S.Africa: Ruined Farm

 ΝΕΓΡΟΣ ΓΕΩΡΓΟΣ- ΕΝΑ ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟ ΑΝΕΚΔΟΤΟ

[42 Photos] S.Africa: Ruined Farm

Date Posted: Saturday 11-Feb-2006

Getting photos of farms which were handed over to the blacks is not easy, especially if they failed. The Govt really doesn't want to advertise this. Yet there must be hundreds of such farms.

These photos are from another fantastic farm - this time a grape farm - which was handed over to the blacks in S.Africa via the normal land reform procedure. And look at what a mess it is.

A while back I mentioned a Special Assignment program which showed one farm which succeeded (the one which was run by a white man on behalf of the blacks and which got lots of capital injection afterwards!). This was the other one - the failure which they showed on the same program.

This grape farm was called Blinkwater, which is Afrikaans meaning "bright water".

But first of all, I must show you this. This writing was on one of the walls of the ruined farm house. It was a message left to the blacks by the white farmer who lost his land. It reads: "You bastards will stay poor the rest of your lives". And what an accurate prophecy it was by the White farmer.



The White farmer's bitter message is on the wall...



Of the ruined farm house. Look at it now. The roof is gone, the doors and windows have been ripped out...









This Black man, is the only remaining black person on the farm. All the other blacks to whom the farm was given, are now GONE...



The black guy spoke in Afrikaans, and so they put these english subtitles in. These subtitles are worth reading because you will "get the story from the horse's mouth" so to speak. In this case, he is talking about the reservoir which used to irrigate the grapes. The starters and pumps were stolen... (by blacks of course!). So the blacks steal from the blacks. The whole thing is a complete mess. You'll see more of this insanity later further down.









The rusting pipes...





Even the pumps are gone... stolen...



The reservoir is now dry...



This is what's left of a once fine vineyard...





Looking out over the farm...



The black guy says the former White owner took the airconditioner with him...



The "they" the black man is referring to, is the Government. He says he thinks the Government wants everything to die. (I doubt it - but its an example of blacks now passing the buck - nobody wants to take responsibility).



He is once more referring to the S.African Govt changing its tune from day to day. (So what's new?)













None of the farm equipment is working any more...











Now here we see blacks struggling with other blacks. Blacks stealing from other blacks. This last remaining black guy now also has to police the place. Here he catches another black man walking around on the farm with a wood saw. He asks him what he's doing here. This black man, like many others, are cutting down trees on the farm for firewood for themselves.



Here you can see some trees have been cut...



Here is a pile of wood cut by other blacks who don't live on this farm. Isn't this cool? Now instead of blacks trespassing and ruining white-owned farms, we have blacks trespassing and ruining what's left of a ruined black-owned farm! Poetic justice I say.



This woman is also not supposed to be on this farm. He has some words with her.



He is saying the grapes will probably be dead by the next season.









Yes, all the simple daily routines have now stopped. This is typical of the way in which blacks work.







The End.

Saudi Arabia in charge of US Policy: Israel cheerleads, Saudi's finance & Cold War lives

06.02.2012 11:26

By John Stanton

"The Hanbali school, known for following the most Orthodox form of Islam, is embraced in Saudi Arabia and by the Taliban.." Council of Foreign Relations--Islam: Governing Under Sharia, 24 October 2011.

"In August a judge in Tabuk considered sentencing a man to be surgically paralyzed after convicting him of paralyzing another man in a fight two years earlier." Human Rights Watch ,2011.

"In September a Qatif court sentenced two high school pupils to six months in prison and 120 lashes for stealing exam questions." Human Rights Watch, 2011.

Watching, listening, and reading the media coverage, government commentary and think tank analyses on Iran's nuclear capability and the desire by some to destroy it is like taking in Abbott and Costello's Who's on First and Math skits.

The logic behind the entire push for massive military action against Iran makes about as much sense as Costello's math calculations. Abbott's acceptance of it all ("you are hired") is an appropriate analogy for the USA's role in the madness as it is being suckered into another war  in mid-east Asia at the insistence of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Israel and similar Abbott and Costello governed countries.

If the USA has so much power, why are second and third rate countries in charge of its policies in mid-east Asia?

All statements coming out of the mouths of US government officials signal confusion within the grand brains of the political, economic and military leadership. The US may or may not support a Saudi-Israeli operation against Iran said Secretary of Defense Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman general Martin Dempsey (USA) recently. That is utterly unbelievable. 

These are flammable times already and yet government officials, commentators--(and US presidential candidates--the world over are making foolish and unsupported statements about Iran and, hence, are ratcheting up the tension. President Obama says "I can't control Israel" (the USA controls/monitors all air traffic routes into and out of Iran). Israeli leadership says "only 500 casualties from an air strike" (using the logic of General Buck Turgeson in the movie Dr. Strangelove). The House of Saud says "cut the head off the snake (Colin Powell, former US Army general, once said this in reference to Saddam Hussein). In 1993 Israel said Iran would have nuclear weapons by 1999. Then they said that Iran would have them by 2001. 

The pro-Iranian war movement, and the Iranian leadership itself, would do well to get a copy of The Fog of War, 11 lessons from Robert McNamara, former Secretary of Defense, and watch it repeatedly. One of the points McNamara makes in the film is "I lived the Cold war every day, 24/7".

The Cold War has not ended as popularly reported. It has just shifted focus.

They are all Schemers: Big Plot and Deadly Subplots

In the overall US strategic scheme the Iranian matter as a subplot. The central focus of the story is an attempt by the USA's political, economic and military leadership to answer two questions: How can strategy, policy, operations and tactics (SPOT) be developed now to inhibit the development of China and Russia's instruments of national and international power? What SPOT's are necessary to maintain America's dollar and military dominance even as China and Russia--and to a lesser degree India and Brazil--are developing methods (currency swaps or basket of currencies minus the US dollar) to bypass the foundation of American global dominance-the dollar (and T-Bill)?

Another subplot is "it's about the oil." But the data doesn't quite support the argument.[ΑΥΤΟ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΤΟ ΜΕΓΑΛΟ ΠΡΟΠΑΓΑΝΔΙΣΤΙΚΟ ΠΡΟΠΕΤΑΣΜΑ ΚΑΠΝΟΥ -- ΟΧΙ, ΔΕΝ ΓΙΝΕΤΑΙ ΤΙΠΟΤΕ ΣΤΗΝ Μ.ΑΝΑΤΟΛΗ ΓΙΑ ΤΟ ΠΕΤΡΕΛΑΙΟ!] According to the Energy Information Agency there are only two mid-east Asian countries in the top ten that the US imports energy from. Saudi Arabia is in the number two spot with Mexico close behind. Iraq comes in at number seven. Rounding out the top ten are Canada (number one), Venezuela, Nigeria, Ecuador, Angola, Colombia, and Russia (Brazil is number eleven). The USA imports 49 percent of its energy needs. It is not a stretch to say that with the right combination of US political and economic policies, and some sacrifice by the American people,  it could wean itself of off Saudi and Iraqi oil.

So, how and why is it that Saudi Arabia is able to shape US foreign policy towards the mid-east Asian region as it does in the face of  the Nazi-like rule of its own people? Why do Americans and Israelis so easily sell their souls to the Saud's? Why isn't Saudi Arabia featured at Regime Change Central?

John Macarthur writing in Harper's Magazine (2007) observed that "...I can't shake the idea that the Israel lobby, no matter how powerful, isn't all it is cracked up to be, particularly where it concerns the Bush administrations past and present. Indeed, when I think of pernicious foreign lobbies with disproportionate sway over American politics, I can't see past Saudi Arabia and its royal house...Given my dissident politics, I should be up in arms about the Israel lobby. Not only have I supported the civil rights of the Palestinians over the years, but two of my principal intellectual mentors were George W. Ball and Edward Said, both severe critics of Israel and its extra-special relationship with the United States.

Foreign Agents for Beheadings

According to the Foreign Agents Registration a listing of 30 June 2011, the following US organizations and citizens represented Saudi interests: Hogan Lovela in Washington, DC (foreign policy interpretation of US Congressional legislative actions, lobbying);  Ketchum in New York (media relations); International Merchandising Association in Ohio (brand management); Patton Boggs (monitoring US government statements on Saudi Arabia, legislative analysis, lobbying); Qurvis LLC (monitoring US media, spreading positive stories about Saudi Arabia, lobbying, developing Internet-WWW presence).

The US Department of State, Human Rights Bureau, reported that in 2010 Saudi Arabia was an awful place to live unless you are a guy "...no right to change the government peacefully; torture and physical abuse; poor prison and detention center conditions; arbitrary arrest and incommunicado detention; denial of fair and public trials and lack of due process in the judicial system; political prisoners; restrictions on civil liberties such as freedoms of speech (including the Internet), assembly, association, movement, and severe restrictions on religious freedom; and corruption and lack of government transparency. Violence against women and a lack of equal rights for women, violations of the rights of children, trafficking in persons, and discrimination on the basis of gender, religion, sect, and ethnicity were common. The lack of workers' rights, including the employment sponsorship system, remained a severe problem."

Then there is the country analysis done on Saudi Arabia by Human Rights Watch (2011). "Human rights conditions remain poor in Saudi Arabia. King Abdullah has not fulfilled several specific reform promises; reforms to date have involved largely symbolic steps to improve the visibility of women and marginally expand freedom of expression. Authorities continue to systematically suppress or fail to protect the rights of nine million Saudi women and girls, eight million foreign workers, and some two million Shia citizens. Each year thousands of people receive unfair trials or are subject to arbitrary detention. Curbs on freedom of association, expression, and movement, as well as a pervasive lack of official accountability, remain serious concerns.

Iraqi Government Fears Saudi Arabia

Simon Tisdall writing for the Guardian, UK (2010) reported that the Iraqi government viewed Saudi Arabia as a threat to its internal security. " Iraqi government officials see Saudi Arabia, not Iran, as the biggest threat to the integrity and cohesion of their fledgling democratic state, leaked US state department cables reveal. The Iraqi concerns, analyzed in a dispatch sent from the US embassy in Baghdad by then ambassador Christopher Hill in September 2009, represent a fundamental divergence from the American and British view of Iran as arch-predator in Iraq. 'Iraq views relations with Saudi Arabia as among its most challenging given Riyadh's money, deeply ingrained anti-Shia attitudes and [Saudi] suspicions that a Shia-led Iraq will inevitably further Iranian regional influence,' Hill writes. 'Iraqi contacts assess that the Saudi goal (and that of most other Sunni Arab states, to varying degrees) is to enhance Sunni influence, dilute Shia dominance and promote the formation of a weak and fractured Iraqi government.' Hill's unexpected assessment flies in the face of the conventional wisdom that Iranian activities, overt and covert, are the biggest obstacle to Iraq's development."

Saudi Arabia, Syria: History of Dislike

A Muslim News report (2011) reminds that Saudi Arabia and Syria have been at odds with each other for most of their history. As such, the current turmoil in Syria, in which Saudi Arabia and the US are involved on the ground--should be viewed through a historical microscope. Americans are largely deficient on the study of history other than their own. "Syria prides itself as a secular republic and a bastion of Arab nationalism with close ties to Russia. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia is a reactionary monarchy and embodies itself as a caretaker of Islam, while having an extensive bond with the US and Western Europe. True, the rhetoric of the two countries may not correspond with their practice, but the ideological narratives they superficially embrace are in conflict, and much of their foreign policy aims have been at odds."

The US government approach to Syria, as it is with Iran, was largely crafted by Saudi Arabia. This is a country who speaks of the humanitarian crisis in Syria as though it is the USA.  It is more intolerant of dissent than the USSR ever was. Of all ironies, the fact that the USA negotiated with the USSR for decades and will not with Iran has to be in the top ten ironies of human history. What it says is that on crucial matters of mid-east Asian matters involving war  and oppression, the US political process is influenced and designed by repressive governments represented by American citizens. Young people die  and will continue to die as a result of this.

Human Rights Watch notes that  "US pressure for human rights improvements was imperceptible. In September the Pentagon proposed for Congressional approval a US$60 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia, the biggest-ever US arms sale.  It is unknown whether the UK made efforts through the Two Kingdoms Dialogue to promote human rights, but if so they had no tangible effect...

Before he died in the World Trade Center on 9/11, the former FBI counterterrorism chief John O'Neill complained to French investigator Jean-Charles Brisard that Saudi pressure on the State Department had prevented him from fully investigating possible al-Qaida involvement in the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, which killed 19 U.S. servicemen, and of the destroyer Cole in 2000. As with Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf, there's always talk of the Saudis playing a double game with al-Qaida publicly denouncing it and privately paying it off but you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to understand that the Saudis don't have America's best interests at heart."

John Stanton is a Virginia based writer specializing in national security. Reach him at cioran123@yahoo.com

--------------------------------------------------

Israeli Settlers Enter Beit Ommar, Harass Palestinian Residents

Israeli Settlers Enter Beit Ommar, Harass Palestinian Residents

Palestine Solidarity Project

February 5, 2012 On Friday, February 3, 2012, a large group of around 150 Israeli settlers entered the Palestinian village of Beit Ommar in the southern West Bank. The presence of settlers on Palestinian land is prohibited under International Law. The group was escorted by Israeli soldiers and border police, and moved through several neighborhoods of the village during the middle of the day. The settlers wandered through Beit Za’tah and Alkarn neighborhoods before moving onto Wadi Esheikh area close to the illegal settlement of Karmei Tsur to the south of the village. During this provocative tour, the settlers blocked Route 60, the main road connecting Hebron with Jerusalem and the main avenue of transportation for Beit Ommar residents. Palestinian vehicles were prevented from moving in the area. Additionally, Israeli soldiers fired tear gas and sound bombs at Palestinian villagers as the settlers passed through their town. This recent provocation is a continuation of settlement harassment of Palestinians in the area. Another large group of settlers entered Beit Ommar less than one month ago and settlers routinely destroy farmland, stone vehicles, and attack an even kill Palestinians in the village. On January 28th, 2011, Yousef IKhlayl, a 17-year-old Palestinian resident of Beit Ommar, was killed by Israeli settlers as he was working his family’s farmland.

Romancing the drone…

Romancing the drone…

Drone Wars UK

Pretty in Pink: public to be reassured by painted drones? February 5, 2012 Anyone with even a passing interest in the military soon discovers the peculiar phenomenon of 'military speak’, in which a spade can never quite be called a spade. Bombs and bullets are called ’ordnance consumables’, a missile strike or bombing raid is known as a 'kinetic event’, and despite its offensive purpose, the industry and its business must always be described as 'defence’.  Military speak is essentially about maintaining a psychological distance between the day-to-day sanitized business of planning, preparing (and profiting) from armed conflicts and the awful brutal reality of warfare.  The same coyness over language applies of course to drones.  Over the past few years I've lost count of the number of times I been told not to call drones 'drones’.  The current preferred term in the military is 'Remotely Piloted Air System’ (RPAS) after they rejected 'Unmanned Aerial Vehicle’ (UAV) as being 'off message’ ("such a generic term can be unhelpful, particularly when working with an uninformed audience" said the MoD last year). The term 'drone’, though widely used and understood by the public and media alike, is snubbed both by the military and those wanting to get a civil drone industry of the ground.  Not only is it seen as too dull a name for such a 'sophisticated piece of kit’ but its association with death and destruction is of course problematic. This week the Guardian revealed that the Unmanned Aerial Systems Association, a UK lobby group, is planning a public relations offensive to counter the negative image of drones.  This website (Drone Wars UK) was cited by the lobby group as part of the problem to be overcome.   They recommend  that drones deployed in the UK "be decorated with humanitarian-related advertisements, and be painted bright colours to distance them from those used in warzones"  As the guardian reports: "John Moreland, the general secretary of UAVSA, said the industry was uncomfortable with the word "drones" and wanted to find new terminology. "If they’re brightly coloured, and people know why they’re there, it makes them a lot more comfortable," he said. The idea that the public could be persuaded to accept drones by painting them bright colours has rightly been mocked across the blogosphere. A more serious strategy in the attempt to rebrand drones is for advocates to play up their potential to be used by green or human rights groups. Last week the New York Times carried a think piece arguing that drones should be used to monitor human rights abuses. Like many drones themselves however, the idea has come crashing down to earth after being comprehensively rubbished by human rights advocates (see the excellent post from Laurenist and also from Mark Kersten).  Even one noted supporter of drones, @drunkenpredator,  ridiculed the idea on twitter. Drones do not have a negative image because of the work of Drones Wars UK, but because of the awful impact that they have in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere, and because of the serious concern that remote warfare will mean more warfare. The public will not be reassured by any renaming or rebranding exercise.  What is needed is for the legitimate concerns about drones in warfare and their impact on civil liberties to be taken seriously.

Settlers raid Ramallah village, vandalize property

Settlers raid Ramallah village, vandalize property

Ma'an news

Settlers vandalized cars and a house in al-Janiya village near Ramallah on Saturday night, residents said. (MaanImages/B'Tselem, HO) February 5, 2012 RAMALLAH (Ma'an) -- Settlers attacked a Ramallah village overnight Saturday, breaking into a house and vandalizing village property. Ismail Mazloum said that settlers from the nearby settlement of Talmon raided the village, vandalized his car and wrote racist slogans on walls in al-Janiya village, official news agency Wafa reported. "Once the village’s residents were alerted of the settlers’ presence, they fled toward the settlement," Wafa quoted Mazloum as saying. "Wait for us, we are coming back," and other slogans insulting Islam and calling for "revenge" were sprayed in the village. Some Jewish settlers in the West Bank have adopted a "price tag" policy, attacking Palestinians and their property in retaliation for perceived anti-settler actions by the Israeli government. Settler attacks in the West Bank against Palestinians increased by more than 50 percent in 2011, according to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Some 500,000 Israelis live in Jewish-only settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. There are about 2.5 million Palestinians in the same territory. All settlements are illegal under international law.