An interesting nugget of info on the strange happenings in Libya.
Put simply, no one should be in power for 42 years without being troubled by elections or campaigning. But the European & American cockroaches who have plagued Africa since the slave trade chose to take advantage of genuine uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt and called their friends and double agents like Mousa Kousa, that they'd been nurturing for over 20 years to hijack genuine uprisings in North Africa & the middle east.
What I find very difficult to forgive is that these bastards have deceived decent people of Benghazi and eastern Libya generally, and dragged them into an unwinnable and long conflict with a western-armed dictator that they hated but were smartly surviving under. These unfortunate people are now pawns in a really dirty game between the Gaddafi family and their western ex-friends.
Even madder than Gaddafi pater was Sarkozy and his crazy haste to declare that the rebels were now the only legitimate government of Libya. I thought stuff like that was best left to the UN and various regional bodies, like the AU and Arab League in this case. I really wondered what had got into Sarkozy? Was it because he was a pathetic 3rd in the polls in his re-election bid, or was it something else? - like not wanting the witnesses to certain actions to be around.
Now Gaddafi Jnr says he & his crazy dude dad funded Sarkozy's election and want their money back.
Stranger than this allegation is that no one has tried to deny it.
Tuesday 5 April 2011
UN should act like this all of the time
The end game is near for Gaddafi's West African friend Gbagbo. Only in Africa would such a person negotiate.
There was an election in Cote d'Ivoire and the results were very clear. Maybe I'm being simple but if there's an election and one person got 54% of the vote while the other got 46%, then the candidate with 54% has won, and should take office, and that's all there is to it.
But in Africa where anything goes, l'enfant terrible Laurent decided to sit it out and invoke ethnic deities (the last refuge of the sub saharan African scoundrel). Stupidly, some chose to support him due to ethnic chauvinism and religious bigotry and started fighting.
As usual in Africa, the most innocent - women and children - always suffer.
So now with many thousands dead, Gbagbo is trapped in a basement asking for a ceasefire. I say, attach a garden hose to a tap, stick it through an opening in the basement and turn the tap on. As a rat in the basement Gbagbo should be drowned to save Africa one more parasite.
I really hope after this nasty episode, no other African leader would sit tight after elections they've lost. I hope these useless misrulers in Africa would allow the long suffering people of the continent to develop and grow.
Meanwhile, well done to the UN for acting firmly and fairly. I really wish they'd act like this in all circumstances and give the American & European cockroaches less chance to spread chaos in Africa for their own selfish and imperialistic ends.
There was an election in Cote d'Ivoire and the results were very clear. Maybe I'm being simple but if there's an election and one person got 54% of the vote while the other got 46%, then the candidate with 54% has won, and should take office, and that's all there is to it.
But in Africa where anything goes, l'enfant terrible Laurent decided to sit it out and invoke ethnic deities (the last refuge of the sub saharan African scoundrel). Stupidly, some chose to support him due to ethnic chauvinism and religious bigotry and started fighting.
As usual in Africa, the most innocent - women and children - always suffer.
So now with many thousands dead, Gbagbo is trapped in a basement asking for a ceasefire. I say, attach a garden hose to a tap, stick it through an opening in the basement and turn the tap on. As a rat in the basement Gbagbo should be drowned to save Africa one more parasite.
I really hope after this nasty episode, no other African leader would sit tight after elections they've lost. I hope these useless misrulers in Africa would allow the long suffering people of the continent to develop and grow.
Meanwhile, well done to the UN for acting firmly and fairly. I really wish they'd act like this in all circumstances and give the American & European cockroaches less chance to spread chaos in Africa for their own selfish and imperialistic ends.
Tuesday 29 March 2011
The curse of supersition in sub saharan Africa
Muti, Juju, Obeah, whatever evil name it's called, it's the same. The evil practises and inhuman activities practised and believed in by many in sub-saharan Africa that masquerades as cultural beliefs and religion.
Superstition is disgusting and costs lives, especially the lives of little children and women.
Science education is desperately needed.
Last updated at 12:18 PM on 29th March 2011
This is the little boy whose headless and limbless body was found floating in the Thames ten years ago, it was claimed last night.
The five-year-old’s identity has remained a mystery after he was smuggled into Britain and murdered in a voodoo-style ritual killing.
He was drugged with a ‘black-magic’ potion and sacrificed before being thrown into the Thames, where his torso washed up next to the Globe Theatre in September 2001.
Detectives used pioneering scientific techniques to trace radioactive isotopes in his bones to his native Nigeria.
They even enlisted Nelson Mandela to appeal for information about the murder.
But they always struggled to formally identify the boy, who they called Adam, despite travelling to the West African state to try to trace his family.
Now Nigerian Joyce Osiagede, the only person to be arrested in Britain as part of the inquiry, has claimed that the boy in this picture is Adam. She said his real name is Ikpomwosa.
In an interview with ITV’s London Tonight, Mrs Osiagede said she looked after the boy in Germany for a year before travelling to Britain without him in 2001.
She claimed she handed the boy over to a man known as Bawa who later told her that he was dead and threatened to kill her unless she kept silent.
Asked directly during an interview at her home in Nigeria if the boy in the photograph is Adam, Mrs Osiagede replied: ‘Yes.’
Saying she is now willing to talk to police, she added: ‘Ikpomwosa. Baby Adam, his native name was Ikpomwosa.’
The identification is a potentially huge breakthrough for Scotland Yard detectives.
Retired Detective Chief Inspector Will O’Reilly, who led the investigation, said: ‘Without a name murders are very hard to solve. So this is a crucial starting point for us and it should lead us to who killed him.’
Police have passed numerous files on the case to the Crown Prosecution Service but it has never gone to court.
A second suspect, a Nigerian man, was arrested in Dublin in 2003 but was never charged.
Mrs Osiagede was first questioned by police after they found clothing similar to that worn by ‘Adam’ in her Glasgow tower-block flat in 2002.
The only clothing on his body was a pair of orange shorts, exclusively sold in Woolworths in Germany and Austria.
Dressed in a traditional gold and green dress, Mrs Osiagede denied any involvement with the death of the young boy. Asked who killed him, she said a ‘group of people’.
She added: ‘They used him for a ritual in the water.’
Claiming the boy was six years old, she said: ‘He was a lively boy. A very nice boy, he was also intelligent.’
Detailed analysis of a substance in the boy’s stomach was identified as a ‘black magic’ potion.
It included tiny clay pellets containing small particles of pure gold, an indication that Adam was the victim of a Muti ritual killing.
Muti murders, common in sub-Saharan Africa, are carried out in the belief that the body parts of children are sacred. Bodies are often disposed of in flowing water.
Superstition is disgusting and costs lives, especially the lives of little children and women.
Science education is desperately needed.
Was this boy the torso in the Thames? Five-year-old 'victim of voodoo ritual' named by former suspect
By Chris Greenwood and Ryan KisielLast updated at 12:18 PM on 29th March 2011
- Police believed to have finally identified body
- Boy was poisoned with extract of carabar bean and had throat slit
Dumped in the Thames: The five-year-old boy identified as Adam
The five-year-old’s identity has remained a mystery after he was smuggled into Britain and murdered in a voodoo-style ritual killing.
He was drugged with a ‘black-magic’ potion and sacrificed before being thrown into the Thames, where his torso washed up next to the Globe Theatre in September 2001.
Detectives used pioneering scientific techniques to trace radioactive isotopes in his bones to his native Nigeria.
They even enlisted Nelson Mandela to appeal for information about the murder.
But they always struggled to formally identify the boy, who they called Adam, despite travelling to the West African state to try to trace his family.
Now Nigerian Joyce Osiagede, the only person to be arrested in Britain as part of the inquiry, has claimed that the boy in this picture is Adam. She said his real name is Ikpomwosa.
In an interview with ITV’s London Tonight, Mrs Osiagede said she looked after the boy in Germany for a year before travelling to Britain without him in 2001.
She claimed she handed the boy over to a man known as Bawa who later told her that he was dead and threatened to kill her unless she kept silent.
Grim: The headless, limbless body of a boy aged between five and six was found floating in the river near Tower Bridge and the Globe theatre in 2001
Dismembered: Detectives used pioneering scientific techniques to trace radioactive isotopes in the boy's bones to his native Nigeria
Saying she is now willing to talk to police, she added: ‘Ikpomwosa. Baby Adam, his native name was Ikpomwosa.’
The identification is a potentially huge breakthrough for Scotland Yard detectives.
Retired Detective Chief Inspector Will O’Reilly, who led the investigation, said: ‘Without a name murders are very hard to solve. So this is a crucial starting point for us and it should lead us to who killed him.’
Clue: The only clothing on his body was this pair of orange shorts, exclusively sold in Woolworths in Germany and Austria
Sinister: Extracts of carabar bean would have left the child paralysed but conscious when his throat was cut
A second suspect, a Nigerian man, was arrested in Dublin in 2003 but was never charged.
Mrs Osiagede was first questioned by police after they found clothing similar to that worn by ‘Adam’ in her Glasgow tower-block flat in 2002.
The only clothing on his body was a pair of orange shorts, exclusively sold in Woolworths in Germany and Austria.
Dressed in a traditional gold and green dress, Mrs Osiagede denied any involvement with the death of the young boy. Asked who killed him, she said a ‘group of people’.
She added: ‘They used him for a ritual in the water.’
Claiming the boy was six years old, she said: ‘He was a lively boy. A very nice boy, he was also intelligent.’
Detailed analysis of a substance in the boy’s stomach was identified as a ‘black magic’ potion.
It included tiny clay pellets containing small particles of pure gold, an indication that Adam was the victim of a Muti ritual killing.
Muti murders, common in sub-Saharan Africa, are carried out in the belief that the body parts of children are sacred. Bodies are often disposed of in flowing water.
Saturday 26 March 2011
Arabs and Africans - the myths part 2
Many sub saharan Africans have this strange view that they are somehow more civllized than Arabs, because they have bought more into European culture.
The facts don't bear this out.
While Africans, due to the slave trade, colonisation and the brainwashing that came with Christianity, started to ape Europeans in name, dress and social customs, Arabs and those of muslim background in West Africa, for e.g., as well as the middle east, kept to their traditional customs and identity. What sub saharan Africans did as the missionaries desperate for converts turned a blind eye to this, was to keep to superstitious beliefs that ought to have been abandoned in the 16th century.
Ask any southern Nigerian or Ivorien to comment on their northern compatriots, and they tell you they're backward, uneducated and are 'like Arabs' and these southerners would contend that they are more forward looking and liberated.
Many sub saharan Africans also have this odd view that because their ancestors were quick to jettison their own traditional beliefs and take on their white colonisers' beliefs, this makes them superior to Arabs (usually code for muslim in sub saharan speak).
Let's take a good look. Look at north Africa and the middle east with their infrastructure and the way they're now booting out their dictators. Look at the high education amongst Arab professionals and the articulate way they marshall their arguments in public, even when they're interviewed on the street.
Now compare this with the current state of sub saharan Africa:
So which is the backward race? - Arab or African, you decide.
And which is the backward religion? Islam or Christianity, you decide.
In case you're wondering, I'm of sub saharan origin and my ancestors were taught to sing the hymns 'Amazing Grace' & 'What a friend you have in Jesus'. This would be a joke if the consequences for sub saharan Africa weren't so tragic and serious.
The facts don't bear this out.
While Africans, due to the slave trade, colonisation and the brainwashing that came with Christianity, started to ape Europeans in name, dress and social customs, Arabs and those of muslim background in West Africa, for e.g., as well as the middle east, kept to their traditional customs and identity. What sub saharan Africans did as the missionaries desperate for converts turned a blind eye to this, was to keep to superstitious beliefs that ought to have been abandoned in the 16th century.
Ask any southern Nigerian or Ivorien to comment on their northern compatriots, and they tell you they're backward, uneducated and are 'like Arabs' and these southerners would contend that they are more forward looking and liberated.
Many sub saharan Africans also have this odd view that because their ancestors were quick to jettison their own traditional beliefs and take on their white colonisers' beliefs, this makes them superior to Arabs (usually code for muslim in sub saharan speak).
Let's take a good look. Look at north Africa and the middle east with their infrastructure and the way they're now booting out their dictators. Look at the high education amongst Arab professionals and the articulate way they marshall their arguments in public, even when they're interviewed on the street.
Now compare this with the current state of sub saharan Africa:
- In Sierra Leone, Charles Taylor and Freddy Sankoh chopped off people's limbs while Charles Taylor was a born again Christian ordained minister.
- In Christian D. R. Congo, boys, girls and men are subject to mass rape as a means of war.
- In Uganda, the Lord's resistance army has committed mass murder, cannibalism, rape and are revered by local Christians as they are reputed to have supernatural biblical powers that turn stones to grenades.
- In the christian south of Nigeria children are murdered daily because they are accused of witchcraft, usually when they lose a parent to AIDs.
- In the same southern Nigeria an incredibly corrupt candidate is supported by many Christian churches as they feel his candidacy is god ordained.
- In Equatorial Guinea, radio stations broadcast the god given powers of Nguema, a brutal despot, who they say should never be questioned as he has a hotline to christ.
- Gbagbo is committing various inhumane atrocities in Ivory Coast as we speak as he thinks he should rule instead of a muslim called Alassane Ouattara, who incidentally built up a wonderful infrastructure in Ivory Coast in the 1970s - 1980s.
So which is the backward race? - Arab or African, you decide.
And which is the backward religion? Islam or Christianity, you decide.
In case you're wondering, I'm of sub saharan origin and my ancestors were taught to sing the hymns 'Amazing Grace' & 'What a friend you have in Jesus'. This would be a joke if the consequences for sub saharan Africa weren't so tragic and serious.
Tuesday 22 March 2011
African Union wakes up, if uncoordinated
A very good and interesting article by Ugandan President, Yoweri Museveni, below:
| Museveni blasts West over Libya attack | ||||||
| Monday, 21st March, 2011 |
| |||||
PRESIDENT Yoweri Museveni has attacked the Western countries for their military action in Libya and accused them of double standards. Over the weekend, France, UK, Canada, US and Denmark launched aerial attacks on military targets and bases in Libya, arguing that they are intended to halt Col. Muammar Gadaffi loyalists from killing civilians. Museveni also warned that the habit of the Western countries using their superiority in technology to impose war on less developed countries “without impeachable logic” will ignite an arms race in the world. “The actions of the Western countries in Iraq and now Libya are emphasizing that might is ‘right.’ I am quite sure that many countries that are able will scale up their military research and in a few decades we may have a more armed world,” Museveni said in a statement yesterday. In the nine-page statement, the President accused the West of hastily imposing a ‘no-fly zone’ on Libya yet it has dragged its feet on the Africa Union request for the same over Somalia. “We have been appealing to the UN to impose a no-fly zone over Somalia so as to impede the free movement of terrorists, linked to Al-Qaeda that killed Americans on September 11, killed Ugandans last July and have caused so much damage to the Somalis, without success. Why?” the President asked. The UN imposed a ‘no-fly zone’ on Libya last Thursday. Museveni also accused the West of looking on as a Libya-like crisis evolves in the Great state of Bahrain. The President said despite Gadaffi’s past mistakes that included supporting Ugandan dictator Idi Amin, trying to bulldoze the AU and meddling in internal affairs of several countries using cultural leaders, he is an independent minded nationalist who has developed his country to middle income and refused to become a Western puppet. “Muammar Gaddafi, whatever his faults, is a true nationalist. I prefer nationalists to puppets of foreign interests. Where have the puppets caused the transformation of countries?” Museveni wondered. He suggested that an extra-ordinary summit of the AU should be called in Addis-Ababa, Ethiopia to help extricate “all of us from possible nasty complications.” Museveni urged Gadaffi to sit at a round table with the opposition, adding that since there have never been elections in Libya, “dialogue is the correct way forward.” “The ideal responsible Government should also be an elected one by the people at periodic intervals,” he advised. FULL STATEMENT HERE Libya needs dialogue BY the time Muammar Gaddaffi came to power in 1969, I was a third year university student at Dar-es-Salaam. We welcomed him because he was in the tradition of Col. Gamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt who had a nationalist and pan-Arabist position. Soon, however, problems cropped up with Col. Gaddafi as far as Uganda and Black Africa were concerned: Amin, however, turned against his sponsors when they refused to sell him guns to fight Tanzania. Unfortunately, Col. Muammar Gaddafi, without getting enough information about Uganda, jumped in to support Idi Amin. This was because Amin was a ‘Moslem’ and Uganda was a ‘Moslem country’ where Moslems were being ‘oppressed’ by Christians. Amin killed a lot of people extra-judiciary and Gaddafi was identified with these mistakes. In 1972 and 1979, Gaddafi sent Libyan troops to defend Idi Amin when we attacked him. I remember a Libyan Tupolev 22 bomber trying to bomb us in Mbarara in 1979. The bomb ended up in Nyarubanga because the pilots were scared. They could not come close to bomb properly. We had already shot-down many Amin MIGs using surface-to-air missiles. The Tanzanian brothers and sisters were doing much of this fighting. Many Libyan militias were captured and repatriated to Libya by Tanzania. This was a big mistake by Gaddafi and a direct aggression against the people of Uganda and East Africa. They, normally, do not want to offend other people. This is called obufura in Runyankore, mwolo in Luo – handling, especially strangers, with care and respect. It seems some of the non-African cultures do not have obufura. You can witness a person talking to a mature person as if he/she is talking to a kindergarten child. “You should do this; you should do that; etc.” We tried to politely point out to Col. Gaddafi that this was difficult in the short and medium term. We should, instead, aim at the Economic Community of Africa and, where possible, also aim at Regional Federations. Col. Gaddafi would not relent. He would not respect the rules of the AU. Something that has been covered by previous meetings would be resurrected by Gaddafi. He would ‘overrule’ a decision taken by all other African Heads of State. Some of us were forced to come out and oppose his wrong position and, working with others, we repeatedly defeated his illogical position. One blatant example was his involvement with cultural leaders of Black Africa – kings, chiefs, etc. Since the political leaders of Africa had refused to back his project of an African Government, Gaddafi, incredibly, thought that he could by-pass them and work with these kings to implement his wishes. I warned Gaddafi in Addis Ababa that action would be taken against any Ugandan king that involved himself in politics because it was against our Constitution. I moved a motion in Addis Ababa to expunge from the records of the AU all references to kings (cultural leaders) who had made speeches in our forum because they had been invited there illegally by Col. Gaddafi. The Middle Eastern radicals, quite different from the revolutionaries of Black Africa, seem to say that any means is acceptable as long as you are fighting the enemy. That is why they hijack planes, use assassinations, plant bombs in bars, etc. Why bomb bars? People who go to bars are normally merry-makers, not politically minded people. We were together with the Arabs in the anti-colonial struggle. The Black African liberation movements, however, developed differently from the Arab ones. Where we used arms, we fought soldiers or sabotaged infrastructure but never targeted non-combatants. These indiscriminate methods tend to isolate the struggles of the Middle East and the Arab world. It would be good if the radicals in these areas could streamline their work methods in this area of using violence indiscriminately. These five points above are some of the negative points in connection to Col. Gaddafi as far as Uganda’s patriots have been concerned over the years. These positions of Col. Gaddafi have been unfortunate and unnecessary. Nevertheless, Gaddafi has also had many positive points objectively speaking. These positive points have been in favour of Africa, Libya and the Third World. I will deal with them point by point: Most of the countries that have transitioned from Third World to First World status since 1945 have had independent-minded leaders: South Korea (Park Chung-hee), Singapore (Lee Kuan Yew), China People’s Republic (Mao Tse Tung, Chou Enlai, Deng Xiaoping, Marshal Yang Shangkun, Li Peng, Jiang Zemin, Hu Jing Tao, etc), Malaysia (Dr. Mahthir Mohamad), Brazil (Lula Da Silva), Iran (the Ayatollahs), etc. Between the First World War and the Second World War, the Soviet Union transitioned into an industrial country propelled by the dictatorial but independent-minded Joseph Stalin. In Africa we have benefited from a number of independent-minded leaders: Col. Nasser of Egypt, Mwalimu Nyerere of Tanzania, Samora Machel of Mozambique, etc. That is how Southern Africa was liberated. That is how we got rid of Idi Amin. The stopping of genocide in Rwanda and the overthrow of Mobutu, etc., were as a result of efforts of independent-minded African leaders. Muammar Gaddafi, whatever his faults, is a true nationalist. I prefer nationalists to puppets of foreign interests. Where have the puppets caused the transformation of countries? I need some assistance with information on this from those who are familiar with puppetry. Therefore, the independent-minded Gaddafi had some positive contribution to Libya, I believe, as well as Africa and the Third World. I will take one little example. At the time we were fighting the criminal dictatorships here in Uganda, we had a problem arising of a complication caused by our failure to capture enough guns at Kabamba on the 6th of February, 1981. Gaddafi gave us a small consignment of 96 rifles, 100 anti-tank mines, etc., that was very useful. He did not consult Washington or Moscow before he did this. This was good for Libya, for Africa and for the Middle East. We should also remember as part of that independent-mindedness he expelled British and American military bases from Libya, etc. I am, therefore, surprised to hear that many oil producers in the world, including the Gulf countries, do not appreciate the historical role played by Gaddafi on this issue. The huge wealth many of these oil producers are enjoying was, at least in part, due to Gaddafi’s efforts. The Western countries have continued to develop in spite of paying more for oil. It, therefore, means that the pre-Gaddafi oil situation was characterised by super exploitation in favour of the Western countries. From the TV pictures, you can even see the rebels zooming up and down in pick-up vehicles on very good roads accompanied by Western journalists. Who built these good roads? Who built the oil refineries in Brega and those other places where the fighting has been taking place recently? Were these facilities built during the time of the king and his American as well as British allies or were they built by Gaddafi? In Tunisia and Egypt, some youths immolated (burnt) themselves because they had failed to get jobs. Are the Libyans without jobs also? If so, why, then, are there hundreds of thousands of foreign workers? Is Libya’s policy of providing so many jobs to Third World workers bad? Are all the children going to school in Libya? Was that the case in the past – before Gaddafi? Is the conflict in Libya economic or purely political? Possibly Libya could have transitioned more if they encouraged the private sector more. However, this is something the Libyans are better placed to judge. As it is, Libya is a middle income country with GDP standing at US$ 89.03 billion. This is about the same as the GDP of South Africa at the time Mandela took over leadership in 1994 and about the current size of GDP of Spain. Gaddafi is one of the few secular leaders in the Arab world. He does not believe in Islamic fundamentalism that is why women have been able to go to school, to join the Army, etc. This is a positive point on Gaddafi’s side. Coming to the present crisis, therefore, we need to point out some issues: When rioters are, however, attacking Police stations and Army barracks with the aim of taking power, then, they are no longer demonstrators; they are insurrectionists. They will have to be treated as such. A responsible Government would have to use reasonable force to neutralise them. Of course, the ideal responsible Government should also be an elected one by the people at periodic intervals. If there is a doubt about the legitimacy of a Government and the people decide to launch an insurrection, that should be the decision of the internal forces. It should not be for external forces to arrogate themselves that role, often, they do not have enough knowledge to decide rightly. Excessive external involvement always brings terrible distortions. Why should external forces involve themselves? That is a vote of no confidence in the people themselves. A legitimate internal insurrection, if that is the strategy chosen by the leaders of that effort, can succeed. The Shah of Iran was defeated by an internal insurrection; the Russian Revolution in 1917 was an internal insurrection; the Revolution in Zanzibar in 1964 was an internal insurrection; the changes in Ukraine, Georgia, etc., all were internal insurrections. It should be for the leaders of the Resistance in that country to decide their to sponsor insurrection groups in sovereign countries. I am totally allergic to foreign, political and military involvement in sovereign countries, especially the African countries. If foreign intervention is good, then, African countries should be the most prosperous countries in the world because we have had the greatest dosages of that: slave trade, colonialism, neo-colonialism, imperialism, etc. All those foreign imposed phenomena have, however, been disastrous. It is only recently that Africa is beginning to come up partly because of rejecting external meddling. External meddling and the acquiescence by Africans into that meddling have been responsible for the stagnation in Africa. The wrong definition of priorities in many of the African countries is, in many cases, imposed by external groups. Failure to prioritise infrastructure, for instance, especially energy, is, in part, due to some of these pressures. Instead, consumption is promoted. I have witnessed this wrong definition of priorities even here in Uganda. External interests linked up, for instance, with internal bogus groups to oppose energy projects for false reasons. How will an economy develop without energy? Quislings and their external backers do not care about all this. We have been appealing to the UN to impose a no-fly-zone over Somalia so as to impede the free movement of terrorists, linked to Al-Qaeda, that killed Americans on September 11th, killed Ugandans last July and have caused so much damage to the Somalis, without success. Why? Are there no human beings in Somalia similar to the ones in Benghazi? Or is it because Somalia does not have oil which is not fully controlled by the western oil companies on account of Gaddafi’s nationalist posture? There was a military coup d’état that slowly became a Revolution in backward Egypt in 1952. The new leader, Nasser, had ambition to cause transformation in Egypt. He wanted to build a dam not only to generate electricity but also to help with the ancient irrigation system of Egypt. He was denied money by the West because they did not believe that Egyptians needed electricity. Nasser decided to raise that money by nationalising the Suez Canal. He was attacked by Israel, France and Britain. To be fair to the US, President Eisenhower opposed that aggression that time. Of course, there was also the firm stand of the Soviet Union at that time. How much electricity was this dam supposed to produce? Just 2000 mgws for a country like Egypt!! What moral right, then, do such people have to comment on the affairs of these countries? The actions of the Western countries in Iraq and now Libya are emphasising that might is “right.” I am quite sure that many countries that are able will scale up their military research and in a few decades we may have a more armed world. This weapons science is not magic. A small country like Israel is now a super power in terms of military technology. Yet 60 years ago, Israel had to buy second-hand fouga magister planes from France. There are many countries that can become small Israels if this trend of overusing military means by the Western countries continues. Anyway, even if it is competitive, there is now, apparently, a significant number of Libyans that think that there is a problem in Libya in terms of governance. Since there has not been internationally observed elections in Libya, not even by the AU, we cannot know what is correct and what is wrong. Therefore, a dialogue is the correct way forward. The West made a lot of mistakes in Africa and in the Middle East in the past. Apart from the slave trade and colonialism, they participated in the killing of Lumumba, until recently, the only elected leader of Congo, the killing of Felix Moummie of Cameroon, Bartholomew Boganda of Central African Republic, the support for UNITA in Angola, the support for Idi Amin at the beginning of his regime, the counter-revolution in Iran in 1953, etc. Recently, there has been some improvement in the arrogant attitudes of some of these Western countries. Certainly, with Black Africa and, particularly, Uganda, the relations are good following their fair stand on the Black people of Southern Sudan. With the democratisation of South Africa and the freedom of the Black people in Southern Sudan, the difference between the patriots of Uganda and the Western Governments had disappeared. Unfortunately, these rush actions on Libya are beginning to raise new problems. They should be resolved quickly. Therefore, if the Libyan opposition groups are patriots, they should fight their war by themselves and conduct their affairs by themselves. After all, they easily captured so much equipment from the Libyan Army, why do they need foreign military support? I only had 27 rifles. To be puppets is not good. The Western countries, which are most active in these rush actions, should look at that route. It may be one way of extricating all of us from possible nasty complications. What if the Libyans loyal to Gaddafi decide to fight on? Using tanks and planes that are easily targeted by Mr. Sarkozy’s planes is not the only way of fighting. Who will be responsible for such a protracted war? It is high time we did more careful thinking. | ||||||
Monday 21 March 2011
What is the African Union for?
I'd love to carry an African passport.
The best route to economic development is the establishment of a common market of all 53 regions in Africa. It's best that all African territories have a common language to eliminate neo colonial influences.
I would suggest Arabic or Swahili.
Africa's various despots would hate this as their greed and kleptomania would be curbed.
When Gadaffi suggested this, I thought it was a good idea, though I wasn't too keen on his idea of it being his personal fiefdom.
But the African Union exists and should be more than a talking shop for geriatric, empty headed despots.
Which is why I'm extremely embarrassed by the Africa Union's response to the Libyan crisis. When Gaddafi started to shoot and bomb Libyans en masse, the only sound to be heard from the African Union were the loud snores of inaction.
Knowing that Gaddafi is keener on Africa than the Middle East & Arab League, the AU should have sent people to speak to him and resolve the crisis and arrange a dignified handover and elections, very much like in post revolutionary Egypt.
Now the West has done what it does best, foment chaos in Africa to enable long term occupation (the initial invasion of western powers in Africa 500 years ago was, incidentally, to save the natives from effects of inter-tribal warfare). Many centuries and slavery and colonisation later, Africans are yet to rid themselves of the cancer of imperialism.
Gaddafi's insanity is now being used as an excuse for the second wave of invasion of all of Africa. Those who think that Libya is far away and doesn't affect us should remember that only Niger, Boukina Faso and Mauritania separate us from Libya. And deep in the waffle from imperialists is the mention of dealing with those countries that supply the mercenaries to our favourite neighbourhood lunatic. Blithely forgetting that mercenaries work on their own for money, not on behalf of governments.
The AU has said nothing about the first invasion of African soil by Europeans since the end of the slave trade and colonial wars. And in fact, two of its members, Nigeria and Gabon voted for this most open ended and (deliberately) vague UN resolution that could be used to achieve anything. The African Union members' votes were probably achieved via the appropriate bungs, at least in Nigeria's case.
Those who think that the West was acting charitably should ask why there's no UN resolution on and an invasion of Ivory Coast, where worse is happening, and France has a special historical interest.
Before the west chose to be the opportunist invaders of Africa, the people of Benghazi were heroes, they would have got rid of Gaddafi. It might have taken a few more months, but it would have happened. Many residents of Tripoli who supported them but were too scared to speak would have been liberated. The majority of Libyans who just want a quiet life and are not involved one way or another would have carried on having a quiet life.
Instead, we would have a replay of Iraq (anyone wonder why these crazy westerners invaded Libya on the exact 8th anniversary of the shock & awe bombing of Iraq). If Britain, America & France were ruled by rational beings, the date 19th March should have made them think twice. We would end up with a chaotic mess in Libya, al-Quaeda would most likely come in, and the people of Benghazi would be hurt even more. Because we would end up having civillian casualties in Benghazi and elsewhere and horror of horrors, Gaddafi would most likely stay in place. We can only guess what horrors await the people of eastern Libya when the invaders get bored and decide that they're better off dealing with Gaddafi for cheap oil anyway.
If the AU were of any use, these are the sorts of arguments it should marshall to the West, on behalf of the people of Libya who identify with Africans more than Arabs. Instead all African leaders have shown themselves to be a bunch of greedy clowns who are only interested in staying in post, oppressing their own people and piggishly gorging themselves fat on the backs of their own people - the original parasites.
The best route to economic development is the establishment of a common market of all 53 regions in Africa. It's best that all African territories have a common language to eliminate neo colonial influences.
I would suggest Arabic or Swahili.
Africa's various despots would hate this as their greed and kleptomania would be curbed.
When Gadaffi suggested this, I thought it was a good idea, though I wasn't too keen on his idea of it being his personal fiefdom.
But the African Union exists and should be more than a talking shop for geriatric, empty headed despots.
Which is why I'm extremely embarrassed by the Africa Union's response to the Libyan crisis. When Gaddafi started to shoot and bomb Libyans en masse, the only sound to be heard from the African Union were the loud snores of inaction.
Knowing that Gaddafi is keener on Africa than the Middle East & Arab League, the AU should have sent people to speak to him and resolve the crisis and arrange a dignified handover and elections, very much like in post revolutionary Egypt.
Now the West has done what it does best, foment chaos in Africa to enable long term occupation (the initial invasion of western powers in Africa 500 years ago was, incidentally, to save the natives from effects of inter-tribal warfare). Many centuries and slavery and colonisation later, Africans are yet to rid themselves of the cancer of imperialism.
Gaddafi's insanity is now being used as an excuse for the second wave of invasion of all of Africa. Those who think that Libya is far away and doesn't affect us should remember that only Niger, Boukina Faso and Mauritania separate us from Libya. And deep in the waffle from imperialists is the mention of dealing with those countries that supply the mercenaries to our favourite neighbourhood lunatic. Blithely forgetting that mercenaries work on their own for money, not on behalf of governments.
The AU has said nothing about the first invasion of African soil by Europeans since the end of the slave trade and colonial wars. And in fact, two of its members, Nigeria and Gabon voted for this most open ended and (deliberately) vague UN resolution that could be used to achieve anything. The African Union members' votes were probably achieved via the appropriate bungs, at least in Nigeria's case.
Those who think that the West was acting charitably should ask why there's no UN resolution on and an invasion of Ivory Coast, where worse is happening, and France has a special historical interest.
Before the west chose to be the opportunist invaders of Africa, the people of Benghazi were heroes, they would have got rid of Gaddafi. It might have taken a few more months, but it would have happened. Many residents of Tripoli who supported them but were too scared to speak would have been liberated. The majority of Libyans who just want a quiet life and are not involved one way or another would have carried on having a quiet life.
Instead, we would have a replay of Iraq (anyone wonder why these crazy westerners invaded Libya on the exact 8th anniversary of the shock & awe bombing of Iraq). If Britain, America & France were ruled by rational beings, the date 19th March should have made them think twice. We would end up with a chaotic mess in Libya, al-Quaeda would most likely come in, and the people of Benghazi would be hurt even more. Because we would end up having civillian casualties in Benghazi and elsewhere and horror of horrors, Gaddafi would most likely stay in place. We can only guess what horrors await the people of eastern Libya when the invaders get bored and decide that they're better off dealing with Gaddafi for cheap oil anyway.
If the AU were of any use, these are the sorts of arguments it should marshall to the West, on behalf of the people of Libya who identify with Africans more than Arabs. Instead all African leaders have shown themselves to be a bunch of greedy clowns who are only interested in staying in post, oppressing their own people and piggishly gorging themselves fat on the backs of their own people - the original parasites.
Wednesday 2 March 2011
Africa - a very dark continent
The ignorant attitude of AU leaders to Gaddafi is sickening.
In UK, Gaddafi would come under section 4 of the Mental Health Act, for his and others safety.
The ambivalent attitude of Africans to his behaviour explains why sub saharan Africa is extremely backward.
I sometimes wonder if Joseph Conrad was right. Although the darkness he refers to now applies to African 'leaders' and their complicit, intellectually lazy, superstitious, ethnically biased and innately corrupt populace.
At least Moses Chamboko of the Zimbabwe Telegraph has some moral fibre. Nigerian and other West African journalists are too busy chasing brown envelopes during the election season to even bother reporting on the events in Libya.
In UK, Gaddafi would come under section 4 of the Mental Health Act, for his and others safety.
The ambivalent attitude of Africans to his behaviour explains why sub saharan Africa is extremely backward.
I sometimes wonder if Joseph Conrad was right. Although the darkness he refers to now applies to African 'leaders' and their complicit, intellectually lazy, superstitious, ethnically biased and innately corrupt populace.
At least Moses Chamboko of the Zimbabwe Telegraph has some moral fibre. Nigerian and other West African journalists are too busy chasing brown envelopes during the election season to even bother reporting on the events in Libya.
Saturday 26 February 2011
Arabs and Africans - the myths
Sub saharan Africa is still going through the realities of the scramble for Africa. Every region looks up to the present colonial master. They speak the language and practise the customs of the colonial master.
There's a lack of cooperation with one another because of this inability to communicate. Many sub saharan Africans are proud to be told how 'westernised' they are and would be proud to show how good they are at speaking portuguese, english, french or spanish, but don't know Swahili or Arabic, the languages that their ancestors spoke before slavery and colonisation.
With the immense mineral resources in sub saharan Africa, European colonialists are not keen to let go. Any other culture that comes near Africa is denounced in snide remarks as racist. When the Chinese started to get involved in Africa, stories appeared in various media claiming Chinese are racist towards Africans. Though the success of Africans in China shows this to be a grand lie.
More disturbingly, with Arabs, who are geographically closest with Africans, we've been fed this rubbish about how the word for African is Abid, which means slave. You check deeper and find that Abid means worshipper and servant (in relation to god), so Abdillah or Abdullah means servant of God. The supposedly perjorative meaning that Abid is a bad name for Africans in the middle east and north Africa came from an individual called Meyer, who works for the State Department. One can guess at his origins from his name.
This narrative has fitted in with the neo-con imposed world view of how a certain ethnic group, ie, Arabs, we out to destroy everyone on earth, and it was the duty of all subscribers to a Judeo-Christian world view to keep the world safe.
Now with the Libya crisis, with greedy mercenaries from sub saharan Africa killing Libyans, the western media is trying to portray a racist problem between Arabs and Africans. From my experience, this isn't true.
If anything, whereas Christianity encourages tribalism and disunity, Islam actually makes people blind to ethnicity. The solidarity between all of Africa, north, south, east and west, would have brought all dictators in Africa tumbling down before now. But thanks to the false narrative of a supposed hatred between Africans and Arabs, we are all controlled by evil, greedy men and their families, while all of our resources go to the enjoyment of foreigners.
The revolution is yet to spread south ward as sub saharan Africans have yet to get off their knees and break off their shackles.
One of the great outcomes of the revolution spreading through the middle east and north Africa is that the courage we have witnessed come down to sub saharan Africa, people stop listening to colonial myths, cooperate with their nearest neighbours and use natural resources for the good of the area and the people within it, instead of benefitting slave master American/European colonialists and their hair-dyed dictator friends in Africa.
There's a lack of cooperation with one another because of this inability to communicate. Many sub saharan Africans are proud to be told how 'westernised' they are and would be proud to show how good they are at speaking portuguese, english, french or spanish, but don't know Swahili or Arabic, the languages that their ancestors spoke before slavery and colonisation.
With the immense mineral resources in sub saharan Africa, European colonialists are not keen to let go. Any other culture that comes near Africa is denounced in snide remarks as racist. When the Chinese started to get involved in Africa, stories appeared in various media claiming Chinese are racist towards Africans. Though the success of Africans in China shows this to be a grand lie.
More disturbingly, with Arabs, who are geographically closest with Africans, we've been fed this rubbish about how the word for African is Abid, which means slave. You check deeper and find that Abid means worshipper and servant (in relation to god), so Abdillah or Abdullah means servant of God. The supposedly perjorative meaning that Abid is a bad name for Africans in the middle east and north Africa came from an individual called Meyer, who works for the State Department. One can guess at his origins from his name.
This narrative has fitted in with the neo-con imposed world view of how a certain ethnic group, ie, Arabs, we out to destroy everyone on earth, and it was the duty of all subscribers to a Judeo-Christian world view to keep the world safe.
Now with the Libya crisis, with greedy mercenaries from sub saharan Africa killing Libyans, the western media is trying to portray a racist problem between Arabs and Africans. From my experience, this isn't true.
If anything, whereas Christianity encourages tribalism and disunity, Islam actually makes people blind to ethnicity. The solidarity between all of Africa, north, south, east and west, would have brought all dictators in Africa tumbling down before now. But thanks to the false narrative of a supposed hatred between Africans and Arabs, we are all controlled by evil, greedy men and their families, while all of our resources go to the enjoyment of foreigners.
The revolution is yet to spread south ward as sub saharan Africans have yet to get off their knees and break off their shackles.
One of the great outcomes of the revolution spreading through the middle east and north Africa is that the courage we have witnessed come down to sub saharan Africa, people stop listening to colonial myths, cooperate with their nearest neighbours and use natural resources for the good of the area and the people within it, instead of benefitting slave master American/European colonialists and their hair-dyed dictator friends in Africa.
Tuesday 22 February 2011
Apologies to the Libyan people
The most disgusting reports about the tragic events in Libya are those about sub saharan Africans going in to kill Libyans because Gaddaffi paid them.
This mad and evil creature, Gaddaffi, has trained so many Nigerian soldiers and Ghanaian ones. Coups in Bourkina Faso and Liberia have been linked to his evil name (this could explain the mercenaries speaking French).
Once the people of Libya prevail, they should completely destroy the Nigerian Army as well as those of Ghana, Gambia, Senegal, Bourkina Faso, Liberia and any other countries found to have been associating with Gaddaffi and his even madder son.
The UN should meanwhile speak to all the ECOWAS countries and ask them to control and keep track of their citizens as this sort of disgusting episode must not be allowed to happen again.
You have to marvel as sub saharan Africans who cannot be bothered to organise their own countries, and then go to attack those who legitimately seek freedom.
I apologise to the good people of Libya for the actions of morally bankrupt and disgusting sub saharan African mercenaries.
This mad and evil creature, Gaddaffi, has trained so many Nigerian soldiers and Ghanaian ones. Coups in Bourkina Faso and Liberia have been linked to his evil name (this could explain the mercenaries speaking French).
Once the people of Libya prevail, they should completely destroy the Nigerian Army as well as those of Ghana, Gambia, Senegal, Bourkina Faso, Liberia and any other countries found to have been associating with Gaddaffi and his even madder son.
The UN should meanwhile speak to all the ECOWAS countries and ask them to control and keep track of their citizens as this sort of disgusting episode must not be allowed to happen again.
You have to marvel as sub saharan Africans who cannot be bothered to organise their own countries, and then go to attack those who legitimately seek freedom.
I apologise to the good people of Libya for the actions of morally bankrupt and disgusting sub saharan African mercenaries.
Friday 18 February 2011
Yoweri Museveni says protests would never happen in Uganda
Sadly, he tells the truth.
While North Africa burns, sub saharan Africa remains silent. Africans below the Sahara can only dream of the infrastructure you find in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Bahrain. Their governments are a billion times more corrupt and more brutal than Mubarak & Gaddaffi put together. But no protests. Just prayers for a better tomorrow while they look forward to meeting someone called Jesus when they die after their mostly unfulfilled and pointless lives.
Museveni and his party of 'born again' Christians in Africa stay in power as their people are slaves to the most poisonous philosophy known to man.
Christianity was introduced to sub saharan Africa to enable the slave trade by making slaves eternally grateful to their captors for saving their souls. The colonial masters also found this religion handy as it meant that the colonised strived to be like their oppressors and in fact ape them in lifestyle and were grateful that through colonialism, their souls had been saved.
Now a worse version of Christianity has taken hold of the minds of black Africans. The odious prosperity gospel, where people think god only blesses them if they come across some money by any means necessary. So voters in sub saharan Africa sell their voters' cards to corrupt politicians for $2 or less, and wonder why their lives remain miserable. They marvel at the scenes from Egypt and Tunisia but can never attain the freedom now spreading across the Arab world.
Till they learn to stop paying tithes in the hope of 'salvation'. Till they start to think of their lives before death, instead of dreaming of life after death with a historical figure called Jesus, who was simply a Jewish Rabbi who wanted people to live decently, and not the deity presented to Africans by slave masters and colonialists who simply wanted to dominate and confuse them.
While North Africa burns, sub saharan Africa remains silent. Africans below the Sahara can only dream of the infrastructure you find in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Bahrain. Their governments are a billion times more corrupt and more brutal than Mubarak & Gaddaffi put together. But no protests. Just prayers for a better tomorrow while they look forward to meeting someone called Jesus when they die after their mostly unfulfilled and pointless lives.
Museveni and his party of 'born again' Christians in Africa stay in power as their people are slaves to the most poisonous philosophy known to man.
Christianity was introduced to sub saharan Africa to enable the slave trade by making slaves eternally grateful to their captors for saving their souls. The colonial masters also found this religion handy as it meant that the colonised strived to be like their oppressors and in fact ape them in lifestyle and were grateful that through colonialism, their souls had been saved.
Now a worse version of Christianity has taken hold of the minds of black Africans. The odious prosperity gospel, where people think god only blesses them if they come across some money by any means necessary. So voters in sub saharan Africa sell their voters' cards to corrupt politicians for $2 or less, and wonder why their lives remain miserable. They marvel at the scenes from Egypt and Tunisia but can never attain the freedom now spreading across the Arab world.
Till they learn to stop paying tithes in the hope of 'salvation'. Till they start to think of their lives before death, instead of dreaming of life after death with a historical figure called Jesus, who was simply a Jewish Rabbi who wanted people to live decently, and not the deity presented to Africans by slave masters and colonialists who simply wanted to dominate and confuse them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)