Mentally Retarded Girl Gang Raped In South Africa. n Other News Sky Is Blue

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-17771455

Quote:

---

• South Africa has one of the highest incidence of rape in the world
• 1 in 4 men admit to rape
• More than 56,000 cases of rape were reported in the year ending in March 2011

---

Rape is endemic in South Africa. This is not a case of the young men being libertines as they adhere to a fairly strict moral code otherwise(or at least pay lip service to one) With the AIDS epedimic sweeping the continent it is clearly in no ones best interest to be having anonyomus sex, much less raping anyone.

So what is the root cause of rape in Africa? I know about the "sex with a virgin cures aids" and "Corrective" rape. I am just trying to wrap my head around this whole thing

I don't know, but if we try really hard I am sure we can abjucate them of all responsibility, label them as victims and blame some white people for it. It's kind of like 7 Degrees of Kevin Bacon, but I call it 7 Degrees of Cracker.

You forgot to mention dry sex. No discussion of horrible sex in Africa can be complete without it.

barbarians be barbarians bro

Time for the Afrikaners to get home, there is a totally ignored genocide going on there

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Time for the Afrikaners to get home, there is a totally ignored genocide going on there

---

Eh??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Eh??

---

White farmers quite regularly are killed by black South Africans. As little as I know about it, it seems that the ANC isn't doing as much against it as they could.
Racism isn't gone in South-Africa and it goes both ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peasant Phill

White farmers quite regularly are killed by black South Africans. As little as I know about it, it seems that the ANC isn't doing as much against it as they could.
Racism isn't gone in South-Africa and it goes both ways.

---

Could they stop it even if they tried there best, I doubt it to be honest.

That rape rate cited is pretty consistent throughout most of Africa. It's not a south African thing, it's an African thing. And Haitian thing. And Brazilian thing. Oh wait.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

It's not a south African thing, it's an African thing. And Haitian thing. And Brazilian thing. Oh wait.

---

There comes a point where you have to wonder if it really is due to a thousand and one abstract, unquantifiable factors, or if it's just down to the quality of people.

I didn't expect much more from a country where the President rapes a woman then washes his privates in the shower to protect against AIDS.

I've heard a bit about the situation there from being in contact with Afrikaners through some Reformed Christian forums. All I can say is I hope that the Afrikaner people get their own state because things are taking a really ugly turn there.

I'm starting to think we shouldnt have been in such a rush to let some of them leave the empires. Actually scratch that, we gave them the chance to do thier own thing and some flosrished, though I feel we should have at least interviened when a bunch of them turned into hellholes.
Edit: then again desert storm showed how badly that could go. I dunno, I feel we shouldnt just sit back and watch them crash and burn.
Edit2: Um I'm starting top get that "woefully ignorant about the true facts of the situation" feeling again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peasant Phill

White farmers quite regularly are killed by black South Africans. As little as I know about it, it seems that the ANC isn't doing as much against it as they could.
Racism isn't gone in South-Africa and it goes both ways.

---

My Uncle married an Africaner, they're out there right now. I think the consensus where they are is it's more a jealousy thing and a lack of Law and Order rather than an organised genocide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I think the consensus where they are is it's more a jealousy thing and a lack of Law and Order rather than an organised genocide.

---

If your a white relatively richer farmer with a nice house a couple of dogs and picket fence yet half a mile up the road is some fella is living in a shack even though he is supposedly "Free" does it surprise anyone these incidents happen.

Does this mean it is ok that it happens of course not however nor is it proof of large scale genocide.

More likely it is proof of the inability of governments in Africa to truly control there territory and population at large.

Essentially South Africa is a flawed democracy better than most but could do better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

My Uncle married an Africaner, they're out there right now. I think the consensus where they are is it's more a jealousy thing and a lack of Law and Order rather than an organised genocide.

---

Yeah, actually this is a universal, in every society and every culture. Extreme inequality (on a local level) leads to a breakdown of order and social fabric. That's why, as a relatively successful lemur, I'm more than happy to pay my bit into the social safety net through property, state and federal taxes. It's insurance for my lifestyle, and for the safety of my family. It's in my selfish interest to not have people living in shacks, desperate for anything they can get.

That's probably another discussion, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

That's probably another discussion, though.

---

Clearly, as there are many societies where this is not the case. That depends on the local culture and a host of other factors. The rape culture, as others have pointed out, is particularly strong in Sub-Saharan Africa. It's also down to how a culture identifies itself. I suspect Jamaican "daggering" and etc has something to do with their cultural identity.

If you treat people like dogs, don't be surprised when they act like them

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

"daggering"

---

Interesting...:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

If your a white relatively richer farmer with a nice house a couple of dogs and picket fence yet half a mile up the road is some fella is living in a shack even though he is supposedly "Free" does it surprise anyone these incidents happen.

---

A lot of Afrikaners live in poverty, they rely on food aid to survive. I wish I had it to hand but there was an article recently on a news site where black South Africans were shown a video of their conditions and they were shocked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

If you treat people like dogs, don't be surprised when they act like them

---

There are a lot of misconceptions about Apartheid.

The reality is black South Africans had not only the highest living standards of any black population in Africa, they also had full political rights within their homelands. The likes of Mandela could only do what they did because they were educated in institutions created and payed for by the white man.

And the Boers were treated worse than dogs by the British and yet their solution wasn't to mass rape their own people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr

And the Boers were treated worse than dogs by the British and yet their solution wasn't to mass rape their own people.

---

I must say that this is a very good observation.

Quote:

---

And the Boers were treated worse than dogs by the British

---

I never realy understood that phrase, nowadays we treat dogs almost better than we treat eachother, from what I know about history the ones who weren't tamed were largely ignored and considered a minor nuisance to cityfolk at worst, while the ones that got violent were killed on the spot, usually quickly. Is there some period of widespread dog abuse I'm not aware of?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

I must say that this is a very good observation.

---

No it's not. It's a terribly shallow glossing over of the situation.

That list you gave is absolute trash. That is not where blacks settled themselves in 1913

I have to go to class but when I come back everyone is going to fet a stern talking to

Screw it, I'll do it now.

The British and Boers were mutually antagonistic to eachother. This culminated in the Boer wars. I would like to see how Boer treatment equates with that of Africans considering the Boers were able to settle up country, out of the cape and aparthied is the brain child of the Boers. The war was brutal but it was not a systematic dienfrnachisement like that of aprthied. South Africas early history is all about British-Boer power brokering. The Boers were equal in that sense.

The British cape colony extended voting rights to civilized property holding blacks, and by all accounts treated them with much less parentelism than the Boers. After the union the British and Boers came together. Due to some brilliant political manuvering by Smuts he was able to keep the more hardline Boers and Brits together and after the second war Malan was able to rally the groups around the symbolism of white Africa.

Aparthied was the bastard brain child of the Calvanist themed Dutch reformed church and it's archeticts are almost wholly Boers themselves. It is the price Brits paid for alliance during the war and remaining in the commonwealth (until the republic of course) Boers also held allot of the land, and the Brits ever being the pragmatists realized they would have to work with them.

On the other hand the Africans were seperated and marginilized to the worst farmland (in part helped by traditional African chiefs whom saw their traditonal power being chipped away by the ANCs calls for democratazation)

It has become en vouge for the self styled polmec to point to high living standards of South Africa and equate it with the benovlence of white rule. Completely ignoring the speical status and lucrative trade contracts South Africa was able to obtain from the UK and later the US as a peice in the later cold war.

So yea the Boers and the Brits fought a war but they were also the most politically enfranchised groups in Southern Africa. The Brits may have killed their fair share of Boers but in peacetime it was more haggiling than jackboots

Your source is a peice of trash

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

If your a white relatively richer farmer with a nice house a couple of dogs and picket fence yet half a mile up the road is some fella is living in a shack even though he is supposedly "Free" does it surprise anyone these incidents happen.

Does this mean it is ok that it happens of course not however nor is it proof of large scale genocide.

More likely it is proof of the inability of governments in Africa to truly control there territory and population at large.

Essentially South Africa is a flawed democracy better than most but could do better.

---

Currently, SA is a de facto One Party State.

20 years of Political dominance by the ANC has bread graft and corruption.

As the ANC is always elected they have no motivation to actually make the reforms necessary to improve the living standards of the poorest. The only well run areas are the ones the ANC doesn't control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr

A lot of Afrikaners live in poverty, they rely on food aid to survive. I wish I had it to hand but there was an article recently on a news site where black South Africans were shown a video of their conditions and they were shocked.



There are a lot of misconceptions about Apartheid.

The reality is black South Africans had not only the highest living standards of any black population in Africa, they also had full political rights within their homelands. The likes of Mandela could only do what they did because they were educated in institutions created and payed for by the white man.

And the Boers were treated worse than dogs by the British and yet their solution wasn't to mass rape their own people.

---

Both right and wrong, right about the poor whites, wrong about Aparteid.

Mandela was educated during British rule, post British rule education for blacks fell off sharply with the result that as the population ages the literacy rate is actually falling.

I'll see if I can find the report later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

:snip:

---

Dang, if he's like this just by being sober, I'd hate to see Strike angry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Dang, if he's like this just by being sober, I'd hate to see Strike angry.

---

I'm thinking bear hugs. Lots of bear hugs and bad breath.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Screw it, I'll do it now.

The British and Boers were mutually antagonistic to eachother. This culminated in the Boer wars. I would like to see how Boer treatment equates with that of Africans considering the Boers were able to settle up country, out of the cape and aparthied is the brain child of the Boers. The war was brutal but it was not a systematic dienfrnachisement like that of aprthied. South Africas early history is all about British-Boer power brokering. The Boers were equal in that sense.

The British cape colony extended voting rights to civilized property holding blacks, and by all accounts treated them with much less parentelism than the Boers. After the union the British and Boers came together. Due to some brilliant political manuvering by Smuts he was able to keep the more hardline Boers and Brits together and after the second war Malan was able to rally the groups around the symbolism of white Africa.

Aparthied was the bastard brain child of the Calvanist themed Dutch reformed church and it's archeticts are almost wholly Boers themselves. It is the price Brits paid for alliance during the war and remaining in the commonwealth (until the republic of course) Boers also held allot of the land, and the Brits ever being the pragmatists realized they would have to work with them.

On the other hand the Africans were seperated and marginilized to the worst farmland (in part helped by traditional African chiefs whom saw their traditonal power being chipped away by the ANCs calls for democratazation)

It has become en vouge for the self styled polmec to point to high living standards of South Africa and equate it with the benovlence of white rule. Completely ignoring the speical status and lucrative trade contracts South Africa was able to obtain from the UK and later the US as a peice in the later cold war.

So yea the Boers and the Brits fought a war but they were also the most politically enfranchised groups in Southern Africa. The Brits may have killed their fair share of Boers but in peacetime it was more haggiling than jackboots

Your source is a peice of trash

---

The historic narrative with the British/Boer power haggling doesn't change the fact that the Boers were rounded up into what were effectively concentration camps and suffered mass casualties.

I think that it is strange that you can say black South Africans were "treated worse than dogs" with the conditions they had under Apartheid, and then with a straight face tell me that for all the Boers endured it was "more haggling than jackboots".

Also despite your emphasis on Apartheid being a brainchild of the Boers, I don't think I ever suggested otherwise. If it was meant to be implicit that this was somehow denouncing the Boers when I've been defending them, well then it's a bit redundant as a point since I was defending Apartheid itself.

Regarding the high quality of life of black South Africans, I don't believe I ever attributed that to white rule. My point was simply that for them to have enjoyed such a relatively good standard of life, they can't have been treated that badly.

Of course financial growth can go hand in hand with political oppression. But when it comes to political rights, like I said blacks had their homelands where they had their own political system and even defence forces. They were actually recognised as sovereign nations by the South African government. Although only a couple like Swaziland and Lesotho happened to be recognised by the British.

So the only point really addressing an example of black oppression is the one about the 1913 Native Land Act. Now, I know history isn't all, well... black and white. That Act did store up a lot of problems for black South Africans given the rapid population growth they would experience. And the white government failed to keep their promises to the black people to expand the borders they could hold land in.

But I don't think the intent was so malicious when the Act was passed, it was I believe actually supported by some black politicians and liberal white ones. The 7% figure people like to throw about is very misleading given that a large portion of the landmass was desert or semi-desert. Not to mention the fact that it was only actually enforced in the Orange, Transvaal and Natal areas (since it was unconstitutional in Cape-Colony).

Maybe it's just so simple that some people miss it, but the reality of inequality in South Africa is surely just down to the vast difference in the level of advancement that the different peoples in the area had. Black South Africans live in shacks just like the rest of black Africans white rule or not. The Boers brought civlization and they continue to enjoy it.

Which is not to say that some level of oppression did not take place. It looks like a tough topic to me, it's quite complicated stuff. But from what I've gathered so far it seems like the wickedness of the Apartheid regime is quite notably overstated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr

There are a lot of misconceptions about Apartheid.

---

I dug a little deeper on the website and found this mission statement.

Quote:

---

Our mission is three-fold:
1. To provide a forum and community of like-minded Christians who seek the preservation of their descendants in the lands of their ancestors, and who have not acquiesced to the contemporary idols of Cultural Marxism, multiculturalism, equality, and the heretical social gospel;

2. To influence and encourage debate, theological, cultural, and otherwise, within our denominations to dislodge and discredit the current unfortunate monolithic Marxist multiculturalism of the institutional churches; and

3. To evangelize and encourage those, among the most noble of our people, who have been alienated by the Church’s treasonous behavior towards their own homelands and people and thus drifted from the faith of their forefathers.

---

When I read it at first I thought it was just your standard evangelical paranoia about liberals etc etc except that it's not really is it.

Some good ole boy is hosting this website an it strikes me that this person whoever they are is close enough to Breviktown if you ask me.

Who Does America Belong To?

Alienism and Marxism in Complete Agreement

American Indians are a Social Construct

A Biblical Defense of Ethno-Nationalism

All I can say is I am shocked at how well put together this pile crypto-racism is :dizzy: tis almost cogent an nearly makes a warped sense.:shocked: I can see now how easy it was to be codded by it all now for the Boers.

Till I read this bit on the about us tab on the website that is About Faith & Heritage Webzine

Quote:

---

We affirm that all men, of every race, ethnicity, and tribe, are created in the image of God. However, this common humanity does not mean that all groups are equal in every respect, just as two brothers can share a common family but be blessed by Providence with vastly differing talents and abilities. We affirm that many of these differences have genetic components and thank God for the diversity of mankind.

We affirm that all attempts to amalgamate humans into one mixed mass are in open rebellion against God’s law and His sovereignly created boundaries.

---

It goes on an on but tis pretty obvious this is a henious website subtle about it but no less dangerous for it.

Bravo Rhy you had me going there for a while earlier on, where did you find that website it's a hoot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr

they also had full political rights within their homelands.

---

The only reason the concept of homelands existed during apartheid was to serve as a pretext to deny them South African citizenship, and therefore the same services and political rights that whites had acces to. Many of them actually had SA citizenship at some point, only to be rebranded as foreigners and guest workers. Kind of similar to the "seperate but equal" nonsense in the USA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Some good ole boy is hosting this website an it strikes me that this person whoever they are is close enough to Breviktown if you ask me.

---

Wow. Is this the new Godwin's law? It you wanted to make wild accusations against anybody remotely right-wing, they used to be called Nazi's. ABB seems to be taking over that mantle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

All I can say is I am shocked at how well put together this pile crypto-racism is tis almost cogent an nearly makes a warped sense. I can see now how easy it was to be codded by it all now for the Boers.

---

It is very well put together, isn't it.

Of course their views are ones a lot of people are uncomfortable with. So the fact that what they say is coherent, structured and researched only proves how wicked and cunning they are, rather than suggesting they might have a point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Bravo Rhy you had me going there for a while earlier on, where did you find that website it's a hoot.

---

They did a couple of organised debates with the guys over at the PuritanBoard, which is a hardline Calvinist yet non-racist and fairly mainstream site.

They would come under the banner of Kinism, it's not extremist at all, from the wiki:

"Parnell McCarter called Kinism "the wrong solution to the real problem" of a "multi-cultural, multi-civilization nation."[15] Jonathan Barlow said Kinism is "defining salvation down" with "racial fatalism", but unlike the Christian Identity movement, which he states is effectively another religion, Kinism is heterodox Christian sect"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Could they stop it even if they tried there best, I doubt it to be honest.

---

40.000 killed by now

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

40.000 killed by now

---

40,000 Africanas likked in SA.

No, I don't think so. Not unless you're counting all the ANCE terrorist attacks since the year dot, even then I struggle to believe it. For one thing, my Uncle would be back in blighty by now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

40.000 killed by now

---

40 people killed so far out of 4.5 millions white people sure there was over 1230 road deaths in SA last year alone> So taking some a very rough guess at 9% of the total population that would mean 3 times as many people died on the road potentially. (if the road deaths followed the population stats as a whole)

I don't see a genocide here Frag to be honest all I see is merely a lack of law an order and weak institutions across much of SA.

And all of this is easily traceable to poverty and lack of oppurtunity it could take years to set on SA a sound path if it's at all possible.

Most genocides in recent decades started because of a lack of law and order, just because it isn't centrally organised doesn't mean it's not genocide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr

Most genocides in recent decades started because of a lack of law and order, just because it isn't centrally organised doesn't mean it's not genocide.

---

Indeed they usually do but it's buttering the bread a bit to thick to claim there is some kind of cleansing going on here.

Well not long ago Genocide Watch put them at level 6, stating there was "organized incitement to violence against white people", although it was recently lowered a level.

idk what way South Africa will go. On the one hand there you had that troll Malema shouting "kill the Boer" and he was head of the youth wing of the ruling party. But I heard he got kicked out for it so that restored some faith.

The potential to go the way of Zimbabwe is there though. Hopefully it won't, but it could.

EDIT: Also just some quick browsing suggests 3-4 thousand victims so far is an accepted number.

Anyone else somewhat depressed that we are in a world where a genocide watch is needed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr

Well not long ago Genocide Watch put them at level 6, stating there was "organized incitement to violence against white people", although it was recently lowered a level.

---

Yes I don't doubt it's bad enough for essentially isolated communities thats the usual pattern, it has happened before in loads of places and it will happen in other places too.

Quote:

---

idk what way South Africa will go. On the one hand there you had that troll Malema shouting "kill the Boer" and he was head of the youth wing of the ruling party. But I heard he got kicked out for it so that restored some faith.

The potential to go the way of Zimbabwe is there though. Hopefully it won't, but it could.

---

Malema wouldn't shut up about nationalising mines etc etc and Zuma is no fool he knew Malema would have rode a wave of populism on that card, and it would have scared away much needed FDI too.

I agree that the potential to go bad is there in SA however while civil society is weaker than say France is not near as bad as when Zimbabwe went down the drain. Malema might split the party which potentially leaves room for the old NDP and other non ANC parties to give an effective opposition. I would stay hopeful about SA democracy to be honest just because things turn bad doesn't mean they will follow an inevitable path downward, sure we fought a civil war and yet handed power to the loser of that war later on in a peaceful transition.

Quote:

---

EDIT: Also just some quick browsing suggests 3-4 thousand victims so far is an accepted number.

---

It's a depressing figure and to make it worse I wouldn't doubt that many of the times the people knew there killers too.

I was not not aware of the issue with Malema and nationalising the mines... interesting.

Oh well, it looks like we have reached somewhat of a consensus. And on the internet of all places.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr

I was not not aware of the issue with Malema and nationalising the mines... interesting.

Oh well, it looks like we have reached somewhat of a consensus. And on the internet of all places.

---

Mugabe illness, Julius Malema out: good news for miners?

Down with youth. A noisy challenger, Julius Malema, gets the boot for criticising the boss

He was too dangerous to be left in charge of his former position he would have cut the legs from under the old guard.

I'll just leave the word t Nelson Mandela, things aren't always what they seem, bugger that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcOXqFQw2hc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

I'll just leave the word t Nelson Mandela, things aren't always what they seem, bugger that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcOXqFQw2hc

---

I suppose that means I will have to burn me Wolfe Tones cd's so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

I suppose that means I will have to burn me Wolfe Tones cd's so.

---

Ridicule it all you want, but it doesn't change anything. What happened in former Rhodesia is happening in SA, white farmers are killed almost every day. Just because MSM is united in silence because it doesn't comfirm the need for flaggalism doesn't mean it isn't true

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South...n_farm_attacks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Ridicule it all you want, but it doesn't change anything. What happened in former Rhodesia is happening in SA, white farmers are killed almost every day. Just because MSM is united in silence because it doesn't comfirm the need for flaggalism doesn't mean it isn't true

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South...n_farm_attacks

---

Yea right

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Yea right

---

Yeah, right http://www.thetrumpet.com/?q=8592.7333.0.0 these are just the farmers mind you

'According to a paper by Genocide Watch President Gregory Stanton titled “The Eight Stages of Genocide,” risk level six is the level just before mass exterminations commence. Up until August 20 of this year, Genocide Watch categorized the white population in South Africa as being at a level-five risk of genocide. That determination was largely made because native blacks have been killing Afrikaner farmers at an alarming rate.'

I can't blame you for not knowing this as nobody is telling you

I would appreciate it if you guys got back on topic, the topic being how South African Rape-A-Lots only do it because whitey oppressed them, much like a teenager acting out against mom and dad or a punk rock band calling out a senator except, ya know, they rape. It really is just a politcal statement, I'm sure they wouldn't rape if they had internetz, nice apartments and silk underwears. But I'm still trying to figure out how this applies to the high rape rate in Somalia, Kenya, Congo, and Rwanda, but I'm sure there were wite people involved somewhere hurting a bruthas feelings.

Hey I remember reading about this guy in Haiti who spent 2 hours digging a girl with broken legs out of some rubble after the quake. Then he raped her for the win. Man, that dude must have really been oppressed by whitey.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Yeah, right http://www.thetrumpet.com/?q=8592.7333.0.0 these are just the farmers mind you

'According to a paper by Genocide Watch President Gregory Stanton titled “The Eight Stages of Genocide,” risk level six is the level just before mass exterminations commence. Up until August 20 of this year, Genocide Watch categorized the white population in South Africa as being at a level-five risk of genocide. That determination was largely made because native blacks have been killing Afrikaner farmers at an alarming rate.'

I can't blame you for not knowing this as nobody is telling you

---

Actually plenty people are telling me twas in the papers and has been on the telly too Frag, there is actually no conspiracy here just your own fevered imagination about hidden liberal communist feminazis.

De Liberals are not ruining South Africa Frag it was :daisy: up beforehand just nobody bothered to report it, what the rape stats were before black rule do we even have those stats.

Whites are always going to be at risk of murder in South Africa and I hate to be blunt about it but they brought it on themselves as a society, it's gonna take years to sort it.

Does this mean that any single individual case you link to is ok absolutely not.

Does it mean the white should get some kind of racist lifeboat statelet also absolutely out of the question.

They will all just have to learn how to live together and that takes more than a couple of free elections.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

I would appreciate it if you guys got back on topic, the topic being how South African Rape-A-Lots only do it because whitey oppressed them, much like a teenager acting out against mom and dad or a punk rock band calling out a senator except, ya know, they rape. It really is just a politcal statement, I'm sure they wouldn't rape if they had internetz, nice apartments and silk underwears. But I'm still trying to figure out how this applies to the high rape rate in Somalia, Kenya, Congo, and Rwanda, but I'm sure there were wite people involved somewhere hurting a bruthas feelings.

Hey I remember reading about this guy in Haiti who spent 2 hours digging a girl with broken legs out of some rubble after the quake. Then he raped her for the win. Man, that dude must have really been oppressed by whitey.

---

It is frankly disgusting carryon and I don't know a solution, however what these countries have in common is a lack of law an order and weak civil institutions. Some of the places are basket cases like Somalia and some are merely states that have a flawed democratic character like South Africa.

No doubt this is caused by a toxic brew of gang violence and an overly large underclass.

c c c conspricay? Did I ever used that word. I thought I merely hinted at ignoring it. And no it wasn't on your tellie that is just a lie. Don't lie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

c c c conspricay? Did I ever used that word. I thought I merely hinted at ignoring it. And no it wasn't on your tellie that is just a lie. Don't lie

---

I got accused of the 'c' word in another thread. It's a lazy way to try to discredit an argument, and favoured by the same kind of people that like to compare everybody to Nazi's or Breivik.

And of course they don't really use the word in its proper sense. It seems that observing any sort of pattern in events, or suggesting that not everything might be above board, amounts to a ridiculous conspiracy theory. Oh well.

Some things are very real, you would have to be really stupid to just dismiss it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

c c c conspricay? Did I ever used that word. I thought I merely hinted at ignoring it. And no it wasn't on your tellie that is just a lie. Don't lie

---

No of course not it was all a lie Frag we ignored the death of farmers because it didnt suit us to hear he was a racist in his spare time.

naturally this meant there was never any media spotlight on targetting of white farmers or issues of tenure or on rabble rousing politicians

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/1015/safrica.html

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0912/southafrica.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Eh??

---

Eh??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Eh??

---

Your assertion was that there is some kind of ignored genocide going on thats is patently untrue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Your assertion was that there is some kind of ignored genocide going on thats is patently untrue.

---

Perhaps "genocide" is too strong of a word. How about "systematic targeted killings"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Perhaps "genocide" is too strong of a word. How about "systematic targeted killings"?

---

It wouldnt matter as the implied arguement is that it is ignored because it does not fit with a particular left world view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

It wouldnt matter as the implied arguement is that it is ignored because it does not fit with a particular left world view.

---

I don't know about "ignored", but I definitely do not see the press beating the drums to attract attention to this issue.

To be fair, whatever you want to call the killings in South Africa, they aren't being ignored on the international scene. The response has been fairly proportional to the scale and nature of the killings.

Whether or not there is a slight left-leaning bias in western media, I still think they are generally trustworthy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr

Whether or not there is a slight left-leaning bias in western media, I still think they are generally trustworthy.

---

I agree, but there's still lots of room for improvement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

I don't know about "ignored", but I definitely do not see the press beating the drums to attract attention to this issue.

---

The press have to make money to sure you cant have reporters swanning around the place all over the world everyweek sending in copy.

Seeing as the malema factor has came in for particular attention it's fair to say it's not being ignored at all.

Especially due to fact it could potentialy split the ANC and unleash potentialy even more violence across SA, all while trying to ride the handcart of political populism all the way the presidency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Especially due to fact it could potentialy split the ANC and unleash potentialy even more violence across SA, all while trying to ride the handcart of political populism all the way the presidency.

---

Possibility of violence is not good enough of a reason to under-report events imho. But you're right in a sense that they need to make money, and Malema's theatrics amount to a goldmine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Perhaps "genocide" is too strong of a word. How about "systematic targeted killings"?

---

Isn't that really the same thing? We are talking about thousands, not a few

Sorry for saying you are a liar by the way GC that looked a lot more hostile than it was intended.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Isn't that really the same thing? We are talking about thousands, not a few

---

I'm hesitant to call it genocide merely because it only targets white landowners, i.e. there's a distinct class aspect to the whole tragedy. Genocide tends to be indiscriminate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

I'm hesitant to call it genocide merely because it only targets white landowners, i.e. there's a distinct class aspect to the whole tragedy. Genocide tends to be indiscriminate.

---

Bit of a language mixup here, 'Boer' is Dutch for 'farmer', but in SA it just means white. When they call for killing the Boers it just means killing the whites

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Bit of a language mixup here, 'Boer' is Dutch for 'farmer', but in SA it just means white. When they call for killing the Boers it just means killing the whites

---

Then it's genocide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Bit of a language mixup here, 'Boer' is Dutch for 'farmer', but in SA it just means white. When they call for killing the Boers it just means killing the whites

---

Boer specifically refers to whites of Dutch extraction (Afrikaners)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Boer specifically refers to whites of Dutch extraction (Afrikaners)

---

For the Brittish perhaps, but there, no

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Then it's genocide.

---

No your right about the class thing RVG they are farmers and naturally they live in rural and generally isolated areas. Essentially there seen has having all the land and money and these people want it.

Certainly these murders have a racial element to them how else would these fellows frame it but as getting the land back.

These things as always are driven by the hunger for land an money, no doubt a local bigwig buys the farm at acution(reduced price I bet too) an either sells it on or divides it up between the gang.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Then it's genocide.

---

gracias

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

For the Brittish perhaps, but there, no

---

Um, no "Boer" does refer to the landowners and not urban whites of British extraction. For one thing, Boers often speak less English than Blacks, something Mandela discusses in his biography. Of course, after independance the state was run by the Boers, not the Brits.

Of course, that doesn't mean it isn't genocide, because Boers are a distinct ethnic group.

No your lot are just starving because none of the aid goes to them

http://www.odinistpressservice.com/2...-are-starving/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

No your right about the class thing RVG they are farmers and naturally they live in rural and generally isolated areas. Essentially there seen has having all the land and money and these people want it.

Certainly these murders have a racial element to them how else would these fellows frame it but as getting the land back.

These things as always are driven by the hunger for land an money, no doubt a local bigwig buys the farm at acution(reduced price I bet too) an either sells it on or divides it up between the gang.

---

lol at that the rich white have their own private militias or live in heavily armed gated communities where everything crawling over gets shot on sight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

lol at that the rich white have their own private militias or live in heavily armed gated communities where everything crawling over gets shot on sight.

---

You think a farmer who farms on 4 or 5 times the size of his neighbour would not be seen as rich to the small fella, some of those people livin in shacks prob have less than a few dozen acres.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

You think a farmer who farms on 4 or 5 times the size of his neighbour would not be seen as rich to the small fella, some of those people livin in shacks prob have less than a few dozen acres.

---

The guy who has that can defend himself, he is not the one who gets killed as he can just as easily hire a few thugs of his own. And they do. It are the less fortunate who get attacked, just farmers not rich landowners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

That rape rate cited is pretty consistent throughout most of Africa. It's not a south African thing, it's an African thing.

---

Do you have any evidence for that claim? I've spent my working life researching sub-Saharan Africa and this is the first time I've heard of it. First google search hit ("rape incidence by region") produces:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...pes-per-capita

which does not support your claim at all.

Quote:

---

And Haitian thing. And Brazilian thing. Oh wait.

---

What are you trying to say here? Nudge-nudge wink-wink comments that about race seem to becoming fashionable in the backroom of late (see also the Zimmerman thread). Is that what you are indulging in or have I missed the point?

Isnt there a problem that countries in the West are more likely to have reliable stats on this anyway as opposed to say in Equitorial Africa.

Also how likely is someone to report rape in say Saudi or for that matter how much of a chance is it capable happening if women dont go outside??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Isnt there a problem that countries in the West are more likely to have reliable stats on this anyway as opposed to say in Equitorial Africa.

Also how likely is someone to report rape in say Saudi or for that matter how much of a chance is it capable happening if women dont go outside??

---

All quite true. It is also true that rape-rates have declined precipitously in most Western countries and are at an all time low, claims such as, "one in four" or even "one in three women are survivors" does not actually refer to penetrative rape, but to general sexual assault, and even then they sidestep the fact that there are villages if not regions where every woman and girl has been penetratively raped multiple times.

Plus the old myth of tablets in the drink is a favoured one of obviously completely steamed up women. Apparently there has never been an actual case of date rape druging in Ireland according to the Gardai.

Funnily enough there were posters and leaflets were all over college when I was there, and stories of it happening to friend of a friends mate.(urban legends for sure)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Plus the old myth of tablets in the drink is a favoured one of obviously completely steamed up women. Apparently there has never been an actual case of date rape druging in Ireland according to the Gardai.

Funnily enough there were posters and leaflets were all over college when I was there, and stories of it happening to friend of a friends mate.(urban legends for sure)

---

Having said that, tipsy women abandoned on their own can be vulnerable to being plied with drink and possibly other substances, where there is a clear intent on the part of the man. If she is drug enough when her girlfriends abandon here you could call that rape, as she really isn't in her right mind and really no more compus mentus than if she were unconcious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Having said that, tipsy women abandoned on their own can be vulnerable to being plied with drink and possibly other substances, where there is a clear intent on the part of the man. If she is drug enough when her girlfriends abandon here you could call that rape, as she really isn't in her right mind and really no more compus mentus than if she were unconcious.

---

Yes but if you ask me in the majority of the cases the likelyhood is both parties were flat out drunk anyway already. They then proceeded to have away with it in an alley or nightclub toilet, waking the next mornig not havin a clue.

Not saying there are not predators out there cos we know there are, I just take the stats with a kilo of salt usually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

Do you have any evidence for that claim? I've spent my working life researching sub-Saharan Africa and this is the first time I've heard of it. First google search hit ("rape incidence by region") produces:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...pes-per-capita

which does not support your claim at all.



What are you trying to say here? Nudge-nudge wink-wink comments that about race seem to becoming fashionable in the backroom of late (see also the Zimmerman thread). Is that what you are indulging in or have I missed the point?

---

Wow. You missed the point.

I didn't realize that I needed to prove that rape is an issue in Africa. Note I said "Africa" and not sub sahara Africa. I notice your link, which lists countries and not continents, hardly has any African countries on it. Those stats are a joke, dude. I mean seriously. What, did they just go by police reports, arrests and convictions? Well, the Rwandan police have always been known for their professionalism and thoroughness, so yeah, I am sure rape hardly ever happens there because if it did they would have said something. I am also sure that certain culural norms, like a husband being "due" sex or a war fighter claiming his secret pay, were taken into due consideration when compiling this list. What a farce.

Haiti and Brazil are both superstitious, patriarchal kleptocracies with pockets of stability and swaths of vast ghettos. My point was that places that are unstable by our standards are typically going to have higher incidences of rape in general, where the "Stable" places will have rape that is concentrated in certain locations and demographics. Also, I didn't realize Brazil was in Africa so yeah, that was totally about race. You got me. FYI I could have just as easily added a laundry list of other countries to my list, which is why I said "oh wait"