posted
Mike, is this a sign of things to come? Are we going to be seeing the resurgence of the Muurs once again in North Africa?
Will the Muurs take over a land that will rid itself of parasitic Turks?
Will the Muurs once again crush their opponents and head back once again to Southern and Eastern Europe their former land from where they were ethnically cleansed, by the central Asiatic albinos chretins who call themselves Europeans?
Is this a sign of the times....
Lion!
-------------------- Lionz Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Hold onto you hats folks, the White boys NEVER learn. And ALWAYS drag the rest of us into their messes.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes they had advisors in the beginning. By the early 60s the numbers were more than modest.
From what I read shortly after I was discharged (after 4 years) the U.S. had financed 75% of the French effort. They couldn't wait to see the French defeated so they could wing it themselves.
The first time I heard about Viet Nam was in 1961 while I was in Barstow, California at the Marine Corps supply depot; I don't recall the official title. They had us up half the night loading M1 rifles (that I knew off) onto the big trucks. Someone asked where all this stuff was going and I heard a voice several feet away say Viet nam. I don't recall anyone asking where that was. But I do remember a mild sense of urgency from the sargeants that night.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
Oh, maybe you don't have television where you are.
I will explain:
Yes Blacks are prominent in the Libyan military - as in Egypt. But up until now, Black faces have been conspicuous by their absence in White news coverage.
The reason being, to instill the idea that the rebels are authentic Libyans - which of course the AREN'T!
My question was, is this a maneuver by Gadhafi, to say to the world, "It's more complicated" than they have told you.
Because I can guarantee you, as soon as the world saw that Black mans face. They realized that things were not as they seemed.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
The reason the worlds White Jewish media DOESN'T show Black faces, is because the want to perpetuate the myth that people who look like THEM (Whites) are NATIVE to North Africa and the Middle East.
This allows for non-Black Egyptians, Arabs, etc, and the related bogus histories. But MOST importantly: it allows for non-Black Hebrews! Black Hebrews not only destroys the White Christian church, and it's myths, but it also calls into question: just WHO are these Zionists, and what is their claim! Get it?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike111 you have never ever been to North Africa there are more africans there than you think.
I still dont understand your point what does this libyan have to do with a black face. He is not black he is libyan.
Posts: 410 | From: Al-Ard | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AswaniAswad: Mike111 you have never ever been to North Africa there are more africans there than you think.
I still dont understand your point what does this libyan have to do with a black face. He is not black he is libyan.
Aswani
Mike has a legit point. Many Africans in the south do not even realize that Libie is a black country. They think it belongs to Turks and Albinos.
Ghadafi has his back against the wall and is going down. He is telling the New World Order that rather than go down, he will hand the country to its true landlords:
The MUURS....
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok so Mike111 is bring up a whole different point of view. He is proclaiming that mostly all of north africa has been subdued by invaders, and the original inhabitants are marginalized.
Posts: 410 | From: Al-Ard | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AswaniAswad: Ok so Mike111 is bring up a whole different point of view. He is proclaiming that mostly all of north africa has been subdued by invaders, and the original inhabitants are marginalized.
Sea People and The Phoenicians and came in.
How dense or sparsely populated was N. Africa before they got there?- not known, probably sparse due to nomadic lifestyle and harsh climate in many areas.
Did they displace and marginalize, integrate or a combination of both? -unknown to what extent each of these and also the differences between Sea people and Phoenicians' interactions with indigenous people.
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Mike has a legit point. Many Africans in the south do not even realize that Libie is a black country. They think it belongs to Turks and Albinos.
Ghadafi has his back against the wall and is going down. He is telling the New World Order that rather than go down, he will hand the country to its true landlords:
The MUURS....
quote:Originally posted by AswaniAswad: Ok so Mike111 is bring up a whole different point of view. He is proclaiming that mostly all of north africa has been subdued by invaders, and the original inhabitants are marginalized.
AswaniAswad - It is NOT a different point of view, it is what I have steadfastly said, and proven for many years.
I have also said that it was the fear of "CONTINUED" European military intervention, that has kept Whites and Mulattoes in power in North Africa and the middle East.
I believe that CURRENT activity in Libya has proven my point.
BTW - Ish Gebor posted this a few days ago, I'm sure that it was ignored by many.
MOORS!
"Moor" is problematic because of its shifting significance. Isidore of Seville, who died well before Islam came to Iberia, follows Roman usage in referring to northwest Africa as Mauritania (from which maurus/moro is derived) on account, he says, of its inhabitants' blackness. Similarly, the Visigothic chronicler John of Biclaro refers to the inhabitants of pre-Islamic North Africa as Moors (Wolf 1990: 64). The so-called Mozarabic Chronicle of 754, written by a Christian living in al-Andalus under Muslim rule, and the earliest surviving account of the events of 711, speaks of the invading force of Muslims without racial animus as "Arabs and Moors" (Wolf 1990: 131). These texts suggest that early on "Moor" signified "Berber." African origin is clearly marked in this usage. Later documents authored in the Christian kingdoms of Iberia attest to the complete transformation of "Moor" from a term signifying "Berber" into a general term for Muslims living in Iberian territory, lands conquered recently by Chrisitans, and secondarily, for Muslims residing in what was, or was since left of al-Andalus.
For example, the Chronicle of Najera (twelfth-century Leon) refers to Abd al-Rahman I, the Umayyad amir of mid-eighth century al-Andalus, as "King of the Mauri," and to Abd al-Rahman III, the tenth-century Umayyad Caliph, as "the (consummate) Maurus." An elegiac passage from the thirteenth century Primera cronica general (Chapter 559 General Chronicle of Spain) recounts the events of 711 for what is construed as the (temporary) downfall of "Spain" in that year. The text testifies that semantic transformation of "Moor" was not nearly as benign as some readers have assumed: their faces were black as pitch, the handsomest among them was black as a cooking pot, and their eyes blazed like fire; their horses swift as leopards, their horsemen more cruel and hurtful than the wolf that comes at night to the flock of sheep. The vile African people... (Smith 1988: 19) Here the historiography sponsored by Alphonso X of Castile shares a vocabulary developed across the Pyrenees in the early twelfth-century Chanson de Roland, wherein the Saracen Abisme is stigmatized as brutish on account of his race ("In all that host was none more vile than he, With evil vice and crimes he's dyed full deep and black is he as melted pitch to see. Better he loves murder and treachery Than all the gold that is in Galicie..." [Song of Roland, 113; Sayers 1975: 108].
posted
I noticed that when the African union members went to Libya, Nigeria and Angola were absent. These ignorant Negroes obviously believe that it has NOTHING to do with THEM!
Oh contraire ignorant Negroes: Please see the list below, and then demonstrate that you can add 1+1 and come out with "2".
THE WORLDS CHIEF OIL EXPORTERS
Exporters || Net oil exports
1. Saudi Arabia (White Vassal State) 8.65 2. Russia (White controlled State, the majority is Mongol lands) 6.57 3. Norway (White State) 2.54 4. Iran (Mulatto State - in non-declared war with White states) 2.52 5. United Arab Emirates (White Vassal State) 2.52 6. Venezuela (Mulatto State - in non-declared war with White states) 2.20 7. Kuwait (White Vassal State) 2.15 8. Nigeria (Brainless Black state) 2.15 9. Algeria (Black state, controlled by Whites and Mulattoes) 1.85 10. Mexico (Mulatto State, controlled by Whites) 1.68 11. Libya (Black state, controlled by Whites and Mulattoes - Soon to be a White vassal state) 1.52 12. Iraq (White Vassal State) 1.43 13. Angola (Brainless Black state) 1.36
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^2. Russia (White controlled State, the majority is Mongol lands) 6.57
The expansion of Russia was just like that of the USA and Canada. The lands they conquered were sparsely populated with small tribes that could not hope to put up a fight. The armies of Russia were larger than the population of the entire tribes they would fight.
They basically went unhindered and could cover massive distances without trouble. Each of those nations only had problems in rare cases when the tribes managed to unite. But even then the Russians/Americans/British had cannons, guns, and forts while the Natives had bows, axes, and a few muskets. So it was not really a challenge, or a mystery how they conquered that vast area.
With Russia, this was mainly accomplished under Ivan IV Vasilyevich Ivan Chetvyorty, August 1530 – 28 March [O.S. 18 March] 1584), known in English as Ivan the Terrible. Ivan was Grand Prince of Moscow from 1533 until his death. His long reign saw the conquest of the Khanates of Kazan, Astrakhan, and Siberia, transforming Russia into a multiethnic and multiconfessional state spanning almost one billion acres, approximately 4,046,856 km2 (1,562,500 sq mi).
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike, a state is a body corporate like a trading company.
It has a President, Secretary, Accountant, Attonery-General, and other officers and company members. It has a constituting statue, it has an object, purpose. It has a balance sheet at year end and a budget at new year.
Created to exploit material and human resources, this body corporate must have an owner since it normally has a creator and creator legislation.
The neo-colonial states of Africa were all established by Europeans. They are owned by European banks and minning companies. The European aristocracy, their secret societies and the neo-religous military orders.
Just like trading companies, these states, have debts, bond holders, denbenture holders, treasury bill holders, and share holders. Their shares and bonds are freely traded in Zurich and Geneva.
The laws that established them were made in Europe. Political independence did not affect the core structure, modes or objective of the state.
The people of Africa are not the States of Africa. The people of Africa yet battle the neo-colonialist trading corporation-states made by Europeans, for their freedom and liberty.
Why I never got emotinally involved with Ghaddafi's fight is because the boi himself is part and parcel of the European created trading corporations States, that exploit the land and the people.
The state is not the African people, and the African people are not the exploitative parasitic African trading corporation neo-colonialist states.
Just keep the two separate in your conception.
Lion!
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Point taken, but as a realistic matter, those "neo-colonialist trading corporation-states made by Europeans" is all that they have.
My point to Angola and Nigeria being:
Throughout history, Black nations have said: "Albinos" what have we to fear from Albinos? And they have all fallen to Albinos!
So in spite of his many defects, the Albino is still a very dangerous and greedy creature. I think it best, if they give this devil his due.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^Point taken, but as a realistic matter, those "neo-colonialist trading corporation-states made by Europeans" is all that they have.
My point to Angola and Nigeria being:
Throughout history, Black nations have said: "Albinos" what have we to fear from Albinos? And they have all fallen to Albinos!
So in spite of his many defects, the Albino is still a very dangerous and greedy creature. I think it best, if they give this devil his due.
shame on you Mike
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^Point taken, but as a realistic matter, those "neo-colonialist trading corporation-states made by Europeans" is all that they have.
My point to Angola and Nigeria being:
Throughout history, Black nations have said: "Albinos" what have we to fear from Albinos? And they have all fallen to Albinos!
So in spite of his many defects, the Albino is still a very dangerous and greedy creature. I think it best, if they give this devil his due.
The albino is tricky and cruel and perfidious. The worst trait is perfidy.
Was it not his perfidy that did in a thousand and one leaders from Ghadafi to Hussein to Mubarak.
And yes, right now, through his schools and churches and universities, he controls the minds of a good 80% to 90% of Black people.
It is troubling... but we know there is a solution. Which is what you have preached here continously:
One has to recognize the perfidious, cunny, lieing nature of the Albino, inorder to deal with him.
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: And yes, right now, through his schools and churches and universities, he controls the minds of a good 80% to 90% of Black people.
And there you have the crux of the problem!
Consider this forum:
How many threads are there about whether or not North Africans are, and were Black people?
Do you understand the total absurdity and stupidity of such an argument? That's like arguing about whether or not the Sun is bright.
But yet we have them daily!
There is only one reason why such ridiculous and stupid arguments can take place: the lies of the White man and his Mulattoes, AND their ability to blanket the world with their lies, through said schools and churches and universities - and media!
A dangerous creature indeed!Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am certain that there are some Whites and Oreo Negroes, who actually believed that the Sand Nigger rebels actually represented a legitimate voice in Libya.
They do not, the only legitimate voices in Libya are the "True" Berber tribes. And it appears that they are being ignored!
.
.
Libyan Tribes Trying To Negotiate Misrata Rebel Exit
by The Associated Press April 24, 2011
Libyan tribal leaders are trying to get rebels in the city of Misrata to lay down their arms within 48 hours, a government official said early Sunday, after a day of fierce clashes between opposition fighters and Moammar Gadhafi's forces.
If negotiations fail, Deputy Foreign Minister Khaled Kaim said tribal chiefs may send armed supporters into the city of 300,000 to fight the rebels. In the meantime, the Libyan military is halting operations in Misrata, Kaim said.
However, the Misrata area is not known to have very large or dominant tribes, and rebels in the city questioned how much support Gadhafi had among them. It is also unclear whether the rebels would be willing to negotiate, particularly after claiming to have forced government forces to retreat. Kaim said tribal chiefs are still trying to get in touch with the rebels.
Opposition officials have confirmed that Gadhafi's forces have pulled back, but have expressed doubts that the regime will fully withdraw from the city.
Libyan Tribes To Replace Army In Misratah
Friday, April 22 10:54 pm SkyNews (c) Sky News 2011
The Libyan army will pull out of the rebel-held city of Misratah and will be replaced by armed tribesmen, a senior Government official has said.
Deputy Foreign Minister Khaled Kaim did not say when the military would withdraw and under what conditions.
"We will leave it for the tribes around Misratah and the Misratah people to deal with the situation in Misratah," he said.
Earlier the most senior American military officer warned the conflict is heading towards a "stalemate".
Despite more than a month of allied air strikes, Admiral Mike Mullen's comments will stoke fears of protracted military engagement for British and other Nato forces.
The chairman of the US military's joint chiefs of staff said Colonel Gaddafi's ground forces had been degraded by 30% to 40%.
But he warned: "It's certainly moving towards a stalemate.
"At the same time we've attrited somewhere between 30% and 40% of his main ground forces, his ground force capabilities. Those will continue to go away over time."
He added that the allies would "put the squeeze" on the Libyan dictator "until he's gone". "Gaddafi's gotta go," he said.
Rebels have welcomed the US announcement it was sending armed drones to Libya as forces loyal to Col Gaddafi continue to besiege Misratah.
Hundreds of people have been killed as Government forces have attacked the city of 300,000 people, with Nato's air campaign largely unable to strike at the attackers because of their proximity to civilians.
The deployment of the drones is expected to help.
But US Senator John McCain, on a visit to the rebel stronghold of Benghazi in eastern Libya, said the air campaign needed to be "urgently" stepped up.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic