’ he says, drawing on his Rothmans cigarette. ‘After the coup that brought the Ba’athist government to power in Iraq, I was a consultant to the new regime. They needed weapons badly so the Iraqis brought in a group of people including me. We just went right through - Britain, France, Italy, Germany - we got arms from them all.’

Mohammed has expanded his trade into other Arab countries, notably Saudi Arabia, where business is booming for middlemen.. As with most arms dealers payola - commission or bribes - is the key to his living. There would be no reason for Mohammed’s existence if every minister and ministry were above board: arms dealers are used either because deals are shady - circumventing arms embargoes for example - or to allow government officials a healthy (illegal) cut.

‘There is no normal way to get into the arms trade’, says Mohammed. ‘It’s all based on one’s proximity to those in power.’ But generally a dealer has a contact at the top of the government tree.

Usually a deal is worth around $50 million. It is initiated during a meeting between the ‘consultant’ and the minister at a five-star hotel. The minister indicates the equipment wanted. The dealer then approaches the arms manufacturers telling them that if they appoint him as their agent, he will get them a contract in return for a percentage of the value of the transaction, which could be as low as three per cent, or as high as 15 depending on how specialized is the equipment required.

Once an agreement has been reached and the minister has authorized it, an application is made to the government of the supplying country and, if approved, the transaction goes ahead. When payment is made the dealer gets his commission, normally splitting it with his mentor and possibly an official in the defence ministry who refuses to rubber stamp the deal without an ‘incentive’.

‘It’s not the arms sales that are secret - it’s the figures involved,’ says Mohammed. He claims that in a recent $20 billion arms deal between Britain and Saudi Arabia, a billion dollars ended up being shared by two senior Saudis.

The latest trend, however, is barter. Now that many previously rich Arab states are virtually spent-up, oil has become a major method of paying for weapons. Many big Western arms manufacturers have whole departments devoted to arranging barter deals. Several African countries actually export food in exchange for arms.

The British establishment has become rather touchy of late about arms dealers, embarrassed by a series of press revelations about shady deals being done in London. Britain has won third place in the arms-sales league table - behind the US and the Soviet Union - partly because the US Zionist lobby has prevented many sales to Arab states from Washington, which has forced the Arabs to go elsewhere. But Mohammed says it is also because the rules governing arms sales in London are laxer than elsewhere. If you ask an establishment figure these days about arms dealers they will tell you, ‘I’m sorry darling, but there really aren’t any.’ Mohammed demurs. ‘I think the figure is around 2,000 operating in London - 300 of whom deal in more than $50 million a year.’





[edit on 15-2-2006 by Rebel_Lion]



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeusEx
Before they used guns, they used machetes. Before they used machetes, they used rocks. Nothing but africans themselves will stop africans from killing one another. The issue isn't in what they do with anything the west gives them, that's a given- they'll misuse or embellezle it. The issue is that Africans still want other Africans dead, and will do just about anything to make sure that happens.

So if your Thesis is REALLY what is going on in Africa and around the World - tell me this; why did the United States along with the Coalition of the Willing HELP to FREE and LIBERATE the people of Iraq? What made them so Special, that they could not, as you Love to say, Help themselves - like the Africans HAVE TO? West gave Money to Saddam to buy FOOD - yet, he bought Arms, from the Same Western Corrupt Corporations. Tell me, why is that? Iraqi's still want other Iraqi's DEAD - but there are a Number of American and other Soldiers standing on the Frontline and saying - NAY! THOU SHALT NOT KILL YOUR BRETHERIN, FOR THE NOBLE KNIGHTS OF JUSTICE HAVE ARRIVED!

So, if you could Explain to me Please - why is that? Why did the West help the Isrealis to Defend themselves, and still is, and not the Africans? Could it be, that the Life of an Isreali Child is More Important the the Life of a Muslim child? Could it be, that the Life of the White Child, is more Important then the Life of the Black Child?

So, WHY are just the Africans the ONES who HAVE TO FREE THEMSELVES?



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 11:13 AM
link   
I hardly need to type anything... Read the underlined and bold parts if you can't stomach to read the rest.


The South African arms deal

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Terry Crawford-Browne

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The South African "arms deal" has been described as "the betrayal of the struggle against apartheid" and as "the litmus test of South Africa's commitment to democracy and good governance". The scandal has become the millstone around President Thabo Mbeki's presidency.
An opinion survey conducted last yearby South Africa's leading pollster found that 62% of ANC voters want the armsdeal cancelled, 19% want it cut and only 12% support it. On no other issue, includ-ing Aids, was the government found to be so out of touch with the electorate.

The arms deals were government-togovernment arrangements made withoutregard either for the people of South Africa or the country's security needs. They weredriven by the European armaments industries and governments. Germany wouldwin the warship contracts. Britain and Sweden would win the warplane contracts.Italy is to supply 30 helicopters.

The Navy has been committed to ves-sels it can't use, and the Air Force to aircraft its chiefs didn't want. The latterwere overruled by the former Minister of Defence, the late Joe Modise, whorequired a "visionary approach" to favour BAe Systems and the South African state-owned armaments company, Denel.

Even before the contracts were signed,there were allegations of corruption around Modise and his political cronies,and of kick-backs to ANC campaign funds. Whistleblowers amongst ANCintelligence operatives insisted that the arms deal was merely one aspect ofModise's efforts to transform the ANC's military wing, Umkhonto-we-Sizwe, intoa new financial elite. Inter-related transactions were said to include:

oil deals
tollroads
the Cell C cellphone contract
the Coega deep water harbour project near Port Elizabeth
smartcard technology
drug and weapons trafficking, and
diamond and money laundering

The whistleblowers were referred to theHeath Special Investigation Unit, which found their evidence corroborated otherinquires. Judge Heath was later dismissed by President Mbeki and, similarly, a par-liamentary investigation was gutted by political interference by the executive.Another investigation headed by the Auditor General exonerated the govern-ment of "improper or unlawful conduct", yet also found that every aspect of thearms deal was riddled with tendering irregularities.

The ANC's chief whip in parliament has been sentenced to four years' impris-onment for fraud relating to a massive discount on a Mercedes Benz 4x4. AndDeputy President Jacob Zuma is at present under suspicion that he solicited aR500,000 (#45,000) per annum bribe to quash an investigation into activities ofThomson CSF/Thales, the French armaments company.

Normal commercial practice holds thatcontracts tainted by corruption are null and void. Organisations such as Trans-parency International find that armaments are the most corruption-prone industry.

Given the crisis of poverty facing South Africa, the arms deal cannot be reconciledwith the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports whose criteria include considera-tion of socio-economic conditions in recipient countries.

Who is responsible?

Under no circumstances can European governments plead ignorance about thepoverty so prevalent in South Africa. They hide behind a rationale that since SouthAfrica is now a democracy, it would be arrogant to refuse requests for the arms exports they so aggressively promote.

Saddam Hussein can be regarded as having been the creation of the internationalarmaments industry. President Jacques Chirac was so closely involved with Frenchweapons sales during the 1980s that he was nicknamed "Monsieur Irak". The royalyacht Britannia was reported to have doubled as a floating British armaments exhi-bition when Queen Elizabeth visited Cape Town in March 1995.

When allegations arose that BAe Systems had paid #1 million to variousSouth African politicians as a "first success fee", they were referred for investiga-tion to the British Secretary for Trade and Industry, Stephen Byers. Byers delegatedthe task to the London Metropolitan Police who, with desultory indifference,reported back that there was insufficient evidence to pursue the matter.

It was, however, learned that the British government was at that timeunder heavy pressure from BAe Systems to stall on ratification of the OECD Con-ventions Against Bribery of Foreign Officials. It was apparently then not illegal inBritain to bribe officials of foreign countries and, accordingly, there was no crimeto investigate!

When Prime Minister Tony Blair visit-ed South Africa in January 1999, he was informed that church leaders were res-olutely opposed to the arms deal. The response on his behalf declared, "SouthAfrica has the right to take its own decisions on its defence requirements andsecure maximum job creation through industrial participation programmes."


A legal challenge

It is, however, one thing to smell corruption - another to prove it. With supportof church leaders, trade unionists, NGOs and other representatives of civil society,Economists Allied for Arms Reduction-- South Africa (ECAAR-SA) has takenanother approach in its litigation to cancel the arms deal.

ECAAR is an international NGO established in 1988, and now has affili-ates in twelve countries including Britain and South Africa. Of the very distinguished economists on its board oftrustees, nine are Nobel laureates. Its purpose is to promote objective economicanalysis and appropriate action on global issues relating to peace, security and theworld economy. The Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town, Njongonkulu Ndun-gane, is a patron of ECAAR-SA.

Almost two years ago--more than fiveyears after the arms deal saga began--and having exhausted all other remedies,ECAAR-SA filed a court application for nullification of the loan agreements thatgive effect to the transactions. It has done so as a class action suit on behalf of poorpeople in South Africa in terms of section 38 of the Constitution.

Unbelievably, there is no parliamentary or executive authority for the armsdeal which, presumably, makes it illegal. Our litigation however, focuses upon con-stitutional arguments that public power vested in the executive and other func-tionaries must be exercised in an objectively rational manner. Action that failsthe minimum threshold of rationality is inconsistent with the requirements of theConstitution, and is therefore unlawful even if well intentioned.

The South African constitution adopted in 1996 is regarded as being perhapsthe world's most progressive constitution for it goes beyond classical notions ofdemocratic rights. It applies to all law, and binds the executive, the legislature,the judiciary and all organs of state to include commitment to socio-economicrights. The Constitutional Court is tasked as the final arbitrator to ensure thathuman rights are upheld as the culture that holds the country together.


Strategically irrational

Firstly, the arms deal is strategically irrational: A glance at any world map con-firms that South Africa's geographic isolation makes it perhaps the country leastthreatened by foreign military invasion. Only the United States has the capacityto undertake a naval attack. The very real threat to South Africa's security is inter-nal, and relates to the crisis of poverty inherited from the apartheid era.

Here the Constitution is instructive. It declares:
National security must reflect the resolve of South Africans, as individuals and as anation, to live as equals, to live in peace and harmony, to be free from fear and want and toseek a better life.

It is a commitment to human securityrelating to people--in contrast to traditional notions of military protection ofthe sovereign. Jobs, housing, education, health services, crime prevention and theenvironment are of far greater relevance to South Africans than the need to pre-vent attacks by neighbouring states.

Nonetheless, the Minister of Healthabsurdly declares that there is no money for AIDS because South Africa must buysubmarines to deter a prospective attack by the United States. The xenophobia ofapartheid-era South Africa has, sadly, increased in the democratic era.

Military leaders, from an unexpected perspective, recently informed parliamen-tary committees that the costs of the arms deal are financially paralysing the SANational Defence Force. There is no funding, they claim, to maintain existingequipment, let alone to undertake peacekeeping operations elsewhere in Africa. Frigates, submarines and high-tech fight-er aircraft would be quite useless for peacekeeping operations.


Economically irrational
Secondly, the arms deal is economically irrational: It is premised upon thoroughlydiscredited ideas that expenditure of R30 billion on armaments would translateinto offsets worth R110 billion to create 64,165 jobs. The arms deal was loudlytouted by government spin-doctors as a unique opportunity to fast-track industrialdevelopment and job creation.
Offsets are prohibited in civil tradearrangements under World Trade Organisation rules because they distort marketforces. They are notoriously impossible to monitor and, accordingly, are an invita-tion to corruption. The armaments industry however, has negotiated exemptionsfrom such prohibitions by citing national security considerations.
The Constitution, again, sets out the parameters for government procurements.They are required to be conducted "in accordance with a system which is fair,equitable, transparent, competitive and cost-effective." The arms deal dismally failsthese tests. It was as transparent as mud, wildly uncompetitive and certainly notcost-effective.
Illustrating the irrationality of linkingeconomic development to offsets has been the bizarre saga of buying three Germansubmarines against the promise of a billion-dollar stainless steel plant. Govern-ment announcements boasted that against expenditure of R5.2 billion on three sub-marines, the offset benefits would amount to R30.3 billion to create 16,251 jobs.
Even the most illiterate peasant knowsbetter than to fall for the arms industry patter of spend "R1 and get R6" back.Sadly, South Africa's politicians were gullible, and fell for it. The stainless steelplant failed to materialise. It morphed briefly into a condom factory to create 520jobs but this, too, has subsequently been cancelled.What is evident is that the arms deal was driven not by the needs of SouthAfricans, but by the European armaments industry. In Germany the political influ-ence of the steel industry, with former Chancellor Helmut Kohl, was para-mount, whilst in Britain the manipulative roles of BAe Systems were supreme.Even government spokesmen now concede that the job target of 64,165 jobs wasgrossly overstated. At best, perhaps 2,500 jobs might result from the arms deal, butattempts to monitor the offsets are blocked by bureaucratic insistence that the con-tracts are "commercially confidential".

Financially irrational
Thirdly, the arms deal is financially irrational: Whilst offsets drove the arms dealand induced our politicians to believe that it was "affordable", warnings about itsfinancial implications were ignored and brushed aside. An affordability study pre-sented to cabinet ministers in August 1999 in considerable detail drew their attentionto the financial risks. The study declares:
It should be stressed that, given the uniquesize of the packages and the tenor of the associated financial agreements, the impact of thepackage expenditures will extend far beyond the procurements themselves. Any decision onthese procurements and the magnitude of their claim on the budget will inevitably also consti-tute a decision about the future level of defence spending in South Africa, hence about how thispriority weighs against government's other spending priorities.
The ministers were warned that spending on the arms deal could crowd outsocio-economic priorities such as education, health and welfare. They were alsowarned about the foreign exchange risks.
South Africa's currency, the rand, has ahistory of depreciation over more than 40 years. The arms deal contracts are notdenominated in rands, but in euros, sterling, Swedish krona and dollars. The armsdeal was costed at R6.25 per US$, and was publicly announced as costing R30billion. Within two years the cost escalated to R53 billion.
Even these figures exclude finance costs, escalation costs, management feesand export credit agency premiums, all of which were withheld from public scruti-ny. No one knows what the costs will be by 2019 when the final payments are due.
The government's financial consultants projected rand/dollar exchange rates ofR13.96 by 2010, and of R26.25 by 2019. Even on these unduly conservative projec-tions, South African taxpayers will face a foreign currency liability of about R158billion by 2010. And when the final payments are due in 2019, the costs of thearms deal are likely to have escalated to about R370 billion.
In such a scenario, South Africa will face financial and social chaos likeArgentina or Zimbabwe. There will be no funding available for education, healthservices, housing or the socio-economic commitments contained in the Bill ofRights. South Africa's experiment with democracy will collapse.

"National security" (again)
Literally over the internet, ECAAR-SA obtained copies of the BAe Systems-Bar-clays Bank-British government-South African government loan agreements thatgives effect to the warplane contracts. These were signed by the Minister ofFinance, Trevor Manuel, on 25 January, 2000. The government's counsel conced-ed in court in March 2003 that these documents are authentic.
The government's initial response to ECAAR-SA's application in November2001 for cancellation of the arms deal was to argue that the loan agreements standindependently of the arms deal. This illogical argument is tantamount to say-ing that the purchase of a house has nothing to do with its mortgage.
The government's next argument was that the affordability study (of whichECAAR-SA has the executive study but not the full report) was irrelevant to theissue. Then the study itself became so highly confidential and privileged to theCabinet that its disclosure would jeopardise national security.
In conceding in March this year that the British loan agreements are authentic,the government's counsel also drew the Court's attention to their default andpenalty clauses. The covenants and encumbrances are disastrous, and are like-ly to cripple South Africa and its people. Indeed, the loan agreements can be com-pared to the ensnarement of third world debt obligations that have brought the rest of Africa to collapse.
The terms are such that the Minister of Finance has ceded control over SouthAfrica's economic and financial policies to European banks and governments, and tothe International Monetary Fund. Such reckless behaviour, ECAAR-SA believes,is surely unconstitutional.

The litmus test
Judgment that the agreements signed by the Minister are unconstitutional would,we assume, collapse the arms deals--it being unlikely they would continue with-out payment.
In terms both of South African andinternational law, the Constitution takes precedence over any international agree-ments. Accordingly, judgment that the arms deal is unconstitutional will meanthat European rather than South African taxpayers will have to bear the costs ofcancellation. Hopefully, Europeans will then question why their governments areso heavily complicit in the arms trade.
The Cape High Court in March 2003ordered the President, the Minister of Finance and the Government of theRepublic of South Africa within ten court dates to make discovery of "the documentscontaining the advice of the International Offers Negotiating Team and the Finan-cial Working Group, referred to in paragraph 36 of the answering affidavit in themain application" (ie the full affordability study that went to Cabinet in August 1999).
Five months later ECAAR-SA has still not received those documents. We arenow preparing papers against the Minister for contempt-of-court. Regrettably,disregard of court orders has become a habit with the ANC government.
The arms deal has truly become "the litmus test of South Africa's commitmentto democracy and good governance". The question ahead is whether the judiciarywill have courage to apply the checks-andbalances required by the Constitution.
Failure to do so, ECAAR-SA believes, will signal to the international communi-ty that South Africa will follow countries such as Zimbabwe into chaos. It would bean appalling betrayal of people around the world who believed that commitmentto human rights would be the priority of post-apartheid South Africa.
Success will mark a new paradigm of civil society holding governments toaccount.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Crawford-Browne was an international banker who, during 1985-1990, was involved in the banking sanctions campaign against apartheid. He is now chair of Economists Allied for Arms Reduction - South Africa (ECAAR-SA) which has led civil society opposition to the arms deal.
ECAAR - South Africa 3B Alpine Mews, Box 60542, High Cape, Cape Town 8001, South Africa (+27 21 465 7423; email ecaar@icon.co.za; ecaar.org... ).


www.peacenews.info...



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 11:22 AM
link   
News on terrorism scaring you? Who gave saddam his gas? Who funded Bin Laden?


Exporters
A total of 22 countries, including 18 European states, reported 5,622 exports, the lowest export total during the register's seven years of operation. The lack of Russian and Chinese data and the completion of most of the arms deliveries for agreements signed during the post-Gulf War weapons-buying boom account for much of the reduced export total from past registers, which generally totaled more than 7,500 weapons.

The United States ranked first with 2,713 exports, equaling the combined export totals for the next 10 highest weapon suppliers. (The United States revised its data upward from the original submission of 2,700 exports made in May.) Poland moved into second place with a total of 1,018 exports, which was a shipment—initially imported from Bulgaria—comprising 18 120mm mortars and 1,000 mortar rounds to the Congo. The United Kingdom held the third spot with 594 exports, 416 of which were cruise missiles to the United Arab Emirates.

Exporter data revealed Europe as the top destination of arms shipments with a total of 1,625, while the Middle East, including Egypt, received a total of 1,423 weapons. Five exporters—the United States, Britain, France, the Netherlands and Canada—accounted for all the reported exports to the Middle East. Iran claimed 11 weapon imports from Russia.

Missiles and missile launchers (2,465) accounted for 43 percent of the reported weapons exports. In the Middle East, missile deliveries to eight countries accounted for two-thirds of reported arms shipments. Missile systems, according to exporter data, also constituted approximately 55 percent of all Asian and European imports


From now on I'm coming to ats.com just to post up reports on things like this amongst others. And its not as though its one sided either as I've mentioned FreeTrade and poverty make for WAR while those vampiric people in their high offies are just glad to keep pushing weapons contacts for peices of their economy... we'll give you such and such and take care of this and that part of your economy... they even go so far as to stir up hatred just as they demonise us and the muslems in the west, pitting people like you against us through ignorance and lack of education on global matters.

Read the past posts on US contracts and the IMF... I'll go on about Mark Thatcher....



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Thatchers Little Boy Involved In Coup.

Fri, 19 Nov 2004 04:26:05 -0800truthcansuck
R03164

OK, it’s petty, but forgive me a small chuckle when i read that Margeret Thatchers son has been charged by an Equatorial Guinea court for financing a coup plot in the oil-rich west African nation.

First, in case you aren’t familiar with Mr Thatcher, a brief history:
Sir Mark (inherited his late father’s hereditary baronetcy in 2003,) has not had the most successful of business ventures throughout his career and his dealings have led to questions in the Commons.

He went through a series of jobs which each lasted about a year, dabbled in the Hong Kong business world and built up a network of business associates from the motor racing world plus the Middle and Far East. His estimated worth is saifd to be in the ballpark of more than £360-million, although he has dismissed the figure as “widely” off the mark.

In the early 1980s, when his mother was prime minister, he also set up Monteagle Marketing, an international consultancy firm.

Embarrassing Commons questions were asked about his role in helping the Cementation company win a multi-million pound contract to build a university in Oman.

In a 1986 deal in which the then British Aerospace sold jets to the Saudi government, it was alleged he had negotiated a commission of several million pounds.

In the mid nineties his name was mentioned in connection with the Pergau dam affair in which British aid to Malaysia was allegedly linked to a £31.3-billion contract placed by Malaysia in Britain. But no wrongdoing has ever been proved.

Now, onto the coup!!!

Equatorial Guinea intends to seek Thatcher’s extradition, a legal official close to the government’s case told The Associated Press earlier this week.
Equatorial Guinea alleges Thatcher and other, mainly British financiers, worked with Equatorial Guinea opposition figures, scores of South African mercenaries, and six Armenian pilots in a takeover plot there.
The coup plotters intended to force out the 25-year regime of President Teodoro Obiang, installing an exiled opposition figure in his stead as a figurehead leader for Africa’s No. 3 oil producer, Equatorial Guinea claims.
The alleged plot was exposed in March by South African intelligence services, and scores of accused mercenaries arrested in Equatorial Guinea and in Zimbabwe.

Thatcher was arrested in August at his home in South Africa.
Of course, it’s never simple… in an interesting twist, the prosecutions lead witness is now formally facing the death penalty after repudiating his alleged confessions in the case in court on Tuesday.

South African arms dealer Nick du Toit testified Wednesday that he attended a July 2003 South Africa meeting with Thatcher and Simon Mann, a Briton on trial in Zimbabwe as the alleged head of the plan, quashed in March.

Du Toit told the court Tuesday that his alleged confession was coerced.
“It was Zimbabwean police who interrogated me, and who threatened to kill me if I did not maintain the account of attempted coup d’etat,” said du Toit, who has worn leg shackles, chains and handcuffs throughout the trial.
“If anyone has evidence of a coup attempt, they should show the evidence,” du Toit said.

The 19 defendants here include South Africans and others of African nationalities, and six Armenian pilots. Some showed the court what they said were scars from torture when the trial first opened.

Equatorial Guinea is routinely accused by the U.S. State Department and international organizations of torture and other human rights abuses.








[edit on 15-2-2006 by Rebel_Lion]



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 11:31 AM
link   
After reading through most of this thread, I have noticed this has turned into another sad episode of the Blame Game. What happened to personal accountability in this day and age. The West should take responsibility for supplying weapons, but not for the wars themselves. The ones responsible for that are the ones pulling the triggers, setting off bombs, leading ethnic cleansings and the such. You cant blame the west entirely for the decisions of others to kill each other, not only is it not fair to make such an assumption, but its wrong. In this day and age we see more finger-pointing, name calling, and blaming others for ones own problems than ever before. It really chaps my ass. If you cant take personal responsibility for your own actions then I would call you an irresponsible human being. And in my opinion rightly so. Instead of blaming the west for what comes down to someone elses personal decisions, you can blow it out your ass.



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 11:34 AM
link   

What is Fair Trade?

Most people in the Third World could earn a living for themselves and their families if they were given a fair chance. Too often they are denied that opportunity by unjust trading systems that benefit us and not them. Trade barriers, Third World debt and exploitative middlemen keep the poorest workers trapped in their poverty. Today, over a billion people live on less than a dollar a day, and half the world's population are living on less than two dollars a day.

Many consumers realise that wealth is unequally distributed and that goods from developing countries are often sold at prices that do not afford their producers a decent standard of living. Fair Trade is one way of fighting poverty. Fair Trade makes it possible to shop with a difference and make a direct impact on the lives and well being of Third World producers.




Nestlé reported to UK Advertising Standards Authority over dishonest Fairtrade product advertisement
Press release 7 December 2005

Baby Milk Action, which coordinates the international boycott of Nestlé over its aggressive marketing of baby foods, has reported the company to the UK Advertising Standards Authority today for a misleading and dishonest advertisement about its Fairtrade Partners' Blend coffee and wider involvement in the coffee industry appearing in the Radio Times (3 – 9 December edition), which has a circulation of over 1 million copies. The Fairtrade product, launched in October, is already being used in attempts to counter the boycott and improve Nestlé's image.

Mike Brady, Campaigns and Networking Coordinator at Baby Milk Action, said:

The dishonesty of Nestle's approach is all too familiar. Nestlé's advertisement and website for its Fairtrade product imply it will have a significant impact on farmers in El Salvador and that the company's activities in the coffee industry are ethical. The truth is only about 200 farmers in El Salvador supply coffee for Partners' Blend and over 3 million farmers globally who are dependent on Nestlé remain outside the Fairtrade system. Nestlé is held partly responsible for forcing down prices paid to suppliers, driving many into poverty, while its own profits have soared. Recently I interviewed a researcher from Colombia who told me 150,000 coffee farming families have lost their livelihoods due to Nestlé policies.”



What Price Virtue? At Some Retailers, 'Fair Trade' Carries A Very High Cost


Stores Charge Big Markups On Goods Intended to Help Farmers in Poor Countries

The Wall Street Journal
June 08, 2004
By Steve Stecklow and Erin White

At a Whole Foods Market in suburban Boston, the coffee aisle recently was lined with leaflets promising to donate 5% of sales to growers. Labels proclaimed that beans were "purchased in accordance with international fair trade standards." Pamphlets asked: "Is your coffee fair to farmers?"
The materials reflect a growing international campaign to pay struggling farmers in poor countries more than market rate for commodities like coffee, bananas and chocolate. The extra cash has helped thousands of farmers fund education, health-care and training projects, among other things.

But as "fair trade" catches on in the U.S., Europe's experience shows that the biggest winners aren't always the farmers -- but can be retailers that sometimes charge huge markups on fair-trade goods while promoting themselves as good corporate citizens. They can get away with it because consumers usually are given little or no information about how much of a product's price goes to farmers. In the case of Whole Foods, the 5% promise doesn't refer to the retail price, as shoppers might assume, but a different amount the company pays its coffee unit.



[edit on 15-2-2006 by Rebel_Lion]



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   

The West should take responsibility for supplying weapons, but not for the wars themselves. The ones responsible for that are the ones pulling the triggers, setting off bombs, leading ethnic cleansings and the such.


We are in the process of putting things together. There are many African Freedom groups in Europe, Canda and the US. We are trying to raise awarness of certain issues that oppress Africa and other 3rd world nations from development.

Lack of proper education in schools in the west lead to people like those on here denying that Africa is capable of doing anything and hasn't contributed to society. Our children in schools are fed lies about themselves as though our history only dates back to slavery, denied a past and so through that miseducation are persecuted by others in society.

There is no blame game when the cap fits someones head. If there was no poverty there would be no corruption and wars over land/food/oil/diamonds/gold/I could go on.

I can accpet whatever problems our nation has within itself but it is not helped by those who want to corrupt the continent and hinder its growth at every corner.

It seems that most europeans would rather turn a blind eye to what has happened as a result of the creation of the third world to make it easier when going to work the next day.

Israel - Palestine.

The Palestinians can't keep blaming the west?...

Who carved up the middle east and put israel on land owned by the Palestinians? Holy land at that...

Isn't it obvious that it would create disruption and war between nations?

Pakistan - India.

India was a peaceful nation with all diffrent religions within it, Islam, Hindu, Christian.

Who brokered the deal to divide Pakistan from India after they were ''freed'' from colonial rule?

Internal African conflict.

Who enslaved and slaughtered MILLIONS of the people driving the population into a downward spiral?

Who carved up and created the states in Africa?

Who still holds down rulership over the continent be it private or government?

Who wiped out so many tribes and settled on their land?

Who is STILL on that land?

Who created an aparthied and still involves themselves within the politics of the region?

South America.

Who mined the silver from bolivia to fund their empire?

Who wiped out the people there?

Who moved people to the carribean after killing off all the natives on that land?

Who stll involves themselves in that regions politics? Again hindering growth not allowing the people to resolve their own problems?

Who created a pointless economic system that enslaves its own people and is now and always has been trying to force it down the throats of others? Literally.

Who won't allow 3rd world nations to create their own system because it is seen as a threat to global economics?

Who won't allow those nations to trade and recive a fair price for their prodcuse globally, Tilting the balance of a system that they created whilst waging war against every nation possible?

What nation has been to war so many times and has hardly DECLARED war on anybody?

What nations spend more money on weapons than anything else to continue their game of powerball over others?

Ever wonder why half the nations out there want nuclear weapons? It makes it that bit tougher to corrupt a nation when they can actually defend themselves.

Yes the blame game needs to stop. Individual companies, individual countries and people need to be brought to justice....

Who owns and runs the UN?
The Court rooms?
Stops the media from printing certain information?

All with military, economic and monetary might?

What nations avoid the high courts and sees fit to deamonise others simply to wage war on them and their people?

''oh look at their traditions, they're not ''free'' as we are. How could they, this, how could they, that. We should move in and ''save'' their people.. and setup a puppet government to syphon Oil/gold/diamonds etc''

Or;

''Oh, look at that nasty dictator without a chance to trade globally. Hes really mean and hes sitting on top of a country we're running. Lets blindfold our people and deamonize him, make it out as though hes throwing out poor innocent people who aren't really sitting on the best land after an aparthied and reciving the best deals we can throw at them. Hes not pissed off at whats going on in ???? next door, hes just being mean for no reason. Lets sanction the country (if not already) and throw his people into desperation, makes it better for the camera crew to point out what we want''

''Lets edit out the women in the middle east holding up placards when the UN arrive saying;

'You are here to kill our children''

Saddam tortures people... Guantanamo bay on the other hand.... Saddam is a dictator and should be democratic.... George bush on the other hand...

*In no way are we in the west free in certain terms*

I agree the fools that fall for the politricks are also to blame, the blind that think that money is the answer to everything but all in all I blame this vampiric capitalist state of the world that we live in for the atrocities that go on, everyone scrambling to either fix what has been broken or make as much money as they can only to pay 40% of it to the state to be spent on weapons...

Sheep and shepard; £8 to drive into london to work... now lets make it £1.50 for a bus! Oh crime is on the rise, look at those gangs!

Tax ^
Crime ^

How blatant is it.

Mega-Crime
Mega-Corruption

Get too much power and shout out about certain things and catch cancer or commit suicide in the woods... or have a car crash.. or get shot by some paranoid fool whos probably been offered a contract to get out of prision,

'' shoot this guy and we'll let you out with ££££ and a house in ????? ''

Still as Napoleon says;

When the enemy is commited to making a mistake,
one should not hasten to warn him.

I'm happy leaving and setting up somewhere where a man can just live minus the BS and ignorance of the clones that walk like drones back and forth from the same place everyday to upkeep payments, all to the detrement of their children.

This is EXACTLY what jesus was fighting against. BABYLON in its full and fullest.

*Also taking into note that most of this will go unread as YOU can't accept anything and would rather live in ignorance on a site stating; DENY IGNORANCE. I could do the same as I'm very well off but choose not to.*

A man that stands for nothing will fall for anything.



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   


Rebel_Lion:

Israel - Palestine.

The Palestinians can't keep blaming the west?...

Who carved up the middle east and put israel on land owned by the Palestinians? Holy land at that...

Isn't it obvious that it would create disruption and war between nations?

Pakistan - India.

India was a peaceful nation with all diffrent religions within it, Islam, Hindu, Christian.

Who brokered the deal to divide Pakistan from India after they were ''freed'' from colonial rule?

Internal African conflict.

Who enslaved and slaughtered MILLIONS of the people driving the population into a downward spiral?

Who carved up and created the states in Africa?

Who still holds down rulership over the continent be it private or government?

Who wiped out so many tribes and settled on their land?

Who is STILL on that land?

Who created an aparthied and still involves themselves within the politics of the region?


Israel Palestine

The Jews started moving to Palestine before the Balfour Declaration.
When they moved in there and started developing the land a lot of muslims moved there to look for work. There were only 16,000 people in Jerusalem before the Jews started developing Palestine. The Palestinians were nothing more than economic migrants just like the Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Jamaicans, etc.. in Britain. A lot of the people staking their claim to that land probably can't trace their claims back before 1800.

The establishment of a Jewish homeland within the holiest of all regions for the Jews did not prevent muslims from living amongst the Jews but neighboring regions did exlude Jews from living amongst the muslims. When Palestine was partitioned in 1947 it did not give all of the land to the Jews, they split it equally while leaving Jerusalem as an international zone. The Arabs didn't want the Jews there so they invaded and were defeated but the Arabs managed to steal Jerusalem for themselves until 1967 when the Israelis forced them out. The loss of Arab land in Palestine, which was controlled by the Turks before the British, is largely the fault of the Arabs themselves.

Perhaps you would have preferred that Britain keep it all as one country and run it all from Britain just as the Turks kept it all as one country (with different provinces) and ran it from Turkey. BTW, did you know that Turkey actually outlawed Arabic in Arab lands when they controlled it? Who is the big oppressor? What would the Arabs have controlled without the British?


Pakistan - India

India, which has a Hindu majority was ruled by the muslim minority known as the Mughals. It was the Mughals that gave Britain control over parts of India while many other parts were under their own control or under the continued control of the Mughals.

The partition of India was not a British idea. It was something that the muslims themselves wanted from at least 1930.


www.pakistantimes.net...

Allama Iqbal was the first leader of South Asia who presented a comprehensive partition scheme of India at the 21st session of the All India Muslim League held at Allahabad on 29th December 1930. This scheme made him very popular at that time. He expressed his point of view that a Muslim State be formed in those areas where the Muslims were in majority, so that they could live therein according to the tenets of Islam.


Internal African conflict.

The enslavement and slaughter was done by Africans, muslims and Europeans.

The borders were modified by Europeans but already existed in some sense before them. Sudan was already an Eyptian colony until the British defeated Egypt and then went to war to control Sudan. There were already changing borders before the Europeans got involved so you cant put all of the blame on them.

The Arabs are still on a lot of the land in Africa that they colonized and they still weild their influence in that region.

[edit on 15-2-2006 by AceOfBase]



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Rebel_Lion, suggest that you put some chilling in your posts. This is NOT what we look for in ATS discussions.

I'm hoping that you get the hint.

[edit on 15-2-2006 by intrepid]



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by AceOfBase

Internal African conflict.

The enslavement and slaughter was done by Africans, muslims and Europeans.

The borders were modified by Europeans but already existed in some sense before them. Sudan was already an Eyptian colony until the British defeated Egypt and then went to war to control Sudan. There were already changing borders before the Europeans got involved so you cant put all of the blame on them.

The Arabs are still on a lot of the land in Africa thay they colonized and they still weild their influence in that region.


I'd just like to elaborate on this point a bit. The borders that Europe drew up were poor at best, drawn along landmarks, not tribal regions. But, see, the strange thing is, instead of the continent re-arranging itself, the fights simply continue without any progress being made. That said, I'd like to point out the fact that Africa is not homogenously black. There is still a very large number of Arabs in country, how have different views on a number of subjects.

African conflict runs along several axes- political, cultural, racial, religious- and the fact remains that until Africans are unwilling to fight, there will be no peace. Gun runners are rich because Africans want guns, and are willing to exploit any means to obtain weapons.

Pan-african peace is as much a pipe dream as pan-former-soviet-union peace.

DE



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Typical....now Souljah wants to blame the US for inaction in every conflict in the world, and wants to blame the US as directly responsible for the death of every child and person in the world......so he can put the US once again at the top of his hate list..... Meanwhile he quotes from those who have caused the worse genocides in human history......

Is that how you back your statements Souljah?....


You can't make the statistics fit your agenda so you switch everything around trying to blame the US and the west for what others have done to themselves for decades. Your points, and agenda, as always are ridiculous to say the least.


[edit on 15-2-2006 by Muaddib]






top topics



 
2
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join