ScottSA

So your position is that the murder rate of caucasians in SA and the constant government sponsored attacks on caucasians in zimbabwe have nothing to do with race?

Not really, and not to the extent that Gore is. Not even Clinton is so shamelessly and hypocritically selling snakeoil off the back of a wagon like Gore is. Promoting a book is one thing, but Gore has an entire travelling circus in high gear. Must have been using the same circus Bush used in the months before the Iraq invasion. Excuse me? You compare a sitting president talking to the nation about foreign policy to the profitmaking schemes of an ex vice president drumming up speaking fees and book sales?

How majestic a memory of the event you have. I remember it as the cringing of a snivelling prime minister who wanted the rest of the world to tell him what to do. And that during a time when everyone, including Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, and Liberals, believed that there were WMD in Iraq. Not to mention the fact that the US did have the sanction of the UN...just not the support of France and Germany.

Not really, and not to the extent that Gore is. Not even Clinton is so shamelessly and hypocritically selling snakeoil off the back of a wagon like Gore is. Promoting a book is one thing, but Gore has an entire travelling circus in high gear.

Because most farmers are white and most whites are 100 times richer than their murderers.....now i have read of merders where the motivation was revenge for ill treatment. You give the same rationale for anti-caucasian genocide as Melanie did..."ill-treatment." She meant it as a general statement embracing "historical wrongs," and you seem to be evoking some immediate wrong that you can't seem to cite, although I wouldn't be at all surprised if you also trotted out the "historical wrongs" dog and pony show too. This tact of rationalizing events on "historical wrongs" is a dangerous one Momo. Sure it's only in Africa today, and who cares about what happens to those "colonial oppressors" and all that, but at the present rate of immigration and demographics caucasians will be a minority here too, and what then? Your daughter or her's has to live through that time, and she's a "colonial oppressor" too. But it's obviously pointless to talk to you about this, since you not only have your head in the sand, but you've cemented it into the ground to make sure it stays there.

See, here you're making two opposing points. On one hand you say we ought to shine a light on the problems, presumably with an eye to fixing them, and on the other you're saying we should leave in 2009 regardless of the problems. It's quite obvious that you're focus is on discrediting the mission and leaving and not on fixing whatever problems exist. Running away only buys a bit of time Dobbin, and it does so at the cost of future generations who will have to deal with the global scourge of Islam.

http://www.genocidewatch.org/BoersSlain01.htmWhy do you think they are being killed Momo? Why do you think they are killed at a rate 4 times greater than the general population? Why do you think they are being killed in Rhodesia?

At last, tacit acknowledgement your posts are the last refuse of a scoundrel...... No...simply an acknowledgment of something so obvious that I thought even you would be able to grasp it without a detailed lesson plan on how to grasp the bleeding obvious.

I love "climate change deniers!" It just makes me shake my head that the inquisitorial faith in "manmade climate change" that you folks have is so strong that you have to try to link it to some mass crime against humanity. It's like the Malthusian "population bomb" that everyuone was in such a tizzy over a few decades ago, or the Y2K scare, or any number of wooooscary things that were "inevitable" and had scientific "consensus." 10 years down the road anyone who says those kinds of things will be a laughing stock. I'd drop the usage soon if I were you.

You seem to be saying that all we need to do is "put a man in place" and leave. So the Afghans are behind schedule? So what? Is that reason to stay? And as for the move to the south, someone has to do it...why not canada? Why does it have to be the US? Wars are not won in weeks or days, and occupations can take decades. Bringing the fight to the enemy is the only way to shorten the time, and that's what Canadians are doing. But having people back home carping at every setback, whether real or imagined, is counterproductive. Either we fight this war or we don't. There isn't any "safe" or "short" way to do it.

Except that these two examples are neither representitive of the nations nor are they what Scott is chirping about. Never were white Rhodesians or the Boers majorities in those countries. And while Mugabe certainly did reposses the lands previously siezed by Caucasian immigrants and that was a political act, the crime in South Africa is not. While 1000 Caucasians may have been indeed murdered in South africa since 1991 (little over 90 a year) it is important to keep in mind that south africa has one of the highest murder rates in the world. (not counting countries that have slipped into chaos). So let me get this straight...since caucasians once were the majority in canada, they face no danger when they become the minority, because its completely different from a situation in which caucasians were always the minority? And 90 deaths a year is acceptable to you? So it's ok if racial violence in Canada knocks off 90 a year? Incidentally, are you aware that the Zulu in Rhodesia were as much newcomers to the place as the whites? And that they were only there after having completely genocided the existing population? Gosh, I don't recall the Europeans doing anything even remotely similar to that even in the Belgian Congo. Oh, did you know that South Africa didn't always have the highest murder rates in the world? Guess when the crime rate shot through the roof? I love all this conceptual squirming. So apples and oranges are the same thing to you, if they seem to support your petty fears of inaccuracy? We're not talking about apples and oranges, we're talking about minorities and violence.

What an odd misinterpretation of what I said *patting Momo on the head* Maybe this is another case of you not understanding what you are saying. How pray tell, does paying, give someone the right to spread hate? Well, lets clear some of the fog in your head out by explaining a couple things: A "right" is not something "given." A right is inherent. A priveledge is "given." There are no commas needed in this sentence: "How pray tell, does paying, give someone the right to spread hate?" "Hate" is not something tangible, like ink or oil, that "spreads." Only in the totalitarian neo-liberal mind is an idea, in and of itself, dangerous. And last but not least, paying does not have any influence at all on someone's inherent right to say whatever they want on the internet. I merely used it as the throwaway part of a sentence.

Here we have a demonstration of the depth of Momo's political convictions.

The first Anglo-Afghan war ended in a massacre of British forces. The second Anglo-Afghan War resulted in a defeat of Afghan forces but the British retained little influence over the tribal areas. In short, they feared another massacre. They put in a man whom they thought they could influence and who was acceptable and pulled out. The British didn't have to stay in Afghanistan until 1919. They believed their presence was ultimately destabilizing and that they could do more by having the right person in place than having 50,000 troops there. I shouldn't be telling you anything you don't know about this. As you say, Afghanistan has been set in it ways long before and will remain set in their ways long after. One of those ways is fighting. Whenever they have the option of fighting someone from the outside than inside, they take that instead. Well, the 1st anglo-afghan war ended in a massacre because it was a retreat of the diplomatic mission from Kabul through the Khyber Pass, not because it was any kind of "war" per se. That single event has built itself into a legend that overshadows the actuality that Afghanistan has been under the sway of whichever Great Power wanted to dictate to it at any given time. The hill tribes are the totality of the legend. And frankly, they are more or less inconsequential except as a haven for bad guys.

I know what you you think you are talkng about, I just keep wondering why you feel the need to hide behind a word that doesn't mean what you want it to mean. You say caucasian, yet you mean northern european. You say it isn't about culture, but earlier you say culture is the big difference. I'm afraid the problem is that you can't properly articulate your fears, mainly because fear is often rooted in ignorance, and ignorance doesn't articulate very well. I'll just chalk this up to the many things you are pathologically ignorant about and incapable of learning or growing. I'm sorry you have such startling issues with trying to grasp concepts that don't involve wooden building blocks, but keep trying...you'll get it someday.

Except that these two examples are neither representitive of the nations nor are they what Scott is chirping about. Never were white Rhodesians or the Boers majorities in those countries. And while Mugabe certainly did reposses the lands previously siezed by Caucasian immigrants and that was a political act, the crime in South Africa is not. While 1000 Caucasians may have been indeed murdered in South africa since 1991 (little over 90 a year) it is important to keep in mind that south africa has one of the highest murder rates in the world. (not counting countries that have slipped into chaos). So let me get this straight...since caucasians once were the majority in canada, they face no danger when they become the minority, because its completely different from a situation in which caucasians were always the minority? And 90 deaths a year is acceptable to you? So it's ok if racial violence in Canada knocks off 90 a year? Incidentally, are you aware that the Zulu in Rhodesia were as much newcomers to the place as the whites? And that they were only there after having completely genocided the existing population? Gosh, I don't recall the Europeans doing anything even remotely similar to that even in the Belgian Congo. Oh, did you know that South Africa didn't always have the highest murder rates in the world? Guess when the crime rate shot through the roof? I love all this conceptual squirming.

What is Dion speaking then? It's "special English." Similar to pidgin English, but with its roots in France instead of Asia, special English is a combination of three Gallic traits and mannerisms: handwringing, emotion, and a readiness to flee in terror; coupled with abject illiteracy. In Dion's case, he speaks a dialect known as "enviro-special English," in which variations of the word "environment" are butchered and dragged behind poutine trucks.

What an odd misinterpretation of what I said *patting Momo on the head*

Re #1 I'm not entirely sure a minority Conservative government has the power to do that. Harper has demonstrated that he is for devolution of federal authority to the provinces, but that doesn't seem to have translated into an impulse toward 'smaller government' in the classical liberal sense of the phrase. Quite the contrary in fact, since the last budget focussed on a return of 'social programs' rather than tax cuts. I can't remember the early Reform Party Guru who coined the phrase "the embedded state' to describe a government like Canada's which has intruded into the very social fabric of the country, but it is an apt description of the Canadian regime. Canadians now take it for granted that the place to look to fix all the ills of the world is government. It's a sad state of affairs, and one more resembling a sheep farm than a country of builders, but there it is. Withdrawing the tentacles of government from society in an embedded state is a daunting task to say the least, and not one a minority government can carry off. It will take decades and it will take the understanding and agreement of society to carry off. All too many people will see having their lives and responsibilities returned to them as a very bad thing.

Aside from the Greeks, Mongols and Arabs.......so basically this is a myth that likes to pop its head up every so often in hopes that someone will believe it. Sort of like telling William that no one has ever coquered Britain by sea before so don't try......... Well said. In fact, even the British pounded and thrashed pacified the hill tribes as a matter of course all the way up to the early 20th century, and it was so heavily dictated to influenced by Britain that it only got its full independence in 1919. As was demonstrated yet again in 2001, Afghanistan is rather a cakewalk for set piece battles, and its southern regions are harder to pacify because there are lots of rocks to hide behind and the hill tribes haven't much changed since the 3rd century BC.

The Victorian melodrama of Figleaf aka sweal and his/her tearful and apparently never-ending 'faretheewell cruel world' leave taking is almost gaggable.

That doesn't address how you'd prevent ethnic enclaves from starting up in the first place. You can't. Not in a free society. You can certainly stop subsidizing it, but you can't stop people from gathering with whoever they want to gether with, and the fact that people do gather with people who are like them speaks ominously of the future of integration where visible minorities are concerned. The only solution is to stop immigration in hopes that critical masses have not eyt been reached.

If you don't like being called a liar, stop lying. You accused me of agitating for genocide, then lied about it, and when you were caught with proof of what you said, you lied again and attempted to go in an entirely different direction. Now you're attempting to excuse genocide by saying a caucasian minority being slaughtered is somehow different from a caucasian minority being slaughtered, and doing even that dishonestly by an appeal to a largely fabricated revisionist history.

It is an exact parallel, and you manage to capture in one flaccidly liberal sentence the reasons whites should take care not to become powerless minorities in Canada. Your rationale, and it is precisely that, is exactly the reasons that will be presented in the west to knock down Whitey when the chance presents itself. Largely imagined "brutal oppression," that rarely defined but always present revisionist mantra of colonialism. If it wasn't for that "brutal oppression," southern Africa would still be treated to the genocidal minstrations of the Zulu and the M'tebele. Of course you don't have the slightest notion of what occured in Rhodesia, do you? All you have to go by is the one or two pages of general condemnatory rhetoric in some undergrad textbook.

One wouldn't, which is why we ought to stop immigration, since such mingling is not occuring. Oh, and I had quite a few dusky neighbours when I lived in New Delhi, so you can stuff your lilly white liberal chortling.