posted
^I have to admit akoben08, that not only are you right about Zimbabwe, but you find and post some funnyass pictures aswell.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, Mmmkay let's use your line of logic (such as it is) and let's see if it holds up, even in the short term.
quote: Mugabe has been in power for over 20 years. In America the term for presidents is 8 years. In Zimbabwe there is no term limit. I wonder why.
The British puppet president of Kenya has been in power for 25 years. And again --as you've failed to repsond to it-- he's killed THOUSANDS just THIS YEAR after rigging the election.
Oh, just for your information, the US Congress doesn't have term limits either. Many of the members of the US Sentate and House have been in office longer than Mugabe. Not to mention they have the power to rerdaw their district maps in such a way as to advantage them. What you're complaining about is called "the power of incumebency." It's a problem in ANY country, but the power of an entrenched elite, elected by no one, (like say a group of white famrers who own 80% of the arable land and 100% of the mineral resources) is even worse. Any chance you'll actually acknowledge that?
quote:He owns mansions. He owns the elections. He owns the fear of his own people.
Yeah, he owns the fear of the people, which is why his party lost seats just a few months ago, and why at least 2 out of 5 Zimbabweans (if the BBC's BS is to be believed) were polled as wanting to vote agaisnt him. And for the record his white counterparts own mansions (plural) and they hold not only the people in fear of their futures, but the whole damned continent. Unless you're going to tell me it was the African Union who slapped sanctions on Zimbabwe.
quote: There is a real problem in eastern Congo and if you Google "sexual violence Congo" there over 1,000,000 results. But thats beside the topic of this thread.
Maybe having some white face telling you about the death toll in the Congo and the impotence of the regime in there will convince you that it's hypocrisy for the Brtis to be whining about Zimbabwe. Ben Affleck went to the Congo (it's his trip that Nightline will be reporting on tonight) and he personally videotaped what he saw. Damn, I sure hope you'll watch it so you'll stop letting the BBC brainwash you into thinking Zimbabwe is about elections, when it's actually about Britain's neo-colonial holdings. See what a real african "crisis" looks like, and ask why the same white folks frothing at the mouth over Mugabe don't give a two-bit damn about it.
Look, if you want to say Mugabe is rich and his people are not, I agree. Just as I agree that ALL world leaders are many times more wealthy than their people. Please identify for me even ONE nation where the leader only makes as much as his people. I'm not saying Mugabe is the perfect black leader, or that he's even the best answer, but when you consider that the whites, who took all the best land and the natural resources, are STILL in charge of these countries and are determined to always be, then you have to ask how much better off would these countries be if these white pukes were gone. The answer--MUCH better. Next you have to ask, who has the balls to take back what the white have stolen? So far, nobody, until now. Yes, you can accuse Mugabe of dishonesty. He definitely played ball with the whites for 20 years, until he realized he was only the Britsh's favortite pet monkey. But it's not Mugabe who's acting like a dictator. Dictators postpone elections. This happened in the Ukraine when the regime there realized they were going to lose. They called the elections invalid and wanted a do-over. THAT'S what dictatorships do when they don't like the outcome. Mugabe LOST the March parliamentary elections and not only did he not question the results, not only did he not call for a do-over, he let the results stand. These don't strike me as the actions of a dictator running a banana republic, you know. Now, compare that to the WHITES who want to postpone the presidential vote before it's even happened! There are international voting monitors in the country but the whites still claim the vote will be rigged. Tzvaringai's name is still on the ballot--what dictator does THAT? There is absolutely NOTHING to stop the Zimbabwean people from voting Mugabe out, as they did Zanu-PF in the parliamentary elections, if that's truly what the people want to do. But for the whites that's not good enough. They won't accept ANY result that doesn't see Mugabe voted out. Who's acting like the dictators here?
Mmmkay, the whites are going apesh*t not because elections AREN'T going to take place in Africa, but because they ARE. Now doesn't that seem a little strange for these white folks to be talking about how Zimbabwe needs "free and fair elections" but it's Mugabe who's being threatened with military action because he's keeping his opponent's name on the ballot? Compare this to the US who, against world opinion, held elections in Iraq in the middle of a WAR, while bombs were going off and armed militas were threatening to kill people NOT IF THEY VOTED FOR THE WRONG GUY BUT MERELY IF THEY WENT TO VOTE-PERIOD. Do you see Mugabe doing that? Did you see the BBC demanding a postponing? Or saying the process was fundamentally flawed? At what point Mmmkay do you dare to ask if this hysteria the BBC is trying to manufacture is really nothing more than a media outlet helping to cover for the immoral and illegal manueverings of their parent government? If you want to condemn Mugabe for living lavishly fine, and I hope you'll also save some piss and vinegar for the leaders of the US, and Britain, and Europe and China and oh yeah, the WHITE FARMERS in Zimababwe, who are living better than Mugabe!
If you want to know why I side with Mugabe there's only two questions you need to ask yourself. Even if Mugabe resigned today and fled the country would the people of Zimbabwe STILL want to take back their land and mineral wealth from the whites if they had the chance?
Second: If Tzvaringai was president and the people still demanded that he continue the Land Reclaimation Program do you truly believe he would do it? Don't specualte, just answer the question. Would Tzvaringai do it, or would he hide behind "racial reconiciliation" rhetoric like Mandela did and dismiss the reclaimmation program as "disastrous for the economy?"
Malcolm X once said "land is the basis for freedome, justice and equality." The Zimbabweans have no land. Mugabe has taken actions to change that. And the instant he did the white media declared war on him. Who's the dictator here?
And here's a thrid question for you: Why is it that NO white media outlet has interviewed the Mugabe regime? Before the Iraq war Dan Rather interviewed Sadaam Hussein. 60 Minutes has interviewed Ahmadinejad a few months back. But strangely, the BBc is demanding Un intervention in Africa, using words like "crisis" and "dictator," but nobody wants to do an interview? Mugabe has always given interviews (60 Minutes did one with him a few years back) but all of a sudden, during a "crisis" that they can't stop talking about, NONE of these same news outlets condemning Mugabe want to talk to him. Not CNN, not the BBC, not Fox, hell, not even PBS. Now doesn't any of this strike you as just a LITTLE strage? Like maybe white people sticking together for a matter of mutual concern--manintaining the racial peckng order. Like somebody's trying to sell you on a particular line of bullshit and they don't want the other side confusing you with arguments that actually make sense?
Those are two questions you don't even have to ask. Neither does the BBC, or the British government who they pimp for.
Posts: 248 | From: Way Down South | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't even addressed the issue of the fact that Zimbabwe's diplomatic personnel aren't given visas to enter Britain or the US.
This effectively freezes the Zimbabweans from being able to speak to ANY western media outlets, on both sides of the Atlantic, because the US policy regarding admitting Zimbabwean officials entry mirrors the British.
Now it's one thing for the Brits to refuse the Zimbabweans entry to their country, but the US? White folks sticking together.
Iran's President Ahmedjinidad went to Columbia university last year (say, isn't he on some terrorist watch list, or at least a no-fly list?)to give a speech, and nobody told him he "No," even though I'm pretty sure the US considers him a dictator. Meanwhile Mugabe's representatives can't enter the US.
George Bush has begun lifting sanctions on North Korea, even though they have nukes, and have expressed a desire to use them on the US, but the sanctions he put on Zimbabwe are going on 7 years now. Again, what is the US doing putting sanctions on a country when that country's only crime is displeasing the British?
This is what Mugabe is up against, it's a damned war being fought with every tool in the arsenal. Now that the dirty tricks have failed, the whties are spoiling for the blackjack that never misses--"military intervention." But hey, Mmkay thinks this is just about a greedy Mugabe not giving a damn what happens to the people (I suppose the prior 20 years don't count) and nevermind the white land squatters who engineereed the econoimc downturn by halting production in the first place. If it hadn't been for them Zimbabwe's ecomonoy wouldn't be in the fix it is. You know, corporations use tactics like these to do union-busting. When some union guy starts telling the employeese they've earned better than slave wages they just fire some people, lower wages, cut back on hours and all of a sudden nobody's talking about raises or working connditions anymore. They can even get the people to turn on the guy who was telling them they have a right to ALL the profits, not just what few crumbs fall from the boss's table.
Guess this is all too big a concept for Mmkay to undestand that this is how you keep people on their knees, and every power elite in eevry country uses these methods. It's called silencing dissent. Nothing comes without a price, and if you want to retake an entire country from an entrenched power elite, do you really think it will happen without a fight? The British are asking Africa a question right now--are you really prepared to fight us to be free? Mugabe is saying yes.
Mmmkay is saying no.
Posts: 248 | From: Way Down South | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
And before you try it Mmmkay, yes, the Zimbabwean ambassador gave a press conference yesterday at the UN headquartes in New York, but remmeber, the UNHQ is international territory--the US couldn't stop him. But you'll also recall the media only showed the briefest of snippets of the conference. Actually about the only part they showed was when they asked him what Zimbabwe would do if Britain attacked. He said, "Let them try." So out of God knows how many dozens of questions the ONLY one they thought worthy of broadcasting (in HIGLY truncated form) was a reply to the prospect of war, which the white media tried to frame as a challenge of sorts.
Now, these are the people who Mmmkay is listening to and letting convince him Mugabe is pure evil and must be ousted...so that he can be replaced by the benevolent selfless whites, who only put Zimbabwe in the fix it's in.
Unless you're going to tell me it was Mugabe who stopped the white farmers and mining industrialists from producing and then slapped sanctions on his own country.
Posts: 248 | From: Way Down South | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: I have to admit akoben08, that not only are you right about Zimbabwe, but you find and post some funnyass pictures aswell.
Don't encourage him and and risk calling your own credibility into question.
quote: And for the record his white counterparts own mansions (plural) and they hold not only the people in fear of their futures, but the whole damned continent. Unless you're going to tell me it was the African Union who slapped sanctions on Zimbabwe.
Number 1, those sanctions were travel-related not economic.
Number 2, If this white elite you speak of still has the power in zimbabwe then what is the problem? I would assume it would be business-as-usual for "white media" coverage then?
I don't understand what your are saying. Your saying that mugabe challenged white power in zimbabwe but strangely, they still hold power there.
quote:Mugabe LOST the March parliamentary elections and not only did he not question the results, not only did he not call for a do-over, he let the results stand. These don't strike me as the actions of a dictator running a banana republic, you know.
Dictators can also make it seem like they are not dictators, yet still be dictators lol. Who's naive?
quote:Even if Mugabe resigned today and fled the country would the people of Zimbabwe STILL want to take back their land and mineral wealth from the whites if they had the chance?
I don't know.
quote: If Tzvaringai was president and the people still demanded that he continue the Land Reclaimation Program do you truly believe he would do it? Don't specualte, just answer the question. Would Tzvaringai do it, or would he hide behind "racial reconiciliation" rhetoric like Mandela did and dismiss the reclaimmation program as "disastrous for the economy?"
Well from a rationalistic standpoint, if the white farmers are currently the most efficient at feeding the country cheaply it would indeed be disastrous to "redistribute" it to those who are not. That would'nt make alot of economic sense.
Only after sufficient skills and techniques were acquired so as to blunt any negative effect of the exit of the white farmers from the economy. I think thats what he meant.
quote: too bad you're wasting your time on her.
Ofcourse you are not referring to me since I am a "him". Now back to trolling.
quote: Now, these are the people who Mmmkay is listening to and letting convince him Mugabe is pure evil and must be ousted...so that he can be replaced by the benevolent selfless whites, who only put Zimbabwe in the fix it's in.
I don't think he's pure evil, that's giving him too much credit. Just an example of the president Bush with amplified idiocy and power x10.
Leaders who embrace the principles of service, responsbility and rationalism are the antidote to africa problems. Mugabe's reign has been disastrous because he embraces none of these principles and instead opts for kleptocratic opulence, state terror campaigns and thuggery to maintain his position. Business as usual it seems.
Posts: 426 | From: Cali-for-nia | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Fight's over folks. The good guys won! The good white folks have thrown in the towel ...this round anyway. And while we know Mugabe won't lower hie guard I hope he knows that he's under threat. He hasn't arrested or summarily executed any of the whties because everyone understnad they're British citizens and that Britain would retialiate--and this time they wouldn't be trying to fool the UN into a military intervention, they'd just attack on their own. The whites have to go NOW! Mugabe better get them before they get him.
Mmmkay, I won't waste any more time doing the dance with you. I've explained why Zimbabwe is not what you insist on thinking it is. And why Britain is proudly supporting truly despotic regime's and why it matters that the land and minerals of Zimbabwe be in the hands of it's people immediately. You haven't answered any of my questions, only reiterated that Mugabe is better off than his people. As if the white ruling class, who control the jobs and the money aren't. Hey, it's not like THEY have any power.
As for your last missive I don't know whether your stance sickens me or angers me. For now it disgusts me.
quote:Only after sufficient skills and techniques were acquired so as to blunt any negative effect of the exit of the white farmers from the economy. I think thats what he meant.
Okay, Mmmkay. What part of THE WHITES WON'T GIVE UP POWER WITHOUT A FIGHT do you not understand? Your braindead assertion assumes that the indigenous white ruling class won't be a significant part of the economy by the time the blacks are "ready." They own 80-percent of the arable farmland. Now, how much of that do you think Mugabe will reclaim before the whites start pulling the same stunt they are now, destabilizing the economy by halting production? The second they see any attempt at reclamation they'll go from zero to sixty, bringing food production to a full halt and firing people left and right, claiming it was Mugabe's fault.
They were doing this in 2000 when Mugabe only reclaimed a handful of farms, so please don't pretend that somehow Mugabe can move slowly enough that the whites won't notice. Only way he can move slowly enough that the whites won't notice is if he doesn't move at all.
Say, if he waits until the people have "sufficient skills and techniques" that would be about the right speed, wouldn't it? As in dead stop!
If Mugabe said, "Return 1 acre of the land you stole," the whites would scream bloody murder. They will not release ANY of the land willingly. That means the blacks will never be able to develop the "sufficient skills and techniques" required to take control of their agricultural base. The same goes for the mines. The whites aren't about to train their replacements. Like you, they'll say "These guys aren't ready. They don't know what they're doing." They'll claim all sorts of production and financial mistakes that prove the poor blacks simply aren't at the point where they can tun things themselves.
And knowing you you'll say "That damn Mugabe! He's responsible for this!" Thank God Mugabe isn't like you. Begging the very people who colonized Africa for permission to be free. There's no easy way to take over a country. It's either all or nothing. Believe what you want, or rather what the BBC et al want you to believe. I'm done debating it.
However I will NOT be through celebrating! Unless Mugabe proves that he hasn't learned his lesson from this whole episode--Africa cannot WAIT to be free!
Posts: 248 | From: Way Down South | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sportbilly: Okay, Mmmkay let's use your line of logic (such as it is) and let's see if it holds up, even in the short term.
quote: Mugabe has been in power for over 20 years. In America the term for presidents is 8 years. In Zimbabwe there is no term limit. I wonder why.
The British puppet president of Kenya has been in power for 25 years. And again --as you've failed to repsond to it-- he's killed THOUSANDS just THIS YEAR after rigging the election.
Oh, just for your information, the US Congress doesn't have term limits either. Many of the members of the US Sentate and House have been in office longer than Mugabe. Not to mention they have the power to rerdaw their district maps in such a way as to advantage them. What you're complaining about is called "the power of incumebency." It's a problem in ANY country, but the power of an entrenched elite, elected by no one, (like say a group of white famrers who own 80% of the arable land and 100% of the mineral resources) is even worse. Any chance you'll actually acknowledge that?
quote:He owns mansions. He owns the elections. He owns the fear of his own people.
Yeah, he owns the fear of the people, which is why his party lost seats just a few months ago, and why at least 2 out of 5 Zimbabweans (if the BBC's BS is to be believed) were polled as wanting to vote agaisnt him. And for the record his white counterparts own mansions (plural) and they hold not only the people in fear of their futures, but the whole damned continent. Unless you're going to tell me it was the African Union who slapped sanctions on Zimbabwe.
quote: There is a real problem in eastern Congo and if you Google "sexual violence Congo" there over 1,000,000 results. But thats beside the topic of this thread.
Maybe having some white face telling you about the death toll in the Congo and the impotence of the regime in there will convince you that it's hypocrisy for the Brtis to be whining about Zimbabwe. Ben Affleck went to the Congo (it's his trip that Nightline will be reporting on tonight) and he personally videotaped what he saw. Damn, I sure hope you'll watch it so you'll stop letting the BBC brainwash you into thinking Zimbabwe is about elections, when it's actually about Britain's neo-colonial holdings. See what a real african "crisis" looks like, and ask why the same white folks frothing at the mouth over Mugabe don't give a two-bit damn about it.
Look, if you want to say Mugabe is rich and his people are not, I agree. Just as I agree that ALL world leaders are many times more wealthy than their people. Please identify for me even ONE nation where the leader only makes as much as his people. I'm not saying Mugabe is the perfect black leader, or that he's even the best answer, but when you consider that the whites, who took all the best land and the natural resources, are STILL in charge of these countries and are determined to always be, then you have to ask how much better off would these countries be if these white pukes were gone. The answer--MUCH better. Next you have to ask, who has the balls to take back what the white have stolen? So far, nobody, until now. Yes, you can accuse Mugabe of dishonesty. He definitely played ball with the whites for 20 years, until he realized he was only the Britsh's favortite pet monkey. But it's not Mugabe who's acting like a dictator. Dictators postpone elections. This happened in the Ukraine when the regime there realized they were going to lose. They called the elections invalid and wanted a do-over. THAT'S what dictatorships do when they don't like the outcome. Mugabe LOST the March parliamentary elections and not only did he not question the results, not only did he not call for a do-over, he let the results stand. These don't strike me as the actions of a dictator running a banana republic, you know. Now, compare that to the WHITES who want to postpone the presidential vote before it's even happened! There are international voting monitors in the country but the whites still claim the vote will be rigged. Tzvaringai's name is still on the ballot--what dictator does THAT? There is absolutely NOTHING to stop the Zimbabwean people from voting Mugabe out, as they did Zanu-PF in the parliamentary elections, if that's truly what the people want to do. But for the whites that's not good enough. They won't accept ANY result that doesn't see Mugabe voted out. Who's acting like the dictators here?
Mmmkay, the whites are going apesh*t not because elections AREN'T going to take place in Africa, but because they ARE. Now doesn't that seem a little strange for these white folks to be talking about how Zimbabwe needs "free and fair elections" but it's Mugabe who's being threatened with military action because he's keeping his opponent's name on the ballot? Compare this to the US who, against world opinion, held elections in Iraq in the middle of a WAR, while bombs were going off and armed militas were threatening to kill people NOT IF THEY VOTED FOR THE WRONG GUY BUT MERELY IF THEY WENT TO VOTE-PERIOD. Do you see Mugabe doing that? Did you see the BBC demanding a postponing? Or saying the process was fundamentally flawed? At what point Mmmkay do you dare to ask if this hysteria the BBC is trying to manufacture is really nothing more than a media outlet helping to cover for the immoral and illegal manueverings of their parent government? If you want to condemn Mugabe for living lavishly fine, and I hope you'll also save some piss and vinegar for the leaders of the US, and Britain, and Europe and China and oh yeah, the WHITE FARMERS in Zimababwe, who are living better than Mugabe!
If you want to know why I side with Mugabe there's only two questions you need to ask yourself. Even if Mugabe resigned today and fled the country would the people of Zimbabwe STILL want to take back their land and mineral wealth from the whites if they had the chance?
Second: If Tzvaringai was president and the people still demanded that he continue the Land Reclaimation Program do you truly believe he would do it? Don't specualte, just answer the question. Would Tzvaringai do it, or would he hide behind "racial reconiciliation" rhetoric like Mandela did and dismiss the reclaimmation program as "disastrous for the economy?"
Malcolm X once said "land is the basis for freedome, justice and equality." The Zimbabweans have no land. Mugabe has taken actions to change that. And the instant he did the white media declared war on him. Who's the dictator here?
And here's a thrid question for you: Why is it that NO white media outlet has interviewed the Mugabe regime? Before the Iraq war Dan Rather interviewed Sadaam Hussein. 60 Minutes has interviewed Ahmadinejad a few months back. But strangely, the BBc is demanding Un intervention in Africa, using words like "crisis" and "dictator," but nobody wants to do an interview? Mugabe has always given interviews (60 Minutes did one with him a few years back) but all of a sudden, during a "crisis" that they can't stop talking about, NONE of these same news outlets condemning Mugabe want to talk to him. Not CNN, not the BBC, not Fox, hell, not even PBS. Now doesn't any of this strike you as just a LITTLE strage? Like maybe white people sticking together for a matter of mutual concern--manintaining the racial peckng order. Like somebody's trying to sell you on a particular line of bullshit and they don't want the other side confusing you with arguments that actually make sense?
Those are two questions you don't even have to ask. Neither does the BBC, or the British government who they pimp for.
add this to the picture lie you posted some time ago. You are clearly a negro slut of whites, each time you come in here and show your pink panties. LOL
Your babble about "Dictators can also make it seem like they are not dictators" is still not proof that he has rigged elections, abolished opposition parties, medias etc....you know, things real dictators do.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well said Akoben. Mmmkay doesn't realize that he made my point for me.
quote:Mmmkay said: Dictators can also make it seem like they are not dictators
Too true. The whites are not in "official" power. They don't have the "presidency," nor are there any whites in the Zimbabwean Parliament...and yet they have ALL the wealth and nothing happens in africa without their say so. They have stealth candidates who the Africans didn't select, yet these guys get huge amounts of campaign cash and the people are told these guys are "democratically" elected.
THAT is a group of dictators who rule without seeming to be dictators.
Posts: 248 | From: Way Down South | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sportbilly has jumbled together another sloppy rebuttal. Lets see what he has to say and if he really addressed my points.
LOL from sportbillies own source!
quote: Mugabe — who at the 11th hour told a campaign rally Thursday he was willing to talk to the opposition — is expected to orchestrate a mass turnout, with anyone who tries to stay home subject to attack.
Nigeria joined the chorus of nations in Africa and the West calling for the vote to be postponed, saying Thursday it was doubtful a credible election could be held. It said an observer mission for a West Africa bloc led by a former Nigerian leader had been recalled from Zimbabwe.
"No, no he's not a dictator, real dictators take names off of ballots" lol.
Whats amazing is despite all the controversy surrounding Mugabe's un-democratic tactics, you still somehow believe he's a just a benevolent guy who's just happened to rule Zimbabwe for 20+ years and just happens to have personal thugs roaming the countryside setting up roadblocks and intimidating voters as they go. Hilarious.
You guys are full of it.
quote: Again, what is the US doing putting sanctions on a country when that country's only crime is displeasing the British?
quote: The ban on Mr Mugabe and his ruling elite travelling to the US would fail in its attempt to hurt the government, a Zanu-PF party leader said.
LOL travel restrictions. Yes they are sanctions. Sanctions on idiotic government ministers using state tax-payers funds to travel wherever and whenever they please at the taxpayers expense. Or atleast whats left of the taxpayer in Zimbabwe.
quote: The second they see any attempt at reclamation they'll go from zero to sixty, bringing food production to a full halt and firing people left and right, claiming it was Mugabe's fault.
They were doing this in 2000 when Mugabe only reclaimed a handful of farms, so please don't pretend that somehow Mugabe can move slowly enough that the whites won't notice.
Listen, I don't care whether or not he takes the land from those who stole it (whites) to those whom it belongs (indigenous). The point is, is that a sloppy and ill-conceived land reclamation policy would dramatically lower production giving the land to un-productive, inefficient users.
If he manages to create the conditions whereby people are able replace the productivity lost by the land reclamation its a successful policy.
I could care less if outright he takes it from whites. The point is, it hasn't been successful. Zimbabwe is unable to feed itself.
quote: If Mugabe said, "Return 1 acre of the land you stole," the whites would scream bloody murder. They will not release ANY of the land willingly.
Its called building up the skills beforehand genius. If you have enough replacements, you can take the land outright.
quote: Begging the very people who colonized Africa for permission to be free. There's no easy way to take over a country.
What are you talking about guy?
quote: However I will NOT be through celebrating!
Celebrating tyranny. Ignorance is bliss.
quote: Mmmkay, I won't waste any more time doing the dance with you. I've explained why Zimbabwe is not what you insist on thinking it is.
You haven't explained or proven anything really. Just thrown together a couple of posts full of emotional appeals and opinion.
^ Come back when you've got it together. Posts: 426 | From: Cali-for-nia | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sportbilly, that this troll will never read anything contrary to her white propaganda sources is evidenced by the fact that she bypasses my article to insist on saying the sanctions are restricted to travel. That's why she spouts old propaganda themes: inefficient users of land, sloppy land reform program etc etc all refuted but still presented in her master's medias. Mmmkay you have become the very thing you label others, troll! LMAO @ the troll she has become.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ You have nothing to present because your credibility is bankrupt here. This you have done so yourself without any help from others. I'm not taking your bait which is why I've been ignoring you. I have never been called a troll here except by you, which means nothing as you are no one of consequence.
The difference is I present intelligent, sourced and reasoned response, you present nothing but troll-bait and flame-posts. Keep trolling.
Please desist from removing your mask as Ausarianstein did. But victory over Sshaun is no badge of honour as she too is a quack. LMAO! However your dictator label (you have now reduced to "undemocratic tactics" as you cannot prove he is a dictator), propaganda house pictures, sources on sanctions all expose you as a serial liar you harlot. And you have the nerve to talk about credibility, girl child please you have NONE! You're not even pretending to be objective, just troll same old refuted lines.
posted
Mugabe wins by a "landslide!" The white powers-that-be have officially admitted defeat--for now anyway. Oh, and don't expect to hear from Tzvaringai again. Black frontmen --or women-- only get recalled to duty when they win. When black puppets are revealed to be useless at manipulating the black masses, the whites immediately discard them and look for a new face. All right, this year's Super Bowl of white political bullying is over and the hometown hero has won. Here's the post-game analysis.
So, why did the "international pressure for military action" the whites were hoping for never materialize? First of all, it's Africa. NOBODY looks forward to having to march their troops into there. But there's another reason too, even mroe important. It's white racism has come back to bite them in the ass. The whites never realized they spent so much time trivializing the deaths of Africans from famine, AIDS, and wars that the international community simply wouldn't be eager to send in the troops just because the BBC was going into hysterics trying to fixate the worlds' attention on a few blacks who got killed over what may or may not have have been a fair presidential race. "So the election in Zimbabwe won't be free of fraud, controversy and even violence. What election in Africa ever has been?," the world seemed to be saying. Anyway, here's the story via Yahoo.
There are some parts of this story that were simply too rich for me not to comment on.
First, and here's my personal favorite:
quote:"Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe is heading for a landslide victory in a one-candidate election..."
Okay, people see the phrase, "one-candidate election" and they think Mugabe has removed his opponents name from the ballot. Then just two sentences later.
quote: "Tsvangirai's name remained on ballot papers after electoral authorities refused to accept his decision to withdraw a week ago."
Folks, these two sentance are IN THE SAME STORY, a mere TWO SENTENCES APART! A lie doesn't get any bolder than that!
BTW, anyone else notice how, whenever it comes to stories that the media thinks can make blacks look bad every rumor, every innuendo, or even bigoted fantasy of the reporter on-the-scene, is reported as fact, and never retracted afterwards? I'm thinking all the crap about "baby-rapes" and "eating dead bodies" during Katrina. But here's another"
quote:"Tsvangirai withdrew, saying almost 90 of his supporters had been killed in systematic violence by Mugabe's supporters."
90 pecent? Hell, why not say 100%? Does the article offer any proof of this? Of course not. They simply state it as fact. They don't corroborate this obvious lie, and they certainly don't try to figure out of the government is being maligned.
quote: Gordon Brown said, "We will work...to close this sickening chapter that has cost so many lives."
I remind everyone that less than 80 people have died due to MDC-related violence in Zimbabwe. Meanwhile THOUSANDS have died in Kenya, trying to oust Britain's hand-picked puppet regime. Brown has yet to tell us if he thinks THAT'S "sickening." Karma's a bitch, ain't it Brownie? They say one man's freedom fighter is another man's dictator. Gordon Brown certainly seems to think so.
Hey guys. Go back and check out my second post in this thread, just four days ago when I said the white media pulled their fabricated "inflation rate" figures for Zimbabwe out of their asses?
Sportbilly said:
quote: "Enough of this fakery about the "inflation" rate in Zimababwe... 165,000 percent inflation? Why not make it an even 200,000. Or even a million. It's just as ridiculous."
Well folks, seems someone at Reuters must have read my comment because they decided to do just that! Check it out.
quote:"Mugabe...has presided over Zimbabwe's slide into economic chaos with inflation estimated to have reached at least 2 million percent."
In only four short days Zimbabwe's inflation rate has gone from 165,000 to 2 million? I'm laughing my ass off right now. I said why not one-million, they went and did me one better than that!
Money has been the white world's trump card. As Bll Moyers put it "The golden blackjack that never misses." With it they can reward their friends (with government contracts, or unlimited amounts of campaign cash) or punish their enemies (sanctions, bad press, destabilization of markets by halting production).
Economic manipulation has been how whites have traditionally gotten their way, and their money has never failed to get the results they wanted. Until now.
Here's the postscript on this election, then after this I'm done with it. I swear! This entire episode was white gangsterism, meant to send a message to every African leader on the continent "This is what happens to anyone who defies us. We'll demoninze you in the press so as to keep you isolated from your allies, then we'll totally finance your opponents to the tune of millions--with the election to be soon followed by your mysterious 'assassination' at the hands of persons unknown.' We did it to Patrice Lumumba, and now we're going to do it to this Mugabe fellow. Watch closely--this could be YOU next time, if you interfere with our interests."
But Mugabe just showed the white powers to be a paper tiger. He proved them to be impotent and THAT has got to be driving them nuts! It's precisely this type of humiliation that his ouster was supposed to prevent. That's why I say Than GOD for Robert Mugabe! Blacks who are confident that Africa can run itself, and doesn't need white overseers are cheering. The dominoes are falling at last.
Now, let's watch and see which African state will follow his example and truly usher in the end of neo-colonial rule. This has been truly gratifying to watch. I'm off to order a pizza, and some juice cocktail (I don't drink alcohol, so a bottle of champagne is out of the question I'm afraid) and raise a glass to the man who was once a hero, then a lackey, and has now become a hero again. The bad guys lost, the good guys won, and that's how all happy stories end. Mr Mugabe, I salute you.
Posts: 248 | From: Way Down South | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
KING, "Good thing or not"--it depends on what you what you want to see happen.
Morgan's name was still on the ballot when voting ended so his supporters could still have voted for him.
I guess the question is whether Morgan decided to withdraw on his own or whether his Western handlers and advisors advised him to do so. I want to think that they advised him to do so when they realised that they were going to lose.
Note that in the recent elctions in Nigeria and Kenya much greater violence transpired yet the West--led by the U.S.--was quickly off the mark to recognize the results.
The U.S. ordered elections in Iraq and Afrganistan when there were fierce internecine warfare taking place. The West and the U.N. pushed for elections to be held in Sierra leone and Liberia even under conditions of war. The truth is that the violence in Zimbabwe between rival groups is much, much less than the group violence witnessed in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, during election time.
So Morgan's alibi seems quite weak.
Maybe the U.S., Britain and the European Union hoped that either of 2 things would happen when Morgan pulled out: either the election would be postponed or if ZANU went ahead with it, its results would be discredited. If the latter then they would get the clueless negro chorus--Tutu, those states that lazily live off donor charity, Mandela, etc--to make the right noises.
The Western goal is to get their puppets to proclaim that the Mugabe government is illegitimate thereby creating the right conditions to overthrow it--by any means necessary.
Bush just ordered new sanctions on Zimbabwe. But that could just be simple-minded PR stuff because the West has long exhausted all the sanctions it could use against Zimbabwe.
Item: Morgan is still holed up in the Dutch Embassy--which really is weird. Maybe he prefers to take orders from his Western handlers there.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Item: Morgan is still holed up in the Dutch Embassy--which really is weird. Maybe he prefers to take orders from his Western handlers there
Poor Morgan, he's got his ugly face buried in the crotch of every white power broker on the continent so he doesn't have a lot of time for press conferences. I'm loving this! Watching the people who thought they'd gin up a quickie case for war in Zimbabwe having heartburn as they realize the party is now over. The dominoes will fall and there's nothing they can do about it.
And somewhere in the afterlife Patrice Lumuba is smiling!
Posts: 248 | From: Way Down South | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Election marshals led voters to polling stations and bands of government supporters harassed people in the streets Friday as Zimbabwe held an internationally discredited, one-candidate presidential run-off election. Opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai, who withdrew from the run-off against longtime President Robert Mugabe citing a campaign of state-sponsored violence, said it was "not an election. It is an exercise in mass intimidation." He spoke to journalists during a brief outing from the Dutch Embassy in Harare, where he took refuge earlier this week. President Robert Mugabe reacts after casting his vote in Harare on Friday while his wife, Grace, looks on. President Robert Mugabe reacts after casting his vote in Harare on Friday while his wife, Grace, looks on. (Tsvangirayi Mukwazhi/Associated Press) Tsvangirai’s Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) won parliamentary elections in late March, and claimed a clear victory over Mugabe in the presidential portion of that vote. But Mugabe’s ZANU-PF party said the result was too close to call and Friday’s run-off election was called to determine a clear winner. Tsvangirai told journalists that Mugabe’s government was forcing people to vote. Paramilitary police in riot gear deployed in a central Harare park Friday, then began patrolling the city. Militant Mugabe supporters roamed the streets, singing revolutionary songs, heckling people and asking why they were not voting.
Mr. sportbilly said:
quote: In only four short days Zimbabwe's inflation rate has gone from 165,000 to 2 million? I'm laughing my ass off right now. I said why not one-million, they went and did me one better than that!
Its now close to 9 million. The suffering of Zimbabweans because of inept government is not a joke however.
quote: The problem is that after his "win" Mugabe will face the same problems that his government has failed to solve for the past eight years.
Latest figures from the Central Statistical Offices (CSO) show that annual inflation rose by 7 336 000 percentage points to 9 030 000% by June 20 and is set to end the month at well above 10 500 000%.
quote: In only four short days Zimbabwe's inflation rate has gone from 165,000 to 2 million? I'm laughing my ass off right now.
^ The suffering of everyday Zimbabweans due to inept government is tragic, but never funny. Somewhere a Zimbabwean family struggling to make ends meet is not laughing.
Look up "cognitive dissonance".
Posts: 426 | From: Cali-for-nia | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If one knows anything about economics then it's fairly obvious why Zimbabwe has such a massive inflation rate.
Inflation is of basically about rises in prices caused by either increased costs or increased on account of t he realtive scarcity of the item demanded.
So why the massive inflation rates on the Zim dollar? Simple: given that the West has completely blocked Zimbabwe's access to the world's credit network--something which is absolutely controlled by the West it means that there would be a relative scarcity of the so-called "hard currencies" in Zimbabwe's banks including its Central Bank. So to get one unit of the Wetsren currencies one has to come up with rapidly increasing number of Zim dollars.
This is the main thing behind the infaltion problem--all generated by the West. Notice how they hardly talk about this, which just shows what abject hypocrites and liars they are.
But there's a parallel market where the people have worked things out on their own. That's why the pictures you see of Zimbabweans--those who voted a few days ago, for example-- in the towns show people who are not at all starving.
Saw Gordon Brown on TV proclaiming that they the Europeans are ready to pour £10 billion into Zimbabwe once Mugabe goes. The whole charade about "caring for the people of Zimbabwe" can't be more evident with statements like this. How about lifting the sanctions for starters?
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The suffering of Zimbabweans because of inept government
And you keep spouting it, along with your picture lies, because you are not interested in truth only propaganda, troll.
quote: But there's a parallel market where the people have worked things out on their own. That's why the pictures you see of Zimbabweans--those who voted a few days ago, for example-- in the towns show people who are not at all starving.
Right you are Lamin! This is what whites fear, resilience born out of a desire to be free. This is the model they want to destroy before it starts the dominoes falling.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
add this to the picture lie you posted some time ago. You are clearly a negro slut of whites, each time you come in here and show your pink panties. LOL
Your babble about "Dictators can also make it seem like they are not dictators" is still not proof that he has rigged elections, abolished opposition parties, medias etc....you know, things real dictators do.
This adage of ancient provenance is a heart-rending plea for justice to pour like the rain! It supplicated justice to deluge our world like the Noachian deluge of old did in the fertile minds of the ancient Jewish Yawhist-tradition writers; even if the pillars of heaven are to collapse in the process. And time has proven over and over again, that Truth is the grand essential for justice. Without truth, justice is eviscerated of meaning and significance. This piece is the contribution of our feeble voice to course of truth and justice. This is an inscription in time, recording for all eternity that we did not keep mum when the armada of international hypocrisy seduced global timidity to hawk cant and lies in place of truth.
What is the truth many would ask? Jesus the Christ, who laid claims to the godhead, proffered the immensity of his silence as the only veritable answer, when hypocrisy and political correctness personified in Pontius Pilate, threw that question at him in mockery of decency. We would have chosen to go the Christic way, proffering our silence to the immensity of political iniquity being committed in and with Zimbabwe, at the full glare of an emasculated global audience. We don’t blame the audience, we blame the malevolence of the imperial establishment resident in the capitals of the Industrial West, who shamelessly manufacture illusions, cook up lies and dissimulations to discredit whoever in obedience to his beliefs, try to better the lot of his people, against western exploitative manipulations.
Why are the Western establishment, and the Western media so interested in Zimbabwe? History has proven that these guys are never good Samaritans on a voyage of charity to help Africa get out of the predicament, which her contact with the West for the past 800 years imposed on her. So, do they love Zimbabwe so much that they are ready to do anything to save that country from political tyranny? History recorded with accuracy that these guys supported a White-tyranny that lasted for donkey years, until the guerrillas led by people like Nkomo, Mugabe and others made further occupation economically inefficient. History equally showed imperialism as a metaphysic of diametrical exploitation, which rolled over peoples, sacked cultures and plundered civilizations to compel rivers of wealth to flow in the metropole. British wealth was constructed upon the dead bodies and defunct souls of many cultures in Africa and Asia. Britain like every other imperial power turns virtue on its head canonizing her pirates and plunders. Spain, though a retired imperialist, rented Pizzaro and her bunch of buccaneers to vaporize cultures and great civilizations like that of the Incas in Mesoamerica.
Is the West not a cradle of democracy, and are they not democrats who want to help Zimbabwe on the path to democracy, which has allegedly been destroyed by Mugabe? Democracy was never a Western invention. My ancestors in the Igbo heartland lived and breathed a democratic and egalitarian society, which was superlatively functional and attendant to the needs of the society, when ancient Greece was slumbering in primitivity torn by tribal wars between Athenians and Spartans. Igboukwu bronze discoveries dating back to much earlier as 450 BC are footnotes to this.
Democracy like all other allegations imposed on Greece as its origin is an impious accusation and a capital lie peddled by a racist tradition bent on painting everything bad as black and everything good as white. Greek democracy was a pale imitation of the organized societies transported to Egypt from the heartland of Africa through Nubian trading roots, which the Greeks copied like they copied African philosophy, which they encountered in Egypt. The West never invented democracy and they are never democrats. They are hypocrites. The West is not a cradle of democracy. Democracy is a pan-humanic achievement with seeds and fruits in and across the spectrum of so many human societies. It is the logical conclusion of the human desire to preserve himself in being; in a functional society free from let and fear.
I wonder how these guys can presume to give what they do not possess in its ontology. In America today, fundamental freedoms are circumscribed to a degree that makes mockery of democracy. A citizen could be arrested and kept in a cage at the will of the state in invocation of anti-terror laws, which is a gimmick designed to fashion and consolidate a culture of fear in the citizenry, while the elite go about their normal business of exploiting the rest of us for the benefit of a few. The man that signed some of these obnoxious laws into effect has his father trading and doing business with the Saudis as a prominent member of the Carlyle group; an elitist corporation of war-mongers, who peddle weapons and foment wars in order to sell them. And this state- Saudi Arabia -is supposed to be the birthplace of many enemy combatants who plunged planes and people's life into the WTC to mock Western hypocrisies.
Why would Zimbabwe attract such an accusation that it is not democratic; and the West is doing everything including financing insurrections in an independent country, to achieve that inglorious aim? By the last check, Saudi Arabia is not a democracy, and does not pretend to be. And the Western media are not falling over each other to paint the house of Saud as the great Satan. In spite of the fact that 19 Saudi citizens took part in hijacking planes and ramming them into the world trade centre like a huge phallus fucking America up, this country was never classified in the axis of evil, which is this establishment’s favourite designation for many people who aspire to freedom they way the understand it, which violates the conceptual schemes of the metropole.
In spite of all that is peddled by the West establishment and media, the problem in Zimbabwe is not Robert Mugabe. The problem in Zimbabwe is Western hypocrisy. The problem is racism that is eugenic as well as economic. Racism has not ended in spite of the lip service paid to it in the Western Media. You can ask FOX about their views on Barack Obama. Geraldine Ferraro is my witness here. Britain and her allies are funding insurrections by financing MDC and other lackeys to be a confrontational opposition to Mugabe. This is not the first time that the Western establishment are financing coups and putsches around the world. The Iran-contra scandal in which the Reagan administration used Oliver North as a fall guy, the murder of Allende in El Salvador, the brutal, cold blooded murder of Patrice Lumumba in Congo; the setting of Sadaam Hussein with non-existing weapons of mass destruction, are all perfect examples of this.
If you doubt me, ask the CIA and other Western intelligence agencies. If this attitude of violating a country’s sovereignty is acceptable to the western establishment, why did they promulgate laws trailing and freezing finances suspected of having links with terrorist? But they are financing terrorism and disobedience against constituted authority in Zimbabwe. Since what is good for the goose is equally good for the gander; are we then right to ask Osama bin laden to start funding the Liberals in America or the GOP to topple the government of George Bush, and install his lackey in power? Should we ask him to resurrect Al Zarqawi for him to arrange funding the labour party in Britain and installing a lackey with terrorist sympathies in power? Should we ask Andreas Baader and Ulrike Meinhof to resurrect themselves and reinvent their indiscretions in the Green party in Germany? In justice, same situations should be treated exactly the same way. If the Western establishment deems it fit to terrorise populations, whose governments want to revise an injustice perpetrated on them, what then should be the lot of these establishments and their populations as well? I would not recommend terrorism.
No man deserves death at the hands of another under whatever pretext. I would recommend education. Western citizens are like human beings everywhere. They share the pain and agonies of every other human population ruled by elitist leeches, with aristocratic pretences. They should be shown the hypocrisies of their government, which the governments sugar-coats with democratic rhetoric. They should be given an alternative source of information different from those peddled by pseudo-independent establishment media like CNN and BBC, who were ontologically designed to propound and promote American and British propaganda respectively. That is why this piece is written for the E-media; for the internet, which is a technological proof that tyranny will never overshadow human freedom to access and transmit information.
That there is hyper galloping inflation in Zimbabwe today is thanks to the sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe because Mugabe took action to revoke centuries of injustice perpetrated on his people by Western imperialism. Children are dying at their mothers breasts in Zimbabwe because milk does not flow anymore from the breasts of their half-starved mothers. The Western establishment sees these and similar human tragedies unfold daily, but skip over it. They do so because the atrocity in Zimbabwe is their trick designed to deal with Zimbabweans for abiding Mugabe a second more, after he fell out of favour with his western masters. They engineered it as a gimmick to bring Mugabe’s government on its knees and force his people to kick him out. But they underestimated the resiliency of a determined man who feels aggrieved at the monumental injustice that British colonialism wrecked on Zimbabwe and wanted to keep profiting from, ad infinitum.
No matter what happens in Zimbabwe, it will never revise the fundamental injustice, which British conspiracy admixed with international hypocrisy has inflicted on the people of Zimbabwe. Mugabe may be a tyrant and one of the African dinosaurs who couldn’t make his country fly against the insurmountable odds placed in his path by the colonial legacy, but that does not justify what the West is doing to Zimbabwe. On the scores of justice, this is screaming injustice, and a placard of Western political callousness and conceit. Rome peddled such inanities in her heydays as the world capital. But, today, ancient Rome exists only in history books, which buried her inglorious imperators like Caligula and Nero as the greatest summaries of wickedness. All the world kings of today, who feel that Africa is the playground of their greed, it would come home to their historical memories that the continent will outlive their inglorious memories.
The problems in Zimbabwe and in the Nigerian Niger Delta are footnotes of British imperialism, which has a metaphysic of exploitation. Some Western commentators, opinion mongers, and some prominent Africans have been rented and placed on imperialistic payrolls to launder the neo-imperialistic image and revise colonial history in the light of today. Many of them have been essaying to exonerate Western neo-imperialistic devices from taking their rightful blame for the African predicament. But failure has greeted their enterprise. Their job metaphysic was rooted in falsehood. And since lies can never fly, they would never succeed. These hired guns peddle a version of history which is allergic to the facts. They go about their revisionist charges with the slogans “we cannot blame the West for Africa’s problems four decades after the ‘official’ end of colonialism’. Or other parts of the world like India and Singapore were equally colonies, but have succeeded in gaining admittance into the halls of the development”.
But the major loophole in their enterprise is their convenient forgetfulness of the strategic designs of the version of colonialism inflicted upon Africa and other peoples of colour. These mercenary minstrels embezzle the fact that nowhere in history was the worst mixtures of eugenic and economic exploitation arrantly experimented upon like it was done in Africa. The last vestiges of it last till the late 80s in apartheid South Africa. They sidestepped the fact that the version of colonialism practiced in Africa eviscerated African psyche and culture; kidnapped our gods to grace their museums as artefacts to reward their plundering enterprise and mock our technological inferiority; plucked our meanings and significances out of the sky, desecrated our social relationships and epistemic authorities; and bequeathed an eternal epistemic fluidity, which conferred African cultures with a cultural identity crises that has spelt the end of their relevance to Africans.
To that end, Africans cannot define themselves with any aucthotonous guideposts. Africans are not traditional or modern. Colonialism reduced Africans to a conglomeration of complexes; a mixture of a conceptual flux, which has continued to teleguide Africa’s developmental trajectory and destiny till date. That was not all; colonial masters on departing the continent groomed a crop of ideologically deficient houseboys, who like Pavlovian dogs were congenitally engineered to listen to the directives of the master in a neo-colonial arrangement that replaced white colonialists with their black collaborators. And anyone who rises against the grotesque incompetence and rapacious recklessness of these collaborating Sonderkommandos incurs the instant wrath of the colonial masters. This was why Lumumba incurred Western wrath for daring to question the status quo in the Congo. Mandela brought the wrath of the global apartheid establishment on his head for refusing to die quietly in an evil system directed against his people. Salvadore Allende had to die because he dared to refuse taking directives from the Western establishment. Aguiyi Ironsi had to die in Nigeria because the British intelligence feared that power had slipped out of the grip of their anointed servants. And the list goes on.
Mugabe is not a saint. He is a political dinosaur who has overstayed his welcome. His peers are all politically extinct. He has refused to go; refusing to take a bow when the ovation was at its highest pitch. To that end, he transformed himself from a freedom fighter into a thug. But any roll call of lying, jingoistic tyrants will rank George Bush and Tony Blair first, before Mugabe. Mugabe is today being painted as the very next thing to Lucifer. But those who are hurting and blockading Zimbabwe with violent sanctions, while singing alleluia verses in their churches on Sundays and giving us hoax homiletics on democracy and good government, are seen as great arsenals of democracy! What impudence! What sanctimonious hypocrisy. Mugabe used to be a showcase of a guerrilla turned democrat. He was marketed as such in the Western conceptual scheme. It lasted as long as he did not rock the racial applecart, which was a real albatross to social justice in Zimbabwe; namely the whites-2 percent of the population owning over 85 percent of all arable lands in Zimbabwe; while the blacks over 90 percent of the population making do with only 15 percent. Once Mugabe took unilateral action to redress that injustice after the British government reneged on their 1980 Lancaster agreement, he fell out of favour with the establishment ogre of Great Britain.
The problem with Zimbabwe was manufactured in Whitehall. And Britain is manipulating all her allies to join her in isolating Zimbabwe and bringing Mugabe to his knees. The allies did not disappoint. They responded with the promptitude of a herd of unthinking sheep. British allies all banded together and swooped in for the kill with their sanctions. But many Africans are not sold on this round of Western hypocrisy. We have been veteran witnesses to such dummies. The other day, Mandela celebrated his 90 year on, 27 of which was spent in incarceration for daring an evil establishment, which was supported by those who wants Mugabe’s head today. Many Western heads of state and governments were falling over themselves to identify with the occasion and legacies of this colossus. These were heirs to the inglorious bastards whose idiocies, active collaboration and hypocritical silence sent Mandela to prison in the first instance. For 27 years, Mandela rotted in a prison fashioned by a white supremacist enclave, which has America, Britain and most other Western nations as trading and diplomatic partners. They did nothing to release an innocent man from suffering for his beliefs and the rights of his people to live in their land with dignity. They allowed him to suffer and rot there.
The Western establishment labelled him a terrorist. It was not until this year 2008 that the United States of America removed Mandela’s name from the lists of terrorists forbidden to enter the US; eighteen years after this great son of Africa stepped out of prison to lead his country with courage, dignity, and fairness. These hypocrites never leaned on apartheid South Africa to democratize because they fear that in a democracy, which is a game of numbers, the Black Africans will triumph and trump every other race in any election. At this point in history, democracy took the backdoor of Reagan’s and Thatcher’s administrations’ policies. Today, the same Whitehall and Washington which abided these monumental hypocrisies have now donned new apparels to advertise themselves as purveyors of democracy; simply because Mugabe took away Black lands from white occupiers and gave it back to the original owners, after the UK reneged on its commitments to the 1980 Lancaster agreement.
Some would try to exonerate the heirs to loot from the crimes of their buccaneering fathers. I would love to too. But the issues are that whoever profits by crime is guilty of it. If one inherits the proceeds of his father’s crimes, he should equally inherit the blames accruing thereto. If one fails to restore the legacies of crime bequeathed to him, he should then be ready to battle with the discontent of those wrongfully deprived of their estate. The Germans of my generation are still labouring under the weight of the Nazi legacy. This is to the extent that any German, who criticises Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands, runs the risk of being labelled an anti-Semite. Any German who attempts to coax a positive lesson out of the Nazis’ megalomanic enterprise, runs the risk of not only being kicked out his job, but also making himself a loathsome social figure. Go ask Eva Hermann, who was sacked for trying to praise the Nazi family policies.
But the British have paid no reparation to anyone for the rapacious plunder of their countries in the name of colonialism. They have not even apologised for that historical crime and indiscretion. That means they have not seen the wrong in the action of their ancestors as to repudiate it. This is to say that given the opportunity that they would repeat it. And repeat it, they are doing! This is why even after granting independence to many African countries, they never actually left these countries to find their path through the maze of complexities which they inherited from an exploitative colonial master. Britain engineered power in Nigeria into the laps of the conservative elements who never desired independence for the country in the first place.
And this power bloc has been the albatross of Nigeria’s development till date. Britain left Nigeria in 1960, but Shell BP, a British multi-national is still the greatest player in the Nigeria oil and gas industry; as well as a British shadow government in Nigeria. Shell has been indicted of fomenting conflicts in the Niger Delta. This is a footnote of what obtains all over Africa. Through channels such as these, the imperial metropole seeks to continue teleguiding Africa’s destiny, such is the case in Zimbabwe today with the MDC. They use these channels to incite and finance the overthrow of government’s unsympathetic to British and other imperial interests.
Africans should ensure that instead of Zimbabwean’s voting out Mugabe, the English should pass a vote of no-confidence on their government. Instead of starving Zimbabweans into submission, Americans should be thankful that George Bush would not be on the ballot come December. But one doubts if the policies will change with the change of governments. These prejudices run too deep to be washed away by the change of governments. Africans must continue on the path of self-determination. They must rise up and reject Western perfidious arm-twisting. Africa has suffered enough. The roll of our devastation saw stops at the slave trade, the colonization processes, and the neo-colonial recalcitrance in Africa.
Ours is a call to all men of goodwill. All we need is a change of attitudes. Africa needs a media outlet, which will compete and neutralise the lies peddled about Africa in Western conceptual schemes by Western media conglomerates like CNN and BBC. The Arabs have done that with Al Jazeera. We should educate ourselves to the dangers of swallowing the manufactured consents and opinions peddled as facts in and through these mediums. The Western establishment should leave Zimbabwe alone. Like Bob Marley, the august reggae philosopher said: Only Africans can liberate Zimbabwe! This inheres in the origin of the problem, which is Western hypocrisy in its consolidated and convoluted dimensions.
If the West wants to impose democracy on the rest of the world, they should know that they lack the credibility necessary for such undertakings. They have very terrible historical precedents to withdraw from. Democracy has not come to Iraq after all the empty promises and lies of President Bush and his “coalition of the willing” stooges. The West has not equally deemed fit to impose democracy on Saudi Arabia or China. The establishment myth, popularized by Amartya Sen for which he got a Nobel prize-an establishment reward for its faithful servants- that development can only happen in a democracy has been exploded by the rampaging advance of China. The Chinese, subsisting under a very heavy communist autocracy have been able to achieve what Western conceptual schemes claim as their exclusivity. So a country can equally develop its own standards of governance which must not take its moments about Western views of democracy, and still arrive at the harbours of development and social felicity for its citizens.
Britain should leave Mugabe alone and stop financing terrorism in Zimbabwe. If an English politician is to take money from Osama bin laden to run for office, believe me, he would be hauled to Old Bailey, where he would be answering to treason charges. If that is to be in George Bush’s America, Guantanamo without trial would be his abode. Enough of this hypocrisy! It is sickening! Zimbabwe today is a testament that BBC, CNN and other media outlets that depend on them for information can never be trusted. They are simply mouthpieces of the Western establishment bent on world domination at the expense of the poor.
posted
Mandela Thousands of people were killed by the forces of Apartheid. Mandela was just one of them who was picked up and imprisoned. Unlike Steve Biko and many others Mandela was not killed while imprisoned. Maybe the Apartheid boys saw something in him they could use if and when necessary. And they were right.
Mandela was much more angry with his wife for not being completely faithful during 27 years of imprisonment than he ever was with those who imprisoned him and robbed him of his freedom. And that's exactly what they saw in him: a man who deep down adored his oppressors and only wanted to be their equal and live with them despite their inhuman criminality and wickedness. And that's why he is liked by whites--because they see a man who feels so inferior that he would excuse anything an European does.
Why the big birthday party in London and not in South Africa? And why hardly any African faces in the big crowd watching some black and white faces sing and dance for him?
Mugabe
Mugabe himself was imprisoned for many years by the white settlers in Zimbabwe but I think that the years spent in Ghana during the days of Nkrumah helped him retain a portion of his African self-consciousness. Mugabe also nurses a serious grudge against the British for the callous way he was treated at the death of his very young son.
Sure, under normal circumstances Mugabe has overstayed his time as President of Zimbabwe, but circumstances were/are not normal. He is the only one I see who could have handled the tricks played by the British government as it maneuvered to ensure that the settlers did not give up their stolen lands--as in Nambibia, South Africa and Kenya. Another leader would just have sold out--after all that massaging by the British: knighthood, honorary doctorates, state dinner at Buckingham Palace, etc.
All that Mugabe had to do was to be a craven negro stooge and he would have been home safe. Who would have heard of Mugabe if he had just let the whites stay with their stolen booty--lording it over Africans treated like slaves on their own lands, working for just slave wages on those white farms?
Zimbabwe was offered independence in 1980 and the land issue dragged on until 2002 when Mugabe and the war veterans said "enough is enough" then proceeded to seize back the stolen lands. And ever since that time the whole world-wide white kith and kin collective has been going ballistic over Mugabe. All I can say is that given the amount of rage and anger it has to be a very special experience to be a person of European extraction in this world. I just cannot understand their rage and anger. To say it's just racism, doesn't really answer the question. It must be a special kind of racism having to do with a very complex set of issues.
The People of Zimbabwe There is something strange about the people those parts of Africa where the Europeans first killed thousands of people then seized their lands. One thing that is noteworthy is that they never seem to wear African clothing--African parlimentarians who attempted to wear Africa clothing were chided and there was a law in Kenya forbidding African clothing to be worn in Parliament-- and they seem to be completely taken in by Christianity.
I write the above to say that the massive sanctions placed on the economy of Zimbabwe had the desired effect. Unlike the Iraqis who experienced death dealing sanctions from the West and the Palestinians a large section of the people of urban Zimbabwe just fell for the white-led and financed MDC. It's as if they didn't understand the implications of what they were doing. Sure, if you want to oppose ZANU then form political parties by all means, but why choose to support the party funded and promoted by the settlers and their backers in the West? And that's why I think that the hard-core ZANU supporters saw that voting for Tsvangirai was pure treachery.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^massively potent as usual. Like a nice hit of the finest sativa in dam.
Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Mandela Thousands of people were killed by the forces of Apartheid. Mandela was just one of them who was picked up and imprisoned. Unlike Steve Biko and many others Mandela was not killed while imprisoned. Maybe the Apartheid boys saw something in him they could use if and when necessary. And they were right.
Mandela was much more angry with his wife for not being completely faithful during 27 years of imprisonment than he ever was with those who imprisoned him and robbed him of his freedom. And that's exactly what they saw in him: a man who deep down adored his oppressors and only wanted to be their equal and live with them despite their inhuman criminality and wickedness. And that's why he is liked by whites--because they see a man who feels so inferior that he would excuse anything an European does.
Why the big birthday party in London and not in South Africa? And why hardly any African faces in the big crowd watching some black and white faces sing and dance for him?
Mugabe
Mugabe himself was imprisoned for many years by the white settlers in Zimbabwe but I think that the years spent in Ghana during the days of Nkrumah helped him retain a portion of his African self-consciousness. Mugabe also nurses a serious grudge against the British for the callous way he was treated at the death of his very young son.
Sure, under normal circumstances Mugabe has overstayed his time as President of Zimbabwe, but circumstances were/are not normal. He is the only one I see who could have handled the tricks played by the British government as it maneuvered to ensure that the settlers did not give up their stolen lands--as in Nambibia, South Africa and Kenya. Another leader would just have sold out--after all that massaging by the British: knighthood, honorary doctorates, state dinner at Buckingham Palace, etc.
All that Mugabe had to do was to be a craven negro stooge and he would have been home safe. Who would have heard of Mugabe if he had just let the whites stay with their stolen booty--lording it over Africans treated like slaves on their own lands, working for just slave wages on those white farms?
Zimbabwe was offered independence in 1980 and the land issue dragged on until 2002 when Mugabe and the war veterans said "enough is enough" then proceeded to seize back the stolen lands. And ever since that time the whole world-wide white kith and kin collective has been going ballistic over Mugabe. All I can say is that given the amount of rage and anger it has to be a very special experience to be a person of European extraction in this world. I just cannot understand their rage and anger. To say it's just racism, doesn't really answer the question. It must be a special kind of racism having to do with a very complex set of issues.
The People of Zimbabwe There is something strange about the people those parts of Africa where the Europeans first killed thousands of people then seized their lands. One thing that is noteworthy is that they never seem to wear African clothing--African parlimentarians who attempted to wear Africa clothing were chided and there was a law in Kenya forbidding African clothing to be worn in Parliament-- and they seem to be completely taken in by Christianity.
I write the above to say that the massive sanctions placed on the economy of Zimbabwe had the desired effect. Unlike the Iraqis who experienced death dealing sanctions from the West and the Palestinians a large section of the people of urban Zimbabwe just fell for the white-led and financed MDC. It's as if they didn't understand the implications of what they were doing. Sure, if you want to oppose ZANU then form political parties by all means, but why choose to support the party funded and promoted by the settlers and their backers in the West? And that's why I think that the hard-core ZANU supporters saw that voting for Tsvangirai was pure treachery.
Probably not much younger than me. I was in high school when Mandela was released, and we saw it on the in-school monitors. I'd heard of him here and there before then, but didn't know much about him, other than he was the worlds longest standing political prisoner at that time and a symbol of the injustice of apartheid, which was always conveniently separated from the injustice of white rule in general.
But when he was released I knew something was DEEPLY wrong when he wasn't immediately demanding that the whites, who participated in apartheid be put on trial for human rights violations. Some tried to say he was biding his time, but that didn't make ANY sense--the blakcs were in charge now. Okay, so the world waited until he became president. Rather than hear that the crimes of apartheid would finally be answered we heard that we needed to put the past behind us and that Mandela was only too glad to be part of the "healing" which everyone knew meant "amnesty" for all whites.
F.W.DeKlerk, one of the worst butchers in modern history got a hug and a handshake from Mandela, then they gave the bastard a Nobel Peace Prize, which for me robbed that prize of any moral primacy it might have ever pretended to have.
The real stomach-turning proof came when whites were falling all over themselves to praise Mandela. NEVER have whites EVER praised a black leader who stood up for his people and condemed white bigotry. They only praise people like Obama who tell them they did no wrong, and that "there is no black America/ black south Africa." In other words black lackeys who are in their camp.
Whites praised Mandela for doing nothing to overturn a blatantly unjust status quo, and the blacks remained as second class citizens in what was supposed to finally be their country once again. Where was the media to highlight this and call it what it was--white's having installed a puppet regime?
Mandela sold out. Part of it I think is because of Stockholm Syndrome. After 3 decades in prison he broke, simply put. His jailors were white, and pretending to be his friends. He had no contact with the outside world. Half his life had been spent behind bars like that. His entire mind became twisted, he didn't know which way was up anymore. When he got out, he didn't care. Part of it that he had spent so long in prison that he wanted to live his final years in comfort and wealth. He would gladly be the white man's parrot long as he could get their applause and a few pieces of silver every once in a while.
Understand this, the white powers in Africa realized with the revolutions of the 50's, 60's and 70's that, as Thomas Jefferson put it when talking about the continuation of slavery, "We have a tiger by the ears, and we can neither safely hold him, nor let him go." They faced the prospect of ending up like the Bolsheviks, or the French aristocracy in the late 18th century. Both of them were wiped out by the subjugated masses.
So the Brits, and later the Dutch, did what any corrupt ruling class with an ounce of sense does--they made a deal with the freedom fighters and made them part of the conspiracy to keep the people on their knees. Co-opting an enemy who's on the verge of annihilating you is hardly a new strategy. It's called "suing for peace." Sadly, many of the "freedom fighters" who vowed to not stop fighting until their countries were "completely free" took the bait.
Africans suffer from what I call an overabundance of altrusim. We feel the pain of others almost of acutely as we feel our own. We are empatheitc to a fault, with enemies who are throughly treacherous. We got neo-colonialism and the whites used their monopoly on media to term it "independence." We has to watch the whites who'd murdered so many hundreds, if not millions of people, not get so much as a day in prison, and the whtites used their media to call this "racial reconciliation."
After every war, or stuggle against a vanquished occupier, the peoples of the newly liberated territories put their tormetors on trial. But not the African. It would be "wrong," or "vindictive" if we did it. That's why I'm glad Robert Mugabe and Jacob Zuma are having the whites in their countries displaced and killed. Whereas our suffering was met with silence, we get to hear the united white world howling what an injustice is it. And yet the killings continue. And when it's over (which I PRAY won't be for a damned long time, and not until every white is driven out of the continent--which judging from events may well be the case ) I want to ask the whites who said letting the apartheid regime's murderers off the hook was "racial reconciliation," if Robert Mugabe should get a Nobel Peace Prize. I want to ask them if Jacob Zuma, or the ANC are helping "racial reconciliation," by not prosecuting the blacks who are purging their countries of occupiers.
They've never been on the receiving end, so it's easy for them to trivialize their past butchery. But ask them if it's okay today. They'll tell you, "Its just conituing the bad blood." Never mind that so far the bad blood's only been flowing one way. Far as I'm concenred, this is chickens coming home to roost. Let them!
Posts: 248 | From: Way Down South | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
I'm happy to see the world standing up to these disgusting white racists after the INSULTING 9-11/Iraq game they played (and are still playing). First Chavez and other south American countries. China & Russia are not happy with "The West". Mugabe has now set an example for the Africans...
it's going to be a very interesting next couple of years.
Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Know what, the very title of the article (the title of this thread) is telling of the Ws.tern attitude.
"Zimbabwe opposition" are the protagonists. Not Mugabe opposition, but Zimbabwe opposition.
Mugabe's not the ultimate antagonist, Zimbabwe is, and ultimately this means the people. It's as sportbilly implied, they don't give a f*ck about Zimbabwe, Robert, or African people, it's about that cheeze. If Mr. Rogers were still here and running Zimbabwe and doing the same thing Mugabe is, he'd be just as much of an 'insane Dictator' as Mugabe.
Notice the enemy is Zimbabwe because they're not trying to remain economically oppressed.
It's fine to attack a leader (as long as it's not slander), but to proclaim that Zimbabwe is the enemy? Think about it. If someone attacks our government (US) they attack our people.
But a contradictory western attitude is unveiled in the conservative attitude concerining Bush "he's your President, you know".
There was a comment left on a Youtube video over Jay Z freedom of speech to say "**** Bush" because of the fact he said it in a foreign country. So no-matter what the Prez does untouchable? (Totalitarian government on the horizon obviously won't have much trouble with these conservative types -- unless it was to be a non-white government) The person who left the comment on the Youtube video of Jay Z's Glastonbury performance was unlucky to find that most Hip Hop fans had more sense.
But this is common. People saying things like "I don't think you should be able to say 'f*ck the president' because you're an American and if you don't like it then you can get out of the country". I can assure you though that where the economy has been hit worse since his inauguration, people are much more liberal with this type of freedom of speech.
quote:And when it's over (which I PRAY won't be for a damned long time, and not until every white is driven out of the continent--which judging from events may well be the case ) I want to ask the whites who said letting the apartheid regime's murderers off the hook was "racial reconciliation," if Robert Mugabe should get a Nobel Peace Prize. I want to ask them if Jacob Zuma, or the ANC are helping "racial reconciliation," by not prosecuting the blacks who are purging their countries of occupiers.
posted
Don't know how I missed this but it's the most chock full analytical info post to appear here in months. Excellent!
quote:Originally posted by sportbilly: I was in high school when Mandela was released, and we saw it on the in-school monitors. I'd heard of him here and there before then, but didn't know much about him, other than he was the worlds longest standing political prisoner at that time and a symbol of the injustice of apartheid, which was always conveniently separated from the injustice of white rule in general.
The real stomach-turning proof came when whites were falling all over themselves to praise Mandela. NEVER have whites EVER praised a black leader who stood up for his people and condemed white bigotry. They only praise people like Obama who tell them they did no wrong, and that "there is no black America/ black south Africa." In other words black lackeys who are in their camp.
Whites praised Mandela for doing nothing to overturn a blatantly unjust status quo, and the blacks remained as second class citizens in what was supposed to finally be their country once again. Where was the media to highlight this and call it what it was--white's having installed a puppet regime?
Mandela sold out. Part of it I think is because of Stockholm Syndrome. After 3 decades in prison he broke, simply put. His jailors were white, and pretending to be his friends. He had no contact with the outside world. Half his life had been spent behind bars like that. His entire mind became twisted, he didn't know which way was up anymore. When he got out, he didn't care. Part of it that he had spent so long in prison that he wanted to live his final years in comfort and wealth. He would gladly be the white man's parrot long as he could get their applause and a few pieces of silver every once in a while.
Understand this, the white powers in Africa realized with the revolutions of the 50's, 60's and 70's that, as Thomas Jefferson put it when talking about the continuation of slavery, "We have a tiger by the ears, and we can neither safely hold him, nor let him go." They faced the prospect of ending up like the Bolsheviks, or the French aristocracy in the late 18th century. Both of them were wiped out by the subjugated masses.
After every war, or stuggle against a vanquished occupier, the peoples of the newly liberated territories put their tormetors on trial. But not the African. It would be "wrong," or "vindictive" if we did it. That's why I'm glad Robert Mugabe and Jacob Zuma are having the whites in their countries displaced and killed. Whereas our suffering was met with silence, we get to hear the united white world howling what an injustice is it. And yet the killings continue. And when it's over (which I PRAY won't be for a damned long time, and not until every white is driven out of the continent--which judging from events may well be the case ) I want to ask the whites who said letting the apartheid regime's murderers off the hook was "racial reconciliation," if Robert Mugabe should get a Nobel Peace Prize. I want to ask them if Jacob Zuma, or the ANC are helping "racial reconciliation," by not prosecuting the blacks who are purging their countries of occupiers.
They've never been on the receiving end, so it's easy for them to trivialize their past butchery. But ask them if it's okay today. They'll tell you, "Its just conituing the bad blood." Never mind that so far the bad blood's only been flowing one way. Far as I'm concenred, this is chickens coming home to roost. Let them!
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^ Probably because I'm so damned long-winded that nobody wants to "read" my scribblings.
I appreciate the accoaldes, Al. BTW, has anyone noticed that the "crisis" in Zimbabwe has fallen off the headlines?
So, it was a "crisis" last week, a "Land of Revolution," last week, but everything's honky-dorey toaday (pun intended!). Anybody still want to tell me that this whole fiasco wasn't a power-grab by the former colonizers, fueled by a non-stop propraganda machine run by the BBC? Dr John Henrik Clarkes warned about this, the media war that would serve "to prepare the minds of the world for the military reconquest of Africa."
Every "headline," every "on-the-scene" report, even the so-called debates on cable and PBS (NONE of which featured a menber of the mugabe government to argue the African side) was meant to bring the viewer to the same conclusion--these Africans would be better off under colonialism. Not better off with Mugabe gone, not better off with a unity government, but better off under white rule.
In a nutshell, here was how the plan was SUPPOSED to go:
In order to try to avoid the obvious label of "re-colonization" the Brits needed the Africans to go along with the idea --both in Zimbabwe and in the African Union. That's what the media offensive was about --isolate Mugabe through worldwide deominzation a' la Sadaam.
1.) Call the elections in Zimbabwe fraudulent BEFORE they had even taken place. I showed this above. 2.) Use a non-stop media ASSAULT by the worldwide white press to rush the AU into delivering a quickie resoultion less than 24 hours after the election (not enough time to count the votes much less to determine if they were cast legally!) calling Mugabe's reelection illegitimate, and hold over the AU's heads the threat of the BBC bringing back the old slander of calling the African Union a "Dictators Club." Keep in mind Hosni Mubarrak, Qadaffi and the Cameroon government were themselevs autocratic leaders, denouced as "dictators," who have little room to judge anybody, and yet the same whites calling for Mugabe's ouster were fully willing to allow these men to stand in judgment of Mugabe...until they realized these guys weren't going to take the bait. 3.) Of course the whoe AU denouuncing Mugabe business would be an empty gesture, and everyone knows it --the AU can't stop an unruly boy scout troop, much less do anything about an organized military force like in zimbabwe. 4.) So (shades of Iraq 2002) as fate would have it the British, who --what a COINCIDENCE!-- just so happen to be Zimbabwe's old colonizers, would be waiting in the wings, dying to put an end to this injustice. Not for land or resources mind you, but because the British have a moral core that won't allow them to see such savageray go unanswered. Of course there will be NO mention of Kenya, the Congo or --gasp!- Sudan. 5.) Old Gordon Brown would pull a George Bush and go before the British Parliament and anounce Mugabe is the new Hitler (between Ahmedjinedad, Kim Jong ll, Sadaam and Hugo Chavez the world seems to have a lot of "new" Hitlers) and like Bush Brown would cite the AU's "well considered and patiently thought-out" resoultion as proof that Africa wants a "democratically-elected" state in Zimbabwe. But he would bemoan that the AU is too weak to get Mugabe out and so, with HEAVY haeart, the Brits (who have NEVER done Africa, much less Zimbabwe, ANY wrong!) are compelled to do their moral duty and help the poor Africans get rid of this vile dictator. There would be a couple of scattered references to the "colonial past" which Brown would give a few, passing, half-hearted denunciations of, before going back to beating the drums of war. 6.) Six weeks later Mugabe is out, a "provisional" government under Tzarangai is in, and the British keep a "nominal force" of thousands of troops there, "to ensure stability."
Chango-Presto! Africa is officially reconquered. And best of all, the Africans themselves were made into accomplices of the scheme.
But Mugabe had other plans!
The Brits/western powers have overestimated their ability to use sanctions to manipulate the masses, and underestimated the desire of the African peoples to get out from under the thuumb of white rule/control.
They know they've lost this round. But they will try again. Mugabe better wake up and smell the coffee. It's time to "repatriate" every squatter in the country NOW!
Posts: 248 | From: Way Down South | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
As usual, I've been taunting my Facebook buddies with my now-infamous "status updates". Last week, I declared my support for Mugabe repetitively and I eventually got confronted on my wall by two well-meaning Nigerian friends who had drunk the BBC kool-ade. I tried to show them the score but they kept taking the moral high ground till I literally copied and pasted that first post you made (on this page) and posted it on my wall. They came round after that, and asked for the source and one of 'em has been reading this forum everyday since (he claims). You defo have more than a few fans sportbilly .
Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many thanks Veilgenius. Right now I'm doing exactly what the whites are doing --watching South Africa. THAT will tell us how powerful an event last week was.
If Zuma comes to power and starts reclimaing land, or at the least nationalizing the mines and farms, that will serve as a bellweather to all of Africa, since as the whites never get tired of saying, S Africa is the leader of Sub-Saharan Africa. After SA it's even money that Kenya will go next, though Namibia is doing better economically and may well fall --or rather rise!-- after SA.
I want to see those dominoes falling!
Posts: 248 | From: Way Down South | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
526259918 . For all you nosy folks, it's not what you think - I wouldn't put up my phone or bank details on here. I'm not that stupid so kill that thought in your head.
The owner of this site obviously doesn't like me much. I've been BANNED from sending PMs for like a couple months now. I didn't realise I was that much of a threat .
If the info is not sufficient, holler at me at the TNV site (on there I'm "younghorus").
Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
You might want to give me hints that it's you when you add me, cuz now everybody knows where to find yours truly online .
Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by VEILGENIUS^*^: ^speak on it brethren.
As usual, I've been taunting my Facebook buddies with my now-infamous "status updates". Last week, I declared my support for Mugabe repetitively and I eventually got confronted on my wall by two well-meaning Nigerian friends who had drunk the BBC kool-ade. I tried to show them the score but they kept taking the moral high ground till I literally copied and pasted that first post you made (on this page) and posted it on my wall. They came round after that, and asked for the source and one of 'em has been reading this forum everyday since (he claims). You defo have more than a few fans sportbilly .
LOL Same thing for me!
@ sportbilly speaking of the "minds of the West" I would say many are clueless and don't have the full story - they simply view Africa as a land of corrupt Dictators who aid her people's suffering - people which are all poor, starving and the people surviving only surviving because of getting aid from the West.
Needless to say this is entirely drawn in from a Media painted picture.
So to even think of the concept of Neo-colonialism in Africa is made a strange thing to do for them.
quote:sportbilly: ^^^ Probably because I'm so damned long-winded that nobody wants to "read" my scribblings.
Nottt the case at all bro
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^I already gave you and every body else's grandmama my id... it's 526259918.
sportbilly, are you the John Smith guy on Facebook? If you don't know what I'm talking about then never mind, it's probably some idiot.
Alive, what's yours? don't post it here though (especially if it's your main one - I have a few ), send me a link on YouTube if you care to.
Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
Tell me your username on there and I'll send you a link. My username on TNV is "younghorus".
You can't search for an id in Facebook lol , you have to search for the user's real name. The id is a different thing altogether...
Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Now back to trolling.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Unless Mugabe proves that he hasn't learned his lesson from this whole episode--Africa cannot WAIT to be free!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
.
Printer-friendly view of this topic