Ugandan ex-troops win $2bn payout

The former soldiers are still part of the army, judges say
Uganda must pay about $2bn (£1bn) in compensation to troops who served under ex-presidents Idi Amin and Milton Obote, judges have ruled.
The country’s appeals court said about 45,000 former soldiers had not been properly dismissed in 1979 and should receive back-pay.

The Ugandan army vowed to appeal against the ruling.

A spokesman said the ex-soldiers did not deserve to be paid and the military had no obligation towards them.

Correspondents say it is unclear how the Ugandan government could afford to pay the former troops even if it were prepared to do so.

However, the defence team expressed confidence that its clients would receive more than 20 years of back-pay.

One man who served under Idi Amin said he was thrilled with the victory and would use the money to give up work and relax.

Most of the former soldiers were disarmed and detained after President Yoweri Museveni seized power in Uganda in 1986. They were later released.

Reported by BBCNews

Ita good to see a little bit of justice.
comment by Malvo

Haitian Revolution

I

In 1791, supported by the ideas of the revolution and the voodoo the slaves led per Toussaint Louverture raised and massacred the french colonists.

Spanish brought their assistance to insurgent but, when in 1794 the french government abolished the slavery, the Toussaint Louverture’s army turned against them.

In 1795 the whole island was under french domination. After his seizure of power, Napoleon Ith worried about the autonomy whose the colony, under the government of Toussaint Louverture, profited from. He sent in 1802 a forwarding of 1 500 soldiers under the command of the General Leclerc who captured Toussaint Louverture and exiled him in France where he died in a wet and cold dungeon.

Howhever under the leading of the generals of Toussaint Louverture, Jean-Jacques Dessalines and Christophe, the former slaves drove out French and proclaimed on January 1, 1804 the independence of the Western part of the island. The new nation taken the old indian name of the island and became the Republic of Haiti.

The Eastern part remained some time under French domination fell down to the hands of Spanish with the help of Great-Britain then in war with Napoleon.

In 1821 it became in its independent turn under the name of Dominican Republic. In 1822, it was invaded by the army of Haiti and remained under this domination until 1844.

Dessalines which was crowned emperor was assassinated two years after the independence. Haiti was divided into two part. In the North, the kingdom of Christophe, in the South, the republic led by president Petion.

full story:
http://loremipsum.online.fr/html/haiti/haitiethno/islandhaiti.html

The U.S. reaction to the Haitian revolution:

The U.S. reaction to the Haitian revolution can be characterized from several different aspects. There was fear that the spread of slave rebellions might affect slavery in the United States. There was also a great deal of concern over how relations with Haïti might affect U.S. relations with France, the key American ally in Europe.

Some citizens of the United States were opposed to the revolution because they had close ties to the plantations of Saint-Domingue; many feared that the Haitian slave revolts could provoke similar revolts in their own country. They felt that the Haitian revolts were anti-plantation and anti-white, and feared that slave emancipation would result in domination of whites by former slaves.

The surprising factor in story of freedom and determination is that it’s not well known.
Comment by Malvo.

CLEOPATRA VII Depicted as white

QUEEN OF KEMET
(Ancient Egypt the land of the blacks) (69-30 B.C)

Although of African descent she is deliberately portrayed as being white, however, she was of both Greek and African descent.She came to power at the tender age of seventeen and the most popular of seven queens to have had this name. She was also known to be a great linguist and was instumental in making Kemet(Egypt) into the world number one super power at that time.

Accession to the throne
Pharaoh Ptolemy XII died in March 51 BC, making the 18-year-old Cleopatra and the 12-year-old Ptolemy XIII joint monarchs. The first three years of their reign were difficult, due to economic difficulties, famine, deficient floods of the Nile, and political conflicts. Although Cleopatra was married to her young brother, she quickly showed indications that she had no intentions of sharing power with him.

In August 51 BC, relations between the sovereigns completely broke down. Cleopatra dropped Ptolemy’s name from official documents and her face appeared alone on coins, which went against Ptolemaic tradition of female rulers being subordinate to male co-rulers. This resulted in a cabal of courtiers, led by the eunuch Pothinus, removing Cleopatra from power and making Ptolemy sole ruler in circa 48 BC (or possibly earlier, as a decree exists from 51 BC with Ptolemy’s name alone). She tried to raise a rebellion around Pelusium, but she was soon forced to flee Egypt with her only surviving sister, Arsinoë.

This can’t be historically correct as Cleopatra portrayed as white ?
At a time when Ancient Egypt was the land of Blacks
Comment by Malvo

AKHENATON The Creator of Monotheism

Akhenaton (Great African Kings)

Was the first ruler in recorded history to believe in the concept of One God. He also taught this concept to all his citizens. He built a new city in the desert that was dedicated to religion, art and music. This new city, Akhenaton (now Tell el Amara), with its lush gardens and magnificent buildings is where Akhenaton and his wife Queen Nefertiti changed Kemet’s culture so radically that their influence is felt for centuries right up until today. Akhenaton was also the first Pharaoh of whom a true likeness is recorded as shown in the picture.

Many would say that “Monotheism” created by Akhenaton concept of “one god” is foundation for future regilious beliefs, such as Judism,Islam and Christianity
Comment by Malvo.

Darfur Problem

Just as the long North-South civil war was reaching a resolution, a new rebellion in the western region of Darfur began in the early 1970s, right after Africa’s greatest famine. The rebels accused the central government of neglecting the Darfur region economically, although there is uncertainty regarding the objectives of the rebels and whether they merely seek an improved position for Darfur within Sudan or outright “secession.” Both the government and the rebels have been accused of atrocities in this war, although most of the blame has fallen on Arab militias known as the Janjaweed, which are armed men appointed by Al Saddiq Al Mahdi administration to stop the long standing chaotic disputes between Darfur tribes. The rebels have alleged that these militias have been engaging in genocide; the fighting has displaced hundreds of thousands of people, many of them seeking refuge in neighboring Chad. The government claimed victory over the rebels after capturing a town on the border with Chad, in early 1994. However, the fighting resumed in 2003.

On September 9, 2004 the United States Secretary of State Colin Powell termed the Darfur conflict as a “genocide”, acknowledging it as one of the worst humanitarian crises of the 21st century.[2] Powell has been one of the few members of the White House to speak out against the violence. There have been reports that the Janjaweed have been launching raids, bombings, and attacks on villages, killing civilians based on ethnicity, raping women, stealing land, goods, and herds of livestock.[3] So far, over 2 million civilians have been displaced and the death toll is variously estimated at 200,000[4] to 400,000 killed.[5]

On May 5, 2006, the Sudanese government and Darfur’s largest rebel group the SLM (Sudan Liberation Movement) signed the Darfur Peace Agreement, which aimed at ending the three-year long conflict.[6] The agreement specified the disarmament of the janjaweed and the disbandment of the rebel forces, and aimed at establishing a temporal government in which the rebels could take part.[7] The agreement, which was brokered by the African Union, however, was not signed by all of the rebel groups.[8]

Since the agreement was signed, however, there still have been reports of wide-spread violence throughout the region. A new rebel group has emerged called the “National Redemption Front” (which is made up of the 4 main rebel groups who refused to sign the May peace agreement).[9] Recently, both the Sudanese government and government-sponsored militias have launched large offensives against the rebel groups, resulting in more deaths and more displacements. Clashes among the rebel groups have also contributed to the violence.[10] Recent fighting along the Chad border has left hundreds of soldiers and rebel forces dead and nearly a quarter of a million refugees cut from aid.[11] In addition, villages have been continuously bombed and more civilians have been killed. UNICEF recently reported that around 80 infants die each day in Darfur as a result of malnutrition.[12]

The people in Darfur are predominantly black Africans of Muslim beliefs, whereas the Janjaweed militia is made up of Arabs. Some believe the Janjaweed militia is the Khartoum government’s unofficial fighting force, allowing the government to disguisedly break human rights rules in Darfur.

New US threat of action over Darfur seen as serious

WASHINGTON (AFP) – After months of false starts and empty threats, the United States finally looks poised to take firm action against Sudan to halt the atrocities in Darfur.

Experts and human rights activists who have long been critical of US inactivity on Darfur said improved US-China cooperation in dealing with global crises coupled with growing impatience over Sudan’s defiance may have created the diplomatic critical mass needed for the crackdown on Khartoum.

The State Department signaled its readiness to act Wednesday by announcing that it would seek a new UN Security Council resolution aimed at forcing the Sudanese government to honor past promises to allow a UN-led peacekeeping force into Darfur.

“It is simply the case that the Sudanese government needs to recognize that the international community can’t stand idly by while people suffer,” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said.

“We are indeed looking at other options, including options that might require further UN action,” she said.

President George W. Bush’s special envoy for Darfur, Andrew Natsios, meanwhile told several human rights groups in a conference call Wednesday that the administration was preparing its own “Plan B” package of economic sanctions against Sudan, according to a participant in the call.

The announcements came after Sudanese President Omar al-Beshir wrote to UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon last week backing away from a deal reached in November to let a 20,000-strong, UN-led peacekeeping force into Darfur.

The letter was just the latest step in a four-year campaign by Beshir to prevent international intervention in Darfur, where more than 200,000 people have died and at least two million been left homeless in a civil war in which government-backed militia have been blamed for most of the violence.

The violence has continued unabated despite numerous US appeals, including direct entreaties from Bush and Rice to Beshir, and repeated US warnings that Khartoum will face serious consequences for its defiance.

But Bush has failed to put his words into action, despite having vowed early in his presidency never to sit idly by while another Rwanda-style genocide occurred.

Many analysts attributed the lack of US follow-through to Bush’s preoccupation with Iraq and “axis of evil” foes Iran and North Korea.

“Our position in the world is obviously complicated by what’s gone on in Iraq, making it that much more difficult to mobilize coalitions, no matter how sincere and how substantial our case is against Sudan over Darfur,” said Jonathan Morgenstein of the US Institute of Peace.

US ardor for action was also cooled by hostility from China, a veto-wielding member of the UN Security Council which buys most of Sudan’s oil and historically opposes international meddling in internal conflicts that could encourage similar moves over Tibet, Morgenstein said.

But with little prospect for any successful outcomes in Iraq, Bush and Rice have been turning their diplomatic attention to other, potentially solvable, crises.

They have notably worked closely with China in using UN sanctions to lead North Korea into last month’s historic nuclear disarmament agreement and as a weapon to challenge Iran’s nuclear program.

Alex Meixner of the Save Darfur coalition said there were new signs China might be ready for tougher action against Sudan after its ambassador to the UN described Beshir’s latest backtracking on Darfur “disappointing.”

He noted that the November agreement Beshir has reneged on came at a meeting involving the United Nations, European Union, US, Russia, China and African states.

“He’s now not only going back on his word to the US, but also to China, Russia and his African allies,” Meixner said.

One member of a organization involved in Darfur who has spoken privately with US officials recently said he had detected a new determination to act.

“The administration is seeing this as the right opportunity to launch into some of their ‘Plan B’ actions because there seems to be more of an appetite for it overseas,” he said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Natsios was quoted as saying one of the unilateral sanctions Washington could impose is blocking any international transactions with Sudan in US dollars — a step which has proved effective against North Korea and Iran and could badly hit Sudan’s oil dealings.

Will Sudan have to suffer more do to the hands of the US primary agenda ?
Comment by Malvo.

HANNIBAL

Depicted as white in color in many books, painting, movies even today’s History channel.

RULER O

Who was Hannibal ?

F CARTHAGE (247-183 B.C.)

Hannibal is well known as the greatest general and military strategist who ever lived. He used his overpowering African armies to conquer major portions of Spain and Italy and came very close to defeating the Roman Empire. His audacious moves-such as marching his army with African War elephants through the treacherous Alps to surprise and conquer northern Italy and his tactical genius, as illustrated by the battle of Cannae where his seemingly trapped army cleverly surrounded and destroy a much larger Roman force, won him recognition which has spanned more than 2000 years. His tactics are still being studied in many military schools today.

Can this be historically correct?
Comment by Malvo.