It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Zimbabwe's Solution to the White Problem

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller

Originally posted by mikew21
You almost expect such thing from white people but never blacks


Of course you don't expect it from blacks. They all live in this bug happy continent known as Africa. Where marshmallows grow on trees and the rivers are made of lemonade. All the people are smiling and friendly and wish each other a good day as they walk down the road.
It's only those horrible whites who kill each other. I mean, look at Europe. In France, Germany, Italy, Spain - all those poor people being killed by their countrymen every day.

Rwanda isn't a black country is it? Or Uganda? Or Angola? Or Ethiopia? Or Sierra Leone.......... Jeez I could name every single country in Africa as being recently affected by genocide. But then the blacks don't kill each other so it must be the "other side", huh?

Damn White Africa.



Maybe it's time for the UK to follow suit and expell all the non-whites from their country, send all the black Africans, Jamaican, Pakistanis and Indians back where they came from. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, isn't it?




posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eastern_Diamondback
Maybe it's time for the UK to follow suit and expell all the non-whites from their country, send all the black Africans, Jamaican, Pakistanis and Indians back where they came from. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, isn't it?


I totally disagree. What people have to realise is that they aren't part of any race - except for the Human Race. Nations should be able to revel in their cultures and traditions without forcing them on others or having them obliterated by others.

Everyone has to wake up to the fact that a tribal culture will only result in bloodshed.
Repatriation is not an answer to anything - it creates even more division.



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 01:39 PM
link   


I totally disagree. What people have to realise is that they aren't part of any race - except for the Human Race. Nations should be able to revel in their cultures and traditions without forcing them on others or having them obliterated by others.


Humans are a species, not a race. Races are non-genetically exclusive subgroupings of a species, similar to tiger subspecies like the Sumatran, Bengal, and Siberian.


Everyone has to wake up to the fact that a tribal culture will only result in bloodshed.
Repatriation is not an answer to anything - it creates even more division.



Multiculturalism solves little as well. Instead the tribal nature becomes intranational rather than international. How many more English cities will be torched by Pakistani wackos before someone stops to reconsider letting anymore from the subcontinent in?

Here in the States Mexican activists openly seek the repopulation and repatriation of the Southwest which they claim is rightfully theirs. Personally I'd be fine with letting them have California, Arizona and New Mexico, provided they return the $15 million they took in compensation for the land in 1848 (multiply that by inflation).

[edit on 25-6-2004 by Eastern_Diamondback]



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eastern_Diamondback
Multiculturalism solves little as well. Instead the tribal nature becomes intranational rather than international.


Multiculturalism is a new phenomena - it's far too early to judge it detrimentally. In fact, if you take a look at the US it shows how a multi-cultural society can become a world leader.

Don't forget that at one time, the whole of Europe was tribal. The integration that you deny is actually visible there. The skin colour may be similar but you have races of people who were historically at war with each other for millenia now celebrating a unified identity.

If the difference were just skin colour, I believe that this can be overcome - but unfortunately it isn't. The problem is that people still cling to outdated notions of superiority through birth. Take a look at Africa or Asia and you will find that most of the violence has nothing to do with racial difference through colour but rather through tribal differences rooted in a long forgotten history - Rwanda was a tribal civil war: Tutsis and Hutus have hated each other since the tribes began but nobody has a good reason why. It took a million dead for them to wake up to the fact that they were killing each other for no good reason.

Isolating tribes and refusing integration creates more division. It's not like your point about intranational tribal structure has been proved either. Sure, there are problems in the UK, but in general everyone gets along fine. Most of the issues that create friction in the UK with ethnic minorities actually have nothing to do with race - poverty is more of a catalyst.

When you look at how early man evolved and set out, he came from one tribe. There has been division followed by integration in many of the world's nations - just because an evil man like Mugabe plays on the negative aspects of race does not mean that there is no future in abolishing racial hatred.



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Well its a very bad situation for Zimbabwe.
But if they had a massive oil reserve, America would have Robert Mugabe kicked out as soon as possible.
Zimbabwe has little which any major country wants so no-one is really interested.
so a few blacks kill whites and visa versa who cares, they are just numbers like we all our.



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Multiculturalism is a new phenomena - it's far too early to judge it detrimentally. In fact, if you take a look at the US it shows how a multi-cultural society can become a world leader.


Multiculturalism is at least 2500 years old. Rome was multiethnic, both as a republic and as an empire. And they were quite successful at integrating newly conquered people, although some groups like the Jews and later the Germans never became fully integrated. The latter actual took part in the Empire's downfall. The Austro-Hungarian Empire was also multi-ethnic and multi-cultural, and the Hapsburg rulers feared the rise of nationalist movements in Europe which could inspire their subjects to rise up against them. Even recently in the Balkans, the fall of communism in Yugoslavia led to very bloody results when people who view themselves as different for linguistic, religious, and traditional reasons.


Don't forget that at one time, the whole of Europe was tribal. The integration that you deny is actually visible there. The skin colour may be similar but you have races of people who were historically at war with each other for millenia now celebrating a unified identity.


It goes beyond skin color, . shape, and various physical features. Like I said, look at Yugoslavia.


If the difference were just skin colour, I believe that this can be overcome - but unfortunately it isn't. The problem is that people still cling to outdated notions of superiority through birth. Take a look at Africa or Asia and you will find that most of the violence has nothing to do with racial difference through colour but rather through tribal differences rooted in a long forgotten history - Rwanda was a tribal civil war: Tutsis and Hutus have hated each other since the tribes began but nobody has a good reason why. It took a million dead for them to wake up to the fact that they were killing each other for no good reason.


There's no glossing over those situations. They are downright awful.


Isolating tribes and refusing integration creates more division.


I don't see that as a problem, in and of itself. I'm a nationalist at heart; I usually support the self-determination of people who see themselves as a nation with their own distinct culture. The Kurds are one example. One exception I can find is if the nation defines itself by its desire to destroy another. I fear the Palestinians fall into this definition. If one important aspect of their identity consists of their desire to destroy Israel, they do not deserve their own country.


It's not like your point about intranational tribal structure has been proved either. Sure, there are problems in the UK, but in general everyone gets along fine. Most of the issues that create friction in the UK with ethnic minorities actually have nothing to do with race - poverty is more of a catalyst.


With all due respect from what I know through friends and family, and with all I've read, I'd have to disagree with you. Ghettoes of Pakistanis and Bengalis across industrial England erupting in racial attacks on Englishmen and women, confrontations between police and youths almost resembling pictures from the West Bank. There are numerous Indians in the country too, but do not cause anywhere near the amount of trouble that Moslem South Asians do. Crime rates have been skyrocketing across the country. Prior to 1957, when the door on immigration were opened, GB was English, Scottish and Welsh (some Irish too). I don't recall social disorder being a mark of the country, except for dealings with Ireland and Northern Ireland.

United Kingdom of Islam


When you look at how early man evolved and set out, he came from one tribe. There has been division followed by integration in many of the world's nations - just because an evil man like Mugabe plays on the negative aspects of race does not mean that there is no future in abolishing racial hatred.


Man is a social animal and desires strong bonds with other human beings. Language and culture are integral aspects of human existence, and it's easy and beneficial to form bonds with people who share these attributes. It's only natural to allow people who see themselves as united people to have self-determination. In Mugabe's case, he is an idiot, and a racist at heart. His hatred of whites superceded any consideration for his own people. He rather see whites slughtered than black eat. It's kind of like suicide bomber who prefers the enemy dead than himself alive. Sad, sad sad. I've seen more civility in a feces throwing gorilla on a rampage at the zoo. Mugabe deserves to be hanged.



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 06:35 PM
link   
There is a distinction between Rome and the modern Western society. Although there were many different races present, they were segregated with the Romans being placed at the top. Hardly the society which we see in the UK where anyone with brains and the will can work their way up.
Rome might have contained many cultures and it even might have absorbed some of those cultures, but Rome was Roman.

The example that you give with Bosnia is a good example of how tribes will use anything to fight over. In this case it was deemed to be Muslims versus Christians. In reality it was neighbour against neighbour. They just happened to be from different European tribes - one from the Western part of Bosnia and one from the Eastern. They had been kept peaceable by Tito's force. Once this was out of the way, bloodshed was inevitable. You can't force people not to fight.

The UK does not have a massive problem with it's ethnic minorities. Sure, there is a minority within the minority which doesn't integrate or take part in society but that is to be expected with many first generation immigrants. I disagree with your vision of England being a country where racial hatred and ethnic unrest are a part of daily life. It's not unusual for me to visit London and sit in a pub with 2 Jamaican friends, an Israeli and a Pakistani. Race is not a barrier though it is interesting to see who .s for the toilets when it comes to whose turn it is to pay. There is a tendency for the government here to keep coming up with ultra-PC policies that favour ethnic minorities over the white population. These are blown out of all proportion by our media and in reality these policies do not really affect anyone in a negative way. Probably the worst policy I have come across is a Muslim woman only day at the local swimming baths. I was annoyed but I'll live.

Nationalism is all well and good in the short term. But whilst you're building walls, someone else will be working out a way to weaken them.

But anyway, this thread is about Mugabe and Zimbabwe. And Zimbabwe has never been a multi-cultural society. Again, like Rome it contained many cultures and tribes but there has always been only one at the top which has stifled the others. As evil and despicable as he is, Mugabe is only doing what comes natural in that part of the world.
I believe that it's not up to us to follow his lead. Rather we should be setting an example to show that there are other solutions.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Sunday 25th June 2006.

allafrica.com...

South Africa experiences one of the worst incidents of police killings when four officers are murdered after an armed robbery in Johannesburg.

The gunmen, believed to be all Zimbabweans, later surrendered after eight of the accomplices were killed by police specialist units who responded to the scene.
14 Gunmen in total gave themselves up.

The investigation that followed revealed something so shocking to the detectives that an immediate media black out was ordered by Charles Nqakula, the safety and security minister, and police's top management in Pretoria.

www.sabcnews.com...

National intelligence agencies have been drawn in to emergency meetings and even the .s of the SA military have been seen at these meetings.

Another, "off limits" to the media meeting is scheduled for this coming Friday and is said that the South African President is to attend too.

What was so shocking was leaked by one of the detectives who initially interviewed the suspects captured.

The suspects are all Zimbabwean soldiers who were given direct orders by their government to enter South Africa ilegally, aquire arms, and start a systematic process of creating unrest within the country.

It is believed that are at least another 50 "cells" of armed Zimbabwean soldiers waiting and planning the creation of a civil war within the borders of South Africa.

The motive: It is no secret that President Robert Mugabe has a total hate of white Africans and the largest concentration of white Africans is to be found in South Africa itself.

By sending covert armed soldiers into South Africa to create a situation of civil unrest he is hoping that it will spill over into a racial war and then he can come to the "assistance" of the black South African people by deploying his troops there, with permission this time, and eradicate the African white race.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Artificium

The suspects are all Zimbabwean soldiers who were given direct orders by their government to enter South Africa ilegally, aquire arms, and start a systematic process of creating unrest within the country.

It is believed that are at least another 50 "cells" of armed Zimbabwean soldiers waiting and planning the creation of a civil war within the borders of South Africa.

The motive: It is no secret that President Robert Mugabe has a total hate of white Africans and the largest concentration of white Africans is to be found in South Africa itself.

By sending covert armed soldiers into South Africa to create a situation of civil unrest he is hoping that it will spill over into a racial war and then he can come to the "assistance" of the black South African people by deploying his troops there, with permission this time, and eradicate the African white race.


That's interesting.
I had heard that a lot of crime in South Africa was being committed by Zimbabwean immigrants but I didn't know that it may have been a part of a plan by the Government of Zimbabwe.

You should do a seperate thread on this if you haven't already done so.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 06:08 PM
link   
There you go!

www.abovetopsecret.com...'
www.abovetopsecret.com...'

By popular demand

[edit on 5-7-2006 by Artificium]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join