Saturday, July 09, 2011

APARTHEID LEADERS MUST FACE PROSECUTION LIKE THE NAZI CRIMINALS

Apartheid South Africa


Apartheid South Africa


In the 1990s, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, chaired by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, granted amnesties to some of the perpetrators of violence and human rights abuses in apartheid-era South Africa.


To forgive, in the sight of the Lord, is better than violence and revenge, but regarding the seriousness of the crime the ex-apartheid leaders committed against the South Africans, it should have been a priority that no one should have escaped prosecution, including other world leaders at that time, like the British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who supported the brutal government.

Crimes against Black people are not given much attention by the advanced countries. Response and solution always come very late when the result is already disastrous. 

But comparing the crime of the Nazi-Germans against the Jews, and that of what was done to the South Africans by apartheid leaders, is almost the same. If investigators are hunting down ex-Nazi criminals to face prosecution, then ex-leaders of apartheid and their dead squad members, too, should face prosecution.

Like the Jews, including children killed in gas chambers, the same "They opened fire. They didn't give any warning. They simply opened fire, and small children, small defenseless children, dropped down like swatted flies. This is murder, cold-blooded murder".

A man like F. W. Klerk, South Africa's last apartheid head of state, doesn't deserve to win a Nobel Peace Prize for ending Apartheid. He escalated the violence against the majority of black South Africans. 

When he realized that the world was changing rapidly and there wouldn't be any room for that type of government, he decided to give up. Who is fooling whom?

The Nobel Peace Prize should be handed to people who deserve it, not De Klerk, he was the worst criminal than Adolf Hitler of Germany. 

Tuesday, July 05, 2011

ACUTE FAMINE THREATENS THE HORN OF AFRICA


The effect of famine in Africa


The effect of famine in Africa



In East Africa, ten million people are affected by drought, which has escalated the prices of food. According to the United Nations, the Horn of Africa is facing the worst drought in sixty years. 


The affected area covers parts of Ethiopia, Djibouti, Kenya, Somalia, and Uganda, and the two countries that might be severely stricken are Kenya and Somalia. The dryness is because, in the last two years, very little rain has fallen. 

The severe drought has caused a food crisis, and prices have risen rapidly. In some parts of Kenya, the grain prices have risen by 80 percent, higher than average. In Ethiopia, prices have risen by 41 percent. 

The result is devastating, as malnutrition and hunger of the poor increase, said the United Nations spokesman Ocha. UN organizations are in charge of coordinating humanitarian assistance.

In some areas, 15 percent of children suffer from malnutrition. The UN asks donor countries to add more funds, but the money coming in is insufficient to solve the problem. 

Famine is not a new thing in Africa; besides sicknesses such as malaria and the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), Africa has suffered much from natural disasters such as famine.

Saturday, June 18, 2011

MOSQUES BUILDING IN EUROPE AND AMERICA MUST COME TO AN END


The mosque: a place of prayers and where all evil plans are hatched


The mosque: a place of prayer, and where all evil plans are hatched



“When you go to Rome, you do what the Romans do.” This statement doesn’t mean any discrimination or racism in any way. It simply means that the country belongs to the Romans. 


In this case, they make their laws and rules, so every abiding citizen, including foreigners, must obey these laws. As easy for Christians to understand this law, some religious sect takes it as discriminatory and racist.

I do agree with the leader of the “Vlaams Belang Party”, Philip De Winter, in Belgium, when protesting against the building of a central mosque in Antwerp. 

The reason is simple and logical. First of all, “Belgium is a country that belongs to the Belgians; therefore, they have to make their own rules and laws, not foreigners. These rules and laws must be obeyed, including foreigners.

Point number two, an investigation has revealed that most of the terrorism plans are hatched in mosques. It would be recalled in the political history of Ghana that when J. J. Rawlings came to power as a Flight-Lieutenant, the first thing he did was to demolish the mosque in central Accra, because that was the center of all evil activities by so-called Islamic worshippers. The place is now a central car parking place.

Point number three, if any Belgian living in an Arab land requests permission to build a cathedral or church in that country, the permit is not only going to be denied but also, but he may also serve a prison sentence for speaking about Christianity in an Arab land. 

So why should the West or America always permit the building of mosques in their countries? Are they afraid of Muslims? I can’t simply understand.

Once I was walking along Pothoekstraat in Antwerp and saw a Belgian driving. He stopped and called a Moroccan and requested the direction of a street he was looking for. I was shocked at what I saw. 

Instead of the Moroccan telling him that I don’t know the street or here is the street, he went closer to the driver and spat on his face. With saliva full on his face, the Belgian drove his car away. What is the sense in this?

Being strict and implementing laws and rules against foreigners doesn’t give room for one to be called a racist, but it is one of the measures to reduce crime and theft in a society. 

Belgians must wake up, else one day they will see themselves burning in a fire they did not start. Problems are solved diplomatically. There is no room for violence anywhere in this world as a means of solving a problem.