Text 8704, 195 rader
Skriven 2013-06-19 22:42:57 av Lee Lofaso (2:203/2)
Kommentar till text 8690 av Ward Dossche (2:292/854)
Ärende: Japanese Common Sense
=============================
Hello Ward,
WD>> My people did not invade the Congo.
LL>> From 1908 to 1960 your people claimed they OWNED the Congo,
LL>> and RULED the land (and its people) with an iron fist.
WD>Untrue.
It is called COLONIALISM.
WD>In the 2nd part of the 1800's several countries wanted the Congo as
WD>its colony ... Germany, France, England, the USA, ... none trusted
WD>the other.
And it is BELGIUM that got the goods.
WD>So the Belgian king Leopold-II created a company to "care for the
WD>needs" of Congo Free State. At the 1884-1885 Berlin conference of
WD>colonial nations Leopold unfolded his plan to "educate" and
WD>"evangilise" the blacks of the Congo. Nobody trusted him, but they
WD>trusted the others even less. So Leopold could go ahead.
The land belongs to the original inhabitants. Not to outsiders
(or individuals) who claim it for themselves. At least the Jews
had a LIMITED claim on SOME of the land of Palestine, given the
history of the Jewish people. Belgium had no such history in
regards to the Congo.
WD>The Congo then did not belong to Belgium, it was the "private
WD>property" of Leopold with the blessing of England, France, Germany,
WD>USA, Italy, .. He behaved as he pleased. He extracted a personal
WD>furtune from that country and set-up a private militia, a private
WD>army, outside parliamentary control, to whack the blacks.
Belgium was a colonial power in Africa, claiming the Congo as its
own. That does not mean that Belgium had any legitimate right to do
so. Only that Belgium acted as the colonial power it was.
WD>He made his fortune with rubber. When synthetic rubber hit the
WD>market his business began slipping and on his deathbed in 1909 he
WD>willed the Congo to Belgium.
Leopold II made his fortune with rubber, at the expense of the
Congolese people. Who owns the resources of the Congo? The original
inhabitants of the Congo own the land, thus owning ALL the resources
of the land. As such, no individual, including Leopold II, had any
legitimate right to rape and plunder the land for personal profit.
WD>After that, and only then, did the country of Belgium become
WD>involved.
Belgium was not interested in saving the Congolese people from
Leopold II. What Belgium was interested in was the continued raping
and plundering of the Congo - both its resources and its people.
WD>The private armies of Leopold murdered some 8 million blacks and up
WD>to this day this is "something you do not talk about".
Why did it take so long for Belgium to act, if it was so interested
in saving the Congolese from Leopold II? Why did Belgium have to wait
for the old coot to die? And then, once the old coot was dead, why
did Belgium take so long to allow the Congolese to govern themselves?
I mean, 1908 to 1960 is a long time. A very long time.
WD>When Belgium became in charge, the living conditions of the blacks
WD>started to improve dramatically. Missionaries came and rather than
WD>spreading the ghospel they became social workers. There was
WD>continuous improvement until 1960 when the country gained its
WD>independance, too soon, under influence of mainly the USA being very
WD>interested in the uranium, copper and bauxite deposits.
If Iraq did not have any oil, do you think that GWB would have
given the order for US troops to invade that country? I think not.
Especially given the fact there were other madmen in the world far
worse than the Butcher of Bagdhad who escaped the Wrath of Bush.
When Spanish conquistadors invaded the New World, they always brought
a priest with them. It was important to convert the heathens, you
understand, so that the Spanish kings and princes could rape and
pillage the land, while the conquistadors themselves could rape the
women who would later bear the fruit of their labor. All with the
blessing of their priests.
LL>> If Adolf Eichmann received a fair trial as you claim, then why
LL>> is it that the Jews refuse to release full uncensored transcripts
LL>> of Eichmann's diaries?
WD>What diaries?
The 1,300+ pages that Adolf Eichmann himself wrote from the time
of his kidnapping to the time of his hanging. One of his sons (Dieter)
forced the Jews to release at least some of those diaries (March 2000),
but historians question if it was a full disclosure, or if the contents
have been edited/censored by the Jews.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/659429.stm
Israel releases Eichmann diary
(1,300 page document) Tuesday, 29 February, 2000
WD>When the Mossad plucked him off the street he had no diary and in
WD>captivity he was not allowed to have one.
Bull. See above link. However, it is true the Jews tried to keep
it secret from the world.
LL>> In fact, Adolf Hitler had asked the world to take in Germany's Jews,
LL>> as Germany had no room for them or any desire to keep them. However,
LL>> the world refused Hitler's request and turned Jews away. There was
LL>> even a boatload full of Jews that was refused anchor in the USA, the
LL>> boat having no place else to go but to unload those Jewish passengers
LL>> to death camps in Europe.
WD>That was the St.Louis. It docked in Antwerp (Belgium) and its
WD>passengers dispersed all over Europe, they were not unloaded in
WD>deathcamps. For years I have aided the USHMM in DC to track the
WD>ways of how these people moved around after debarkation.
The Nazis did invade Belgium? I thought so. And what, pray tell,
happened to Jews that Nazis found in Belgium? Why, the Nazis were
ever so kind, giving every Jew they found a one-way train ticket
to The Promised Land.
WD>> I raise the glass to a country with balls ...
LL>> There is nothing honorable in murdering a man in cold blood.
LL>> Even if that man is the most evil person in the world.
WD>Osama Bin Laden was murdered in cold blood.
There was a war going on (The War On Terror). Osama bin Laden was
the enemy, being one of the bad guys. Our president gave an order
to "Exterminate - with extreme prejudice." Navy SEAL Team Six got
the call. And being very prejudiced against Arabs, especially the
terrorist kind, did their job. As such, ObL got what he deserved.
WD>Eichmann had a trial ... on TV
There was no war going on. The Allies had won the war, the evil
Nazis having been defeated. Had the war still been going on, the
Jews would not have hesitated in killing Eichmann instantly, just
as the Americans had done to ObL. However, the Jews had another
reason for keeping their prey alive - at least for the short term.
You see, the Jews enjoy theater. And they wanted to show the
British (and the world) the Jewish way of producing a play.
The Jewish Theatrical Production Company was thus called in to
set up the stage. Steven Spielberg told me all about it, so
trust me when I tell you, the Jews knew what they were doing.
WD>... he had free speech from the confines of his cell.
Free speech in the form of diaries, which the Jews tried to keep
secret from the world.
WD>He failed to convince the judges.
His son (Dieter) convinced the judges to release the diaries.
But his efforts came decades too late.
WD>> just as the Entebbe rescue.
LL>> Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wishes it never would
LL>> have happened. Do you know why? There was one Jewish casualty in
LL>> that illegal action. One KIA. Netanyahu's brother. May he rest
LL>> in peace.
WD>Which is why they called it "Operation Jonathan" afterwards. I know
WD>all about that ... people with balls!
Secretary of State Cyrus Vance resigned from office in protest
of President Jimmy Carter's decision to have the military attempt
a rescue of American hostages being held by Iran. Why did Vance
do that? Because Vance was a man of honor.
Secretary of State Colin Powell lied for his president (GWB) by
telling outlandish tales about Iraq to the United Nations, thus
keeping his job. Of course, doing so made him a liar, and caused
him to lose the respect of many (if not most) Americans (and others
around the world).
Was it honorable for the Jews to undertake an illegal action,
against international law? Diplomacy and negotiation would have
obtained the release of the hostages, with no loss of life. Had
President Carter listened to his Secratary of State, eight American
soldiers would still be alive today. Had the Israelis done the
same, one Israeli soldier would still be alive today.
When Clinton lied, nobody died. When Bush lied, thousands died.
--Lee
--- MesNews/1.06.00.00-gb
* Origin: news://felten.yi.org (2:203/2)
|