Saturday, August 9, 2014

USA Africa Dialogue Series - Chimamanda pays tribute to Wole Soyinka at 80


On 9 Aug 2014, at 23:13, usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com wrote:

Group: http://groups.google.com/group/usaafricadialogue/topics

    Mobolaji Aluko <alukome@gmail.com> Aug 09 10:52PM +0100  

    My People:
     
    Let me help my friend JUI out here as a few people heckle him....and
    electric power in Nigeria is too important to be left to biomedics, lawyers
    and hecklers.... We deceive ourselves as a nation if we believe that we
    are going anywhere without generating adequate power.
     
    There is no point shouting at or abusing each other over electricity needs
    in Nigeria - or what I prefer to energy needs. It is NOT rocket science as
    such, and while, because there always needs to be governmental
    policy-making, there is politics involved, it is fundamentally a
    technological issue rather than a political issue.
     
    I will be brief: for any utility, there must be:
     
    1, Availability:Generation (G) [Needs assessment, Primary fuels]
     
    2, Accessibility: Transmission (T), Distribution (D)
     
    3, Affordability: Tarriffs (Residential, Industrial, Institutional,
    Transport, Other)
     
    4. Reliability: Technological + QoS
     
    5. Sustainability: Total Revenue vs. Cost of GTD
     
     
    The most important issue is No. 4: that the total revenue from USERS and
    their SUBSIDIZERS must exceed the total cost of GENERATION, TRANSMISSION
    and DISTRIBUTION of the utility. One of the first problems in Nigeria is
    that the Government (in general the SUBSIDIZERS) do not sufficiently
    subsidize, and either the USERS do not wish to pay and/or the GOVERNMENT
    does not allow the USERS to pay to ensure that the TOTAL REVENUE exceeds
    costs for profit taking and for re-investment needs. *GOVERNMENT POLICY
    MUST CLEARLY STATE THE COST OF G-T-D and COMMIT TO WHAT PERCENTAGE IT IS
    READY TO SUBSIDIZE AND WHAT PERCENTAGE USERS MUST PAY.*
     
     
    The next important issue is No. 1: Generation. What amount of the utility
    do the people need NOW, and/or will need in the future? A correct current
    status and expansion needs (related to size and increase of population,
    technological needs) are paramount in policy. Using ALL available primary
    fuels (renewable and non-renewable) - and not abandoning difficult ones
    (eg coal, nuclear) in preference for easy ones (oil, hydro) -
    apportioning and working towards the generation between the fuels, and
    correctly assessing the technological challenge of each - must be part of
    government policy. Government repeating statements like "hitting 6,000
    MW", aiming for "10,000 MW" when national needs are almost 20 times that is
    quite annoying.* GOVERNMENT POLICY MUST CLEARLY AND CORRECTLY OUTLINE
    NATIONAL NEEDS AND COMMIT TO A BROAD USE OF ALL AVAILABLE PRIMARY FUELS*
     
     
    The next important issue is No. 2: Accessibility. Only solar energy is
    available and accessible EVERYWHERE, from which electricity can be
    generated. However, as a municipal utility, electricity must be
    TRANSMITTED from generating point, and DISTRIBUTED to exactly where needed
    in appropriate form (direct current, alternating current) and voltage
    (high, medium and low). Transmission lines are the hghway of electricity
    and should match or exceed generation. * GOVERNMENT POLICY MUST CLEARLY
    ENSURE THAT TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION CAPACITIES EXCEED GENERATION
    CAPACITY.*
     
     
    The fourth important issue is No. 3: Affordability. How much CAN the
    different users pay, and how much CAN THEY AFFORD to pay. Knowing the
    subtle difference between these are different issues, and they depend on
    the economic circumstances of the users. Providing electricity FREE to
    users who can afford it (to secure their popular votes, for example) should
    NOT be government policy. In addition to government subsidy, an
    ABILITY-TO-PAY and WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY assessments should be done by
    government, to determine how some USERS (eg rich districts or users) can
    subsidize other users (eg poor districts or users), and then how government
    can subsidize the rest. *GOVERNMENT POLICY MUST INCLUDE TARIFF WILLINGNESS
    ASSESSMENTS and BOTH USER AND GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZATION*
     
    The final important issue is No. 4: Reliabllity - being reasonably certain
    that you will get the amount of the utility at the very time that you need
    it - that is most of the time (eg 99.9% of the time). This affects the
    willingness-to-pay significantly, and attitude to fairness in tariffs.
    Assuring high quality-of-service is technological and attitudinal, and
    requires coordination between generators, transmitters and distributers,
    because any one of them in the chain can mess things up. This is where
    REGULATION is key. *GOVERNMENT POLICY MUST INCLUDE A STRONG REGULATORY
    REGIME THAT DOES NOT INVOLVE ITSELF IN ACTUAL GENERATION, TRANSMISSION OR
    DISTRIBUTION, OR EVEN TARIFF SETTING, BUT ITS GREATEST AGENDA IS
    RELIABILITY.*
     
    Joe Attueyi: Present government power (or energy) policy has addressed
    many of the above, but has introduced a few contradictory policies, and
    have also not done enough homework in others, or not been bold enough in
    EDUCATiNG the Nigerian people on its policies. Quite often, policies, eg
    the MYTO tariffs, have just be SPRUNG on the nation.....and that did not
    start with the GEJ regime.
     
     
    And there you have it.
     
     
    Bolaji Aluko
    Back to monitoring Osun elections
     
     
     
    On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 6:08 AM, 'Bar. Obla' via AfricanWorldForum <

     

    Kola Fabiyi <fabiyi@live.com> Aug 09 10:55PM +0100  

    Aregbesola leads Omisore in Osun governorship election
     
    Premium Times - 20 mins ago
    Featured News, News
     
    Incumbent Governor Rauf Aregbesola of Osun State is in the lead in Saturday's governorship poll, initial poll analysis shows.
     
    Collation of results of the keenly-contested election is continuing, and a final winner is to announced by the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, early Sunday.
     
    But results tallied from the Local Government Areas by PREMIUM TIMES reporters, other media establishments, observers and some residents of the state puts Mr. Aregbesola of the All Progressives Congress, APC, ahead of his challengers.
     
    An unofficial result put together by supporters of the APC is currently being beamed to residents of the state on a large screen at the Oke-fia area of the state capital, Osogbo,
     
    The election is mainly between the APC and the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, represented by Iyiola Omisore.
     
    According to results so far unofficially tallied, Mr. Omisore is leading in five Local Government Areas, LGAs, of the state while Mr. Aregbesola is ahead in 23 LGAs. Results of the two other local governments are unclear at this time.
     
    The results are not final, as only INEC has the power to announce results of elections in Nigeria.
     
    The preliminary tally shows that Mr. Aregbesola has taken leads in Irepodun, Irewole, Iwo, Obokun, Ola Oluwa, Olorunda, Oriade, Orolu, Osogbo, Atakumosa, and Atakumosa West Local Government Areas of the state.
     
    Others are Ayedaade, Ayedire, Boluwaduro, Boripe, Ede North, Egbedore, Ejigbo, Ife East, Ifedayo, Ifelodun, Ilesha South and Ilesha North LGAs.
     
    Mr. Omisore, a former senator, appears to have clinched Ife South, Ife North, Ife Central, Isokan, and Odo Otin.
     
    Details analysed by PREMIUM TIMES from the polling units also put Mr. Aregbesola ahead of the other candidates which also include the Labour Party, LP.
     
    The election yielded a mix of surprising results with several leaders of the two main parties losing in their strongholds.
     
    Former Governor Olagunsoye Oyinlola of the APC lost in his ward as the PDP scored 125 against the APC's 61.
     
    Former Minister of State for Defence, Olusola Obada, also lost her Ibodi, Atakunmosa West Local Government polling unit where PDP scored three votes while the APC scored 300 votes. Ms. Obada is a member of the PDP.
     
    Adejare Bello, who is Mr. Omisore's running mate, also lost in his ward as the PDP scored 30 while the APC scored 130.
     
    The election which was preceded by massive security clampdown and allegations of arrests of several political leaders, was however conducted under a peaceful atmosphere.
     
    Election materials arrived polling units on time while voting started as scheduled in many local governments.
     
    In earlier remarks, a chieftain of the Peoples Democratic Party, [PDP], Femi Fani-Kayode, said in the party's calculation, its party, Mr. Omisore was in the lead.
     
    Speaking to PREMIUM TIMES late Saturday, Mr. Fani-Kayode said the tallying of the votes was still going on and that it was therefore too early to award victory to any of the candidates.
     
    "As far as we are concerned, by our own collation, we are ahead," the former minister said. "We defeated them (APC) heavily in our strongholds and in their strongholds, the race has been very close.
     
    "All these claims that they have won is not true. It is disinformation and we advise that people wait for INEC to announce the authentic result. I can tell you that it is not over."
     
    But the emerging results have already drawn congratulatory messages.
     
    Senior lawyer, Femi Falana, praised Mr. Aregbesola for his "well-deserved victory".
     
    Mr. Falana condemned the massive security clampdown on the state and described the move as a "declaration of war" on the state by President Goodluck Jonathan.
     
    "More disturbing was the deployment of snippets who were permitted to wear masks. The criminal elements engaged in shooting sporadically into the air to intimidate the people of Osun State," he said.
     
    "An election that is fully militarized cannot be said to be fair and free. An election in which people were arrested and detained and disenfranchised cannot be said to be credible."

     

    Moses Ebe Ochonu <meochonu@gmail.com> Aug 08 07:41PM -0500  

    States--all states--are jealous entities who are especially paranoid about
    challenges to their sovereignty. So when Hamas proclaims in its charter,
    which it refuses to modify, that "our struggle against the Jews is very
    great and very serious" thus making enemies of all Israeli Jews, not just
    the settlers in the occupied territories or Zionists; when it waxes on
    glibly about its goal of creating an Islamic state in all of Palestine on
    the ashes of Israel; when the charter proclaims Hamas's commitment to the
    obliteration of the state of Israel; when it states that Hamas will only
    tolerate people of other faiths only if/when they "stop disputing the
    sovereignty of Islam in this region"--that is, to accept the supremacy and
    hegemony of Islam over them; when Hamas states that "renouncing any part of
    Palestine means renouncing part of the religion(Islam)" thus equating a two
    state settlement which "renounces" or concedes some parts of Palestine to
    Israel and Jews with religious sacrilege; when as a branch of the Muslim
    Brotherhood it repeats in its charter the Brotherhood's extremist,
    nihilist, and belligerent moto ("Allah is its goal, the Prophet is the
    model, the Qur'an its constitution, *jihad* its path, and death for the
    sake of Allah its most sublime belief"); when the charter peddles the most
    abominable anti-Semitism tropes, including freely referencing the long
    discredited anti-Semitic document allegedly a manifesto of global jewish
    domination (*The Protocols of the Elders of Zion*); when the charter
    deploys terms for Jews that essentially denies their humanity; when,
    finally, Hamas, in its charter and its pronouncements casts the
    Israeli-Palestinian dispute as a zero-sum game between Islam and Judaism,
    Arabs and Jews, allowing for no compromise or mutual toleration; when Hamas
    does, proclaims, or embraces all these through its charter, how would the
    Jewish residents of Israel realistically feel? Which sovereign state will
    be eager to tolerate or make concessions to such a group--a group sworn to
    your destruction? None of this justifies the Israeli treatment of
    Palestinians, but for a nation-state, allowing a group with such an
    ideology, a group which controls territory next to you, access to
    sophisticated weapons that may bring about military parity or take way your
    military advantage would be suicidal, foolish. I know of no nation-state
    that would do that without guarantees that the entity sworn to its
    annihilation (whether this is actually feasible or not) will not attack it
    or has renounced the commitment to destroy it.
     
    Some people argue that Hamas is not representative of Palestinians'
    disposition towards Israel and towards the possibility of a two state
    solution. That is true to an extent, since the Fatah/PLO faction of
    Palestinian political leadership is recognized internationally as speaking
    for Palestinian people and since that faction and its supporters do not
    subscribe to the hateful, nihilist position of Hamas and generally support
    a two state solution. Before the 2006 takeover of Gaza by Hamas, it didn't
    matter what was in Hamas's charter and what the group's goal regarding
    Israel was, since Fatah was Israel's negotiating partner on behalf of the
    Palestinians and controlled Palestinian sovereignty in all the
    Palestinian territories. After the takeover, everything changed. Now, Hamas
    has emerged as one half of the de facto Palestinian leadership, controlling
    one half of the Palestinian territories, and making policy, including
    defense and military policy, for that half. To the extent that Hamas is now
    one part of the Palestinians' dual leadership and cannot simply be wished
    away or ignored, what its charter says in relation to Israel and its chosen
    tactic of resistance (targeting Israeli civilians) are now relevant and
    have become a legitimate reference for an already paranoid Israeli state.
    Given the current situation of Hamas's control of Gaza, Israel, the
    international community, or an analyst would be foolish to simply ignore as
    irrelevant Hamas's charter, choices, and actions.
     
    The stock, hackneyed retort to all this is that Hamas adopted this hateful
    manifesto and such an extreme, insular religious vision because of the
    Israeli occupation, but that is not entirely accurate, since the group is
    part of the Muslim Brotherhood, which adopts similarly parochial,
    extremist, and violence-glorifying religious political ideology in Arab
    countries where Israeli occupation or the fear of it is not a factor. Why
    are Egyptians--not just El-Sisi but the majority of Egyptians, Muslims,
    Copts, Atheists, etc--so distrustful of the Brotherhood? Secondly,
    occupation, alienation, colonialism, or any other form of oppression does
    not mechanically drive people to ideologies of hate, racial exclusivity,
    and religious extremism. Humans are not prisoners to their reactive
    emotions; they are deliberate, rational, calculating entities even
    situations of distress. The tactic and strategy for responding to
    oppression is not always dictated by the oppressor or more precisely the
    tactics of the oppressor. Tactical and strategic responses, whether
    articulated in manifestoes or actuated in practical resistance, are often a
    CHOICE. I hate it when the oppressed, marginalized, and the underdog is
    stripped of his agency, his choice-making agency no matter how strained or
    constrained this agency may be.
     
    This brings me to the argument that Hamas chooses to fire rockets
    indiscriminately and deliberately at Israeli civilians out of desperation.
    I agree that it may indeed be a desperate tactic, but it is still a choice,
    as resistance against oppression can be carried out in many different
    tactical and strategic forms. The choice of which tactic or strategy to
    adopt, even after counter-violence as a weapon of resistance, remains that
    of the oppressed, a conscious choice for which he should be held
    accountable, especially since that choice was made out of several other
    possibilities.
     
    Much has been made of the ANC's embrace of violent resistance against
    Apartheid, usually as a way of explaining or justifying
    Hamas's indefensibly criminal tactic of deliberately firing lethal rockets
    at civilian settlement and endangering Palestinian civilians by firing from
    their abodes, a tactic whose destructive capacity has been limited thus far
    on the Israeli side by the Iron Dome technology. Since I recently designed
    and will be teaching a new course on the Mandelas, I've been rereading
    Mandela's autobiography and biographies. One of the remarkable things I
    read in *Long Walk to Freedom* was Mandela's detailed explanation of why
    and how the group, once it embraced armed resistance, decided to adopt
    sabotage operations instead of attacks on whites civilians, staging attacks
    from black civilian neighborhood, etc. Mandela explains that when the ANC
    established *Umkhonto We Sizwe*, the body's armed resistance wing, it
    settled on sabotage operations because the chance of killing civilians
    would be minimized, the operations would hurt the infrastructural base of
    Apartheid, and, most importantly, the public relations liability that would
    come from targeting civilians would wipe out or dilute the group's support
    and moral capital, validate the propaganda of the Apartheid regime that the
    ANC was a terrorist organization, and alienate white South Africans
    (many of whom recognized the justness of their cause) from their struggle,
    denying them crucial domestic and international support.
     
    So, clearly, this was a conscious choice that Mandela and other leaders of
    the ANC made. In making this choice, they rejected other choices that would
    have undermined their moral high ground, attracted negative attention,
    drawn undeserved sympathy to the Apartheid regime, and sown the seed of
    racial enmity and hate. The ANC, like Hamas, faced oppression and was
    desperate to get rid of it, but weighed its options and wisely chose
    sabotage operations, instead of a scorched earth racial war fueled by
    racial hatred and directed at all white South Africans. So, desperation
    does not excuse making wrong choices in struggle, nor does it inoculate you
    from criticism for the despicable implications and consequences of that
    choice. The ANC did not lay down. Far from it; it resisted both peacefully
    and VIOLENTLY, but its violent resistance was defined by choices it made.
    The ANC example invalidates the argument that Hamas has no other choice or
    that the choice before Hamas is to do what it's doing or lay down in the
    face of Israeli oppression.
     
    It is also instructive, to stick with the ANC example, that while
    Hamas's manifesto drips hate, confrontation, and irreconcilable, implacable
    racial and religious manifest destiny, the ANC's Freedom Charter is
    ecumenical, conciliatory, progressive, and humanistic, stressing
    interracial and inter-religious harmony, codependence, color- and
    creed-blind human rights, among other inclusive humanistic values,
    aspirations, and goals. Compare the following sample to Hamas's document of
    hate and the difference emerges with clarity.
     
     
    *that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, black and white, and
    that no government can justly claim authority unless it is based on the
    will of all the people;*
     
    *that our people have been robbed of their birthright to land, liberty
    and peace by a form of government founded on injustice and inequality;*
     
    *that our country will never be prosperous or free until all our people
    live in brotherhood, enjoying equal rights and opportunities;*
     
    *that only a democratic state, based on the will of all the people, can
    secure to all their birthright without distinction of colour, race, sex or
    belief;*
     
    *And therefore, we, the people of South Africa, black and white together
    equals, countrymen and brothers adopt this Freedom Charter;*
     
    *And we pledge ourselves to strive together, sparing neither strength
    nor courage, until the democratic changes here set out have been won.*
     
     
     
    Finally, predictably, some will point to the existence of religious
    extremists and right-wing Zionist on the Israeli side as analogous to Hamas
    and as constituting as much of a complication to peace efforts as Hamas's
    ideology and resistance tactics. There is no denying that this extremist
    wing complicates the search for peace, but the difference is that 1) a
    clear majority of the Israeli public has consistently supported a two state
    solution as a final settlement (such clear support does not exist on the
    Palestinian side); 2) while some elements of the ruling Likud Party and
    some ultra-conservative minor parties harbor a Jewish nationalist version
    of the Hamas doctrine of zero-sum racial and religious irreconcilability,
    the majority opinion among Israel's political leadership sees a two state
    solution as inevitable and central to peace, and the Israeli state has
    adopted that template in principle, as has the Fatah faction of the
    Palestinian leadership. Hamas, on the other hand, has not. In other words,
    in Israel, representatives of the state and those who count in the
    political life of the state recognize pragmatically that a two state
    solution has to happen. On the Palestinian side, a major political
    leadership formation (one half of the leadership) is opposed to a two state
    solution, final status talks that entail the sovereignty and legitimacy of
    Israel, and won't change its racist, religiously extreme, and nihilist
    charter that is both an alibi and a legitimate item of concern and anxiety
    for Israel.
     
     
     
    --
    There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's
    greed.
     
     
    ---Mohandas Gandhi

     

    Pablo <pidahosa@yorku.ca> Aug 08 10:45PM -0400  

    Moses,
    This all seems very eloquent. When you continue, however, I will respond
    in greater detail; but my first response to you, as a historian, is
    what books do you read? Some of this looks not to be the considered
    judgment of a historian, and it betrays one the problems, as well as
    the strengths, of this forum--namely, that we often summarize
    debates that require article-length discussions from people who should
    know better than to proffer opinions based upon either a few or favored
    resources.
     
    One does not need to bandy visceral responses to this debate to be a
    accused of being pro-Hamas or anti-semantic ("paranoid racist
    alienation"-- which is?), which sometimes appears to be ad hominem name
    calling and stops short debate. And by anti-Semitic, BTW, I take it
    you mean anti-Jewish? And settler colonialism and apartheid,
    notwithstanding Chomsky, why not? Let the debates re-begin.
     
    To be continued...
    Pablo
     
     
    On 2014-08-08 5:00 PM, Moses Ebe Ochonu wrote:

     

    kenneth harrow <harrow@msu.edu> Aug 08 11:32PM -0400  

    we owe a debt of thanks to moses for his thoughtful analysis. i am not
    totally convinced of a few points, but i want to begin (briefly) with
    one important point with which i agree, where he writes, in his first
    intervention, a response to calling israel a white settler colony.
    first, "white" is meaningless. it assumes the arab population was in
    some sense racially different from the jewish population, a population
    comprised of ashkenazi and sephartic jews whose origins were presumably
    from exactly the same region as the arabs.
    more importantly to me, the argument that an autochthonous population
    has prior claims to the territory is too quick and easy to be
    meaningful. it would take a book (like Settler Colonialism and Land
    Rights in South Africa, Edward Cavanagh) to go into the issue of what
    determines claims to the land, claims of nomads, of moving populations,
    of conquering peoples, etc. maybe i should remind us that everyone on
    earth is the descendant of a migrant; that all of africa, without a
    single inch, is inhabited by people who moved there from somewhere else
    (ok, just take the bantu migrations for starters, but the examples are
    infinite). and this is true everywhere else/
     
    but even if i were pushed to justify a jewish presence in palestine, it
    wouldn't take a biblical justification (which is the opposite of a
    justification for anything, in my view), but simply two things: first,
    maybe 100,000 jews lived in palestine under the turks, before world war
    one. maybe one seventh or one eighth of the population. jews suffered
    persecution in europe, severe persecution in russia. israel was one
    option that became open to them after the balfour declaration.
    now, jews who fled to israel were not like british migrants to zimbabwe
    or kenya who bought up the land and displaced the africans, under
    british hegemony, following colonial policies. some jews did become
    belligerent militants, and fought against arabs, but not much since they
    were under british rule, and most jews were moderate and wanted to live
    with the arabs. the same is true of the arabs population that was in
    palestine. check this out in One Palestine Complete by tom sever.
     
    by the time world war two was over, the ratio of jew to arabs had
    changed a good deal, but they were still i slight minority. the u.n.
    divided the lands; there was an immediate reaction by arab states to
    quash the incipient jewish state, and they failed then, as they did in
    1967 and 1973.
     
    now most palestinians fled israel; a sizable portion remained. this
    partition, like that of india and pakistan, was ugly with the
    expropriation of lands and the killing of innocents, but it was a mutual
    conflict, and it was largely conducted despite britain's efforts to
    forestall it since the brits had major interest in maintaining good
    relations with the arab states. those palestinians who fled have a right
    to the lands they lost. and at the same time, the rights of jews, who
    were subject to considerable constraints, attacks, and oppression in a
    number of arab lands, were also violated, and many sephardic jews fled
    from yemen and syria and morocco and algeria and egypt to israel then.
     
    my own feeling is that people should have 100% rights to migrate
    anywhere they please. there should be no border restrictions. i have
    never heard a legitimate reason to exclude people from settling within
    the borders of another land. when migrants come, they don't have the
    right to expropriate the property of others or abuse them, as occurred
    under colonialism;
    but we all, you and me, and everyone should be free to go and live
    wherever we want. and especially people who are poor or oppressed should
    have every right to relocate.
     
    the jews of europe were oppressed, some severely. luckily for them
    israel was an option; and before, during and after world war 2, many had
    no other place to go.
    of course that doesn't mean that palestinians should have suffered from
    that, but the real conflict did not begin until the u.n. declared
    palestine would be divided into a jewish state and an arab state.
     
    i know i am pushing the limits of people's patience with this long
    email, so i'll stop, and maybe in another respond to moses's analysis of
    the current conflict.
    ken
     
    On 8/8/14 8:41 PM, Moses Ebe Ochonu wrote:
    > an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
    > <mailto:usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>.
    > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
     
    --
    kenneth w. harrow
    faculty excellence advocate
    professor of english
    michigan state university
    department of english
    619 red cedar road
    room C-614 wells hall
    east lansing, mi 48824
    ph. 517 803 8839
    harrow@msu.edu

     

    Cornelius Hamelberg <corneliushamelberg@gmail.com> Aug 09 05:49AM -0700  

    Yes of course WACO is in Texas, everybody knows that. I well remember the
    day, first the breaking news on CNN in which (check it out) the nation of
    Islam was the prime suspect - it was the same day that *Mattias Gardell*
    <https://www.google.se/search?sourceid=navclient&hl=en-GB&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4NDKB_enSE548SE548&q=Mattias+Gardell>
    's disputation for his doctoral thesis on the nation of Islam was held at
    the main auditorium at Stockholm University and I was there with Umar
    Harris (African American brutha). I asked Dr. Gardell two questions, one of
    which was directly linked to the breaking news. As you may know Dr.
    Gardell's Brother Jonas Gardell is a comedian and that probably, partly
    explains the focus of his answer to my second question – in essence that
    according to the nation of Islam, his exact words "The Black man is god!" and
    with some delight added, "That's what I call positive faith!" (Umar, an
    orthodox Sunni Muslim left after that)
     
    There's the facticity of WACO, Texas to be contrasted with the
    hypothetical Waco in Kansa State, which like Sugarcandy Mountain may or may
    not exist in reality either before or after we die. That's the whole point
    of an hypothesis (imagine)
     
    In the case of the real WACO in Texas - I said that Uncle Sam bombed the
    barn and just in case anyone takes that too literally and is wondering
    where/ what/ which barn, *this is exactly what happened*
    <https://www.google.se/search?sourceid=navclient&hl=en-GB&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4NDKB_enSE548SE548&q=The+Waco+Siege>
    Now let me take a look at what Don Ogugua Anunoby has been saying...I
    intend to do him justice

     
    On Friday, 8 August 2014 16:25:35 UTC+2, Kenneth Harrow wrote:
     

     

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
 
Vida de bombeiro Recipes Informatica Humor Jokes Mensagens Curiosity Saude Video Games Car Blog Animals Diario das Mensagens Eletronica Rei Jesus News Noticias da TV Artesanato Esportes Noticias Atuais Games Pets Career Religion Recreation Business Education Autos Academics Style Television Programming Motosport Humor News The Games Home Downs World News Internet Car Design Entertaimment Celebrities 1001 Games Doctor Pets Net Downs World Enter Jesus Variedade Mensagensr Android Rub Letras Dialogue cosmetics Genexus Car net Só Humor Curiosity Gifs Medical Female American Health Madeira Designer PPS Divertidas Estate Travel Estate Writing Computer Matilde Ocultos Matilde futebolcomnoticias girassol lettheworldturn topdigitalnet Bem amado enjohnny produceideas foodasticos cronicasdoimaginario downloadsdegraca compactandoletras newcuriosidades blogdoarmario arrozinhoii sonasol halfbakedtaters make-it-plain amatha