sportbilly .. have anything to say about this?
Posted by sportbilly (Member # 14122) on :
Hell yeah! Good for Mugabe. And is it any surprise that the white-man's puppet, Tzaringai went running, not to South Africa and the blacks, but to his white masters, no doubt to ask what does he do now.
Posted by sportbilly (Member # 14122) on :
Mugabe is a target in a proxy war being fought by Britain and the Us to recolonize Africa. That's not black-liberation propaganda, that's a fact.
Kenya is as bad off ecnominically as Zimbabwe allegedly is. THOUSANDS of people have died as a result of the electoral violence in Kenya. In Zimbabwe the number is WELL less than a hundred. HMMM, let's do the math less than a hundred versus thousands. Who's the REAL strongarm dictator who refuses to relinquish power here?
So why doesn't that British lackey who's mismanaging things in Kenya need to be thrown out too? Why doesn't the Associated Press, who's been running a non-stop free-publicity campaign on behalf of Tvzaringai, not call for the outster of Kibaki who's far worse than anything Mugabe has allegedly done?
Because Mugabe is reclaiming the land the Brits stole. Kibaki is britain's lapdog and doesn't threaten the ecnomic and politlcal hegemony the Brit squatters in Kenya have enjoyed so even though his people starve, and there's warring in the streets we don't hear about it. Yes, Mugabe only chose to finally reclaim his people's land when he realized the whites weren't going to be his buddies after all, but considering that no other African leaders have reclaimed the land for their people Mugabe's effort are certailny better than nothing. They hate that he established monuments to black independence and valor, like Hero's acre, where huge statues of African men are celebrated for overthrowing the British. They hate that more than anything, because it further humiliates the whites who live there by reminding them they're the bad guys.
Notice that there are American-accented men in that room? Mugabe is demonized because he is exactly what whites must stop from arising in africa at all costs-- a black man who will overthrow white power and will show that Africa can stand up to whtie supremacy. Today it's Zimbabwe, tomorrow it's South Africa. The day after it's Namibia and Kenya. Then all of Africa. To white power Mugabe represents a domino effect that threatens to force white power out of africa and finally get the Independence movement of the 60's restarted. If I were Mugabe I'd "suicide" Tzaringai and then lock up and kill the whites who are backing him.
Posted by sportbilly (Member # 14122) on :
Tzaringai's MDC is a terrorist group. They've committed numerous acts of violence in the country, but you never hear about it, because the only news we hear out of Africa comes through the BBC. Now who's side do you think the BBC is on? The white Brit squatters.
American news outlets don't do any journalism in Africa. They merely rebroadcast the reports they get from the BBC. Enough of this fakery about the "inflation" rate in Zimababwe. This is propaganda meant to sway the opinion of the international community. The number is ridiculous. 165,000 percent inflation. Why not make it an evne 200,00. r even a million. It's just as ridiculous.
The whites own damn near all the wealth and they have all the arable land. But they're portrayed as some sort of victims whose rights must be respected above all others. These leeches have hundreds of acres of land, given to them by white power, given to them for free. I'd love to see those white scum try to buy land in Britain for pennies per acre. Because that's what they paid when the whites took over. Small wonder that no matter how badly they claim Mugabe treats them they say they're prepared to die before they leave. They stole a whole country and are determined to try to hold on to what they stole, because if they lose the stolen real estate they lose everything. Mugabe should just declare the whites resident aliens and tell them to register themselves with the government and hand over their land and businesses over to black control where they'll be able to reap a small profit, but the ownership of course being in the hands of the people they robbed. Any whites who refuse will be declared illegal aliens and deported. Either way they can't keep what they've stolen.
Posted by sportbilly (Member # 14122) on :
My personal favortie bit of whtie propaganda about Zimbabwe is that before the evil Mugabe came to power zimbabwe was "Africa's breadbasket."
Funny, then what was Live Aid and "We aRe the World," about? What were the famines of the 80's about? Why weren't the good white folks of the "breadbasket" feeding Africa?
Because when the white media says "Africa's breadbasket," they don't mean Africa at all. They mean that the whites in Zimbabwe gave food to the white regime in South Africa.
The only reason the whites are trying to get Tzaringai in power is because they've failed to kill Mugabe, the people won't overthrow him either. So Tzaringai is their Manchurian Candidate. They'll use the very democracy the people fought and died for to re-enslave them.
To the white world Mugabe is setting a bad example. He's showing Africa that it's okay to kick the whties around and ultiamtely to kick them out. He recognizes their "human rights" rhetoric for what it is: a line of bleeding heart nonsense they pull out, but ONLY when they're about to get their cummupence. He isnt falling for it. Small wonder the whites are so furious with him. They've tried EVERY trick in the book --tricks that have worked everywhere else in the world-- but this guy just won't fall.
Mugabe understands what's at stake here and what this is truly all about. It has nothing to do with whining white famerms, (white farmers go out of business everyday in the US and in Britain, their land abandoned to the elements and nobody gives a damn!) it's not about starving people (the whole WORLD is going through a food shortage) it's not about fair elections (We're still waiting to get free and fair elections here in the US) and it certainly isn't about what's in the best interests of Africans. This is about power. The world's mineral "treasure house" is up for grabs and the white world isn't about to lose what they see as their monopoly. Not to China and certailny not to the blacks.
This is the last gasp of white supremacy in africa. If Mugabe stands firm and gives the land back to it's people and tosses the whites out, all of Africa will see this and it will spread. If the white strategy of behind-the-scenes political engineering, puppet-candidates and using their waning power to turn the populace against reformist leaders works, it will set African freedom back a generation, at least! The whites have bet EVERYTHING on this one. This is their last ditch. They can't afford to lose and that's exactly what's happening. They've been so used to getting their way it never occurred to them that a leader would actually emerge, one who would beat them by simply digging in his heels. They didn't expect Mugabe to be such an excellent chess player, especially considering that he has almost no pieces to play with. But he holds the most important piece--the KING! Everytime they think they've got some momentum he uses his position to up the stakes by threatening to nationalize the mines (a move he should have already done!) and to kick all the whites out of the country. The whites know they're on thin ice. They can't keep what they've stolen and yet they have no way to hold on to it. Here's why. The damage to the whites expectations of a permanent power monopoly has already been done. While their plots to undermine Mugabe's public support by weakening the economy may have worked to some extent, NOBODY in Zimbabwe is agaisnt the land reclamation.
Mugabe has successfully made disempowering the whites into a national imperative. Yes, the people want better economic conditions, but they also want their land back, whether Mugabe's in power or not. Tzvaringai, even if he managed to come back at the head of a British-led invasion force, would still have to contend with this idea. The people would demand Tzvaringai improve the ecnomoy AND continue the land reclamations. Of course he would do like Kibaki in Kenya and kill thousands to keep whites in power---and the BBC would have nothing to say, but in a genreation a new Mugabe-acolyte would overthrown Tzvaringai and we'd be right back where we are today. The drive to purify Africa of foreigners won't end with Mugabe. It's already taken on a life of it's own.
And how else can Africa get to it's feet when whites own everything? Someone has to have the steel to say, "Everything you've stolen we are taking back, and you will get NOTHING for it!" Blacks must dominate every square inch of Africa, as the whites do Europe and America. Mugabe is trying to make that happen. For my part I say let's stop bullsh*tting around. We all know how this will turn out. Toss them off the land and give them 24 hours to get out of town before sundown. If not, it'll be rwanda part two. And nobody would shed a tear for them.
BTW, I'm sure some are wondering why I'm going on and on abuot this. Simple. I see a world where blacks are being threatened on all fronts. Where we're told it's cruel for us to demand power but not for others to take ours. I see a world where in every country the people who are the majority have the most wealth and power. Then I look at Africa. And the main reason the opposite is true is because the "leaders" have refused to overturn the status quo. Mugabe was one of those spineless folks too. He played the game until he realized the game was playing him. But he's doing the right thing NOW and that's what matters. Mugabe is presenting a viable example of black nationalism--the crucial piece that has been missing from every black government in Afirca and around the world. He doesn't want to be a willing subsect of white empire. Taking back the land, the mines the resources and putting that wealth into black hands. It would be utterly unprecedented in the history of the post-Columbus world. That makes him dangerous. The white attitude is "We stole it fair and square." for this alone he should deport them all, and before it's all over I think we'll see the Africans do that. Mugabe understands what it will take to free Africa. So do his white opponents. That's why they're so afraid of him. If they can topple him then the message to africa's leaders will be loud and clear "Don't try to overthrow us. We'll use the wealth we've ammassed to turn the people against you. We'll use out international media to portray you as a dictator--we've spent a lot of time creating that myth and won't hesitate to put it to use! And if that fails, then we'll simply buy a trojan horse--some stooge who'll paly ball-- and give him all the campaign funds he needs to throw you out. Best part is everyone will say that it was "democratic!'" This is a battle of will. Mugabe has shown he can hold the line. Now he needs to organize hs people, take back the mines and the farms,and get economic progress moving. The whites now realize that assassinations, coups and politlcal engineering are out of the question. Only thing left is a "unilateral" action of some sort or another. Shades of Iraq 2002 is what I'm talking about. Right now Zimbabwe isn't ready for a war. They need to be. Mugabe needs to be.
Posted by Arwa (Member # 11172) on :
Good for Mugabe!!!
Y'all missing the point. This is about to get a puppet in Zimbabwe before Zuma becomes president in South Africa next year.. to make his job difficult.
May God Help Mugabe, ameen Posted by Arwa (Member # 11172) on :
In the name of democracy By Baffour Ankomah “He [Mugabe] was extremely magnanimous in allowing Ian Smith to go on in Zimbabwe – I wouldn’t have, I really wouldn’t – and I think that was partly because he didn’t want to alienate whites. That attitude lasted for quite a long time, 15 years or so” – Lord Carrington, the former British foreign secretary who negotiated Zimbabwe’s independence constitution at Lancaster House, quoted by Heidi Holland in her new book, “Dinner With Mugabe – The untold story of a freedom fighter who became a tyrant”, published in March 2008.
Human beings have short memories! If not, how could the Western world engage in the orgy of Mugabe-bashing that we have seen since the 29 March elections in Zimbabwe? In fact, the bashing has been going on for far longer - since 2000 when the Zimbabwe land issue blew up, after some Africans decided that enough was enough and they wanted their stolen ancestral land returned to them!
Since then, the once “blue-eyed boy” from the rolling hills of Zimbabwe, who once dined and wined with British royalty, who once received countless unsolicited honorary degrees from Western universities, and numerous awards from the likes of the Hunger Project for being “the best African president”, has sadly become a tyrant!
In her book, Heidi Holland hurls silly adjectives at President Mugabe who has now become some kind of political football worthy to be kicked and spat upon by all and sundry in the Western world. Holland’s colourful description of Mugabe include: “Naivety, emotionally immature, paranoid, no warmth, from dirt-poor childhood, loner, emotionally underdeveloped, has no conscience and sense of concern for others, monster, ruthless tyrant, a damaged person underneath, reviled politician, unstable, deluded, personality disorder, and mad”.
Holland, who now lives in South Africa, describes herself as: “A Western-orientated writer with an involvement albeit peripheral in the politics of Rhodesia and Zimbabwe.” She narrates how when she was trying to get an appointment to interview Mugabe for the book, Mugabe’s press secretary George Charamba asked her what she thought of Zimbabwe and she replied “it’s a tragedy”, Holland says: “I expected him to raise his voice again: His snarled comment: ‘So you have written a Eurocentric book’, to which I replied: ‘Of course, I can only be who I am’, seem certain to incur his displeasure.” In 1975, Holland had allowed her friend, Dr Ahrn Palley, a constitutional expert and fellow activist, to hold a secret meeting in her “ranch-style home” in Zimbabwe with Mugabe who was about to flee to Mozambique after his release from 11 years in jail. Holland says she provided “dinner” for Palley and Mugabe, and this qualifies her to regurgitate it in 2008 as a “dinner with a freedom fighter who became a tyrant”.
For those Africans who don’t know the issues at stake in Zimbabwe and who think Gordon Brown and “the international community” are jumping mad because they want Africans to have more democracy (Brown is yet to be elected by his own people anyway), please take a cue from Holland’s “Of course, I can only be who I am.” I was in Zimbabwe before, during, and after the 29 March elections, and I entreat all to read my report overleaf.
In April last year, when Nigeria’s opposition parties rejected the result of the presidential election won by Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, and alleged that the election had been heavily rigged against them, Britain and “the international community” pretended they had gone on holiday. Over 200 Nigerians died in both pre-and post election violence, yet did we see Brown or any of those jumping mad over Zimbabwe today, jumping mad over Nigeria? President Paul Biya of Cameroon, already 26 years in power, has just received parliamentary support to change the constitution again so that when his current term ends in 2011, he can run – again - for another 7 years. And “the international community” is not jumping mad about Biya. Why? Don’t Cameroonians deserve more democracy? That should make us pause and reflect. Before then, to enrich our understanding of what is happening in Zimbabwe, let’s look at some issues raised by Holland in her book. She interviewed Clare Short, the former British secretary for overseas development, whose 5 November 1997 letter repudiating British colonial responsibility for funding land reform in Zimbabwe, sparked the troubles we’ve seen in that beautiful country for the past eight years.
Holland reports that Clare Short tried to shift the blame, first on Peter Hain, the South African-born British minister for Africa at the time. “I think the rhetoric of the UK [on Zimbabwe] was badly handled by Hain, of all people,” Holland quotes Short as having said. “I remember being in my bedroom in Birmingham and hearing him on the radio. I thought, ‘Peter, you sound like a colonial master speaking up for white farmers’. And of course, the media here loved that.”
Short went on: “One of Britain’s errors was the noisy rhetoric. We should have kept it right down, not tried to take a leading position, and we should have made sure that the neighbouring countries were absolutely clear as to how much money was on offer and how strongly the case for redistribution was supported internationally. We should have made that our rhetoric. I absolutely don’t accept that the letter I wrote was seminal, although of course I would take it away if that could stop the destruction and suffering that has gone on in Zimbabwe. But it is definitely Mugabe who is responsible.”
Well, the man Short’s department employed to investigate the Zimbabwean land issue, does not think so. Soni Rajan is an independent London-based consultant on international development who was employed by the ODA to investigate land redistribution in Zimbabwe on a number of occasions, both under the Tories and during Clare Short’s time.
Rajan told Holland “It was absolutely clear from the attitude of her [Clare Short’s] staff towards my recommendations that Labour’s strategy was to accelerate Mugabe’s unpopularity by failing to provide him with funding for land redistribution. They thought if they didn’t give him the money for land reform, his people in the rural areas would start to turn against him. That was their position; they wanted him out and they were going to do whatever they could to hasten his demise.”
What really strikes me in Holland’s book is her description of our late president, Kwame Nkrumah, as “a revered premier”. Since when did Nkrumah become a “revered” figure? Between 1960 and his overthrow in February 1966, and even long after his death in April 1972, Nkrumah was “a Mugabe” in the eyes of Western governments and their writers. All the adjectives and insults that Holland heaps on Mugabe today were hurled at Nkrumah! It is a mark of the versatility of the human mind that today, when history has absolved him, Nkrumah could be fondly looked at as a “revered” figure. He wasn’t “revered” when the West wanted him out!
Zanu PF will look back on the 29 March elections with trepidation at its own suicidal tendencies. In the midst of a deteriorating economy, and shortages of essential goods and services, the March elections were always going to be crucial to the destiny of the country. And yet Zanu, a party of such impeccable liberation credentials, went into the elections riddled with destructive infighting which saw – and this is no laughing matter – in some constituencies, two Zanu PF candidates fighting for the same seat and confusing their voters, and thus allowing the opposition to win the seat (or seats) by default.
Sabotage by the business community which increased prices in the run-up to the elections also did not help. There are still 400 British companies based in Zimbabwe and who dominate the economy. The government can shout as much as it likes, but the companies are private and they make their own decisions – which are not always in favour of the government. By increasing prices in the weeks leading to the elections, they sent a strong message to the electorate. The government’s tendency to allow things to drift, even in the face of clear signs of sabotage, also added to its electoral woes. The government watched on, apparently unconcerned, as commercial banks allowed long queues form at counters and ATMs in the crucial weeks leading to the elections. This was a sure way of creating disaffection among voters who were forced to queue for hours to withdraw their own money. The time they spent in the queue gave them the opportunity to talk and damn the government.
Zanu PF’s message at the rallies was also not very effective. It was long on the liberation war and short on the way out of the economic hardships. While the history was fine, people were yearning to hear about their stomachs and how the current difficulties were being, or going to be, resolved. That message was lacking.
‘Morgan is more’
In contrast, MDC-Tsvangirai ran a slick campaign and promised that their “friends” abroad had $10bn at the ready to heal the economy at a stroke, in the wake of a Tsvangirai victory. In certain instances, though, their adverts on the state-owned ZBC TV and radio, and even in the state-owned print media, were better and sharper than Zanu PF’s. The simple catchphrase: “I am Morgan. You need more. And I need your vote”, caught attention better than Zanu’s many long-winded messages.
Tsvangirai’s campaign was also hugely aided by six anti-Mugabe weekly newspapers (three based in Harare, two from South Africa and one from the UK, and all freely distributed in Zimbabwe’s urban areas). They tore Mugabe and Zanu into shreds week after week. There were also the Voice Of America’s Studio 7 broadcasting propaganda into Zimbabwe from Washington DC, and SW Africa Radio doing the same from the UK. All together, this gave “Morgan Is More” an advantage over Zanu PF in terms of media messages.
All said and done, the much expected presidential run-off is going to be a very interesting election.
What's disappointing though is the fact that the MDC party led by Tsvangirai got more votes than ZANU. One could understand why: the economic and credit sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe by the West really affected the economic lives of the people especially the urban dwellers.
The goal was to create unrest in the streets or provoke a coup. Those plans did not work but the soft coup by way of the ballot almost worked. Those people who voted for the MDC were just willing to hand the country back to the British and the West just so they could shop for the imported goods they were accustomed to.
The MDC was formed in 1999 with European money and membership(local whites)--and the goal was to privatize everything. The land seizures was a big blow to plans because it meant that the agribusiness goals had to be put on hold.
The point is that historically too many blacks/Africans have allowed themselves to be used as instruments for the realization of European goals. From the Atlantic trade by way of colonialism up to neocolonialism--it hasn't been too hard to get targeted blacks to be used as instruments in European projects.
Now the bribes and the cajoling of the SADEC members by the U.S.-U.K. and the whole EU cabal is full steam ahead. And many are starting to make the right noises--music to Western ears.
Posted by Arwa (Member # 11172) on :
The White Man is desperate!
From the Guardian [Fascist-Zionist-Nazi news paper, which oddly many people consider it leftist paper. Don't ask how ]
Do you support military intervention in Zimbabwe?
and you can cast your vote by answering yes/no Here Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by Arwa: The White Man is desperate!
From the Guardian [Fascist-Zionist-Nazi news paper, which oddly many people consider it leftist paper. Don't ask how ]
Do you support military intervention in Zimbabwe?
and you can cast your vote by answering yes/no Here
Yep, Zionism, fascism, Marxism/socialism (white leftys) are all the same. I hope I haven't upset any trolls in here who will reply with their standard line:
Posted by HORUS^*^ (Member # 11484) on :
Wow Arwa . I voted on the Guardian.co.uk poll and guess what the cumulative results were? Do you support military intervention in Zimbabwe? 64.7% Yes 35.3% No
Racist Brits. Typical melonheads (white versions of akoben08).
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by HORUS^*^: Wow Arwa . I voted on the Guardian.co.uk poll and guess what the cumulative results were? Do you support military intervention in Zimbabwe? 64.7% Yes 35.3% No
Racist Brits. Typical melonheads (white versions of akoben08).
I wonder how you voted... Posted by HORUS^*^ (Member # 11484) on :
^I voted 'No'.
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
lying negro lol
Posted by HORUS^*^ (Member # 11484) on :
stupid negro lol
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
^lol horizon Horus.
@ sportsbilly: refreshing replies (as usual especially after reading to many backward posts on Ws.t message borads. Busy, but will reply later ..
Posted by sportbilly (Member # 14122) on :
So, there are Brits who want to go into Zimbabwe? Guess that's why they want to pull out of Iraq so badly.
And what is their excuse going to be? That they care about Democracy? Then what about in Kenya where thousands have died trying to oust Britain's lapdog Kibaki? I saw a propaganda piece on YouTube called "Land of Revolution?" where they tried to say it's a civil war in Zimbabwe. Well what the hell do the Brits call what's going on in the Congo and the Sudan? What they call it is no threat to their power.
It reminds of what Dr John Henrik clarke said in his "Black Athena" debate on Youtube. "This propaganda assault is meant to prepare the minds of the international community for the military re-conquest of Africa." He said that 12 years ago, and now it's coming to pass. Push has come to shove. Does Mugabe have what it takes to push back? So far, not really. The whites have already decided that they'll settle for nothing less than total victory. Mugabe needs to accept that this is not some war with rules--it's a streetfight. Winner take all. The whites have the desire to overthrow him but not the ability. But if he lets them remain in the country they will keep agitating until they have that ability. Already they've given up on a soft coup and are trying to get Africa's leaders to press their case. The African "leaders" (read: professional white ass-kissers) who are criticizing Mugabe are doing so largely because of Zimbabwe's economy. not to mention most of them are entirely dependent on white money to keep their own countries economies out of the crapper. Mugabe needs to start acting like he's trying to win a streetfight instead of a popularity contest. The whties are desperate. That's why they're pulling out all the stops to force an all-or-nothing fight for control. He's done right so far by confusing their plans by arresting MDC foot soldiers for subversion. But why has not even one white been arrested or deported? Because even at this late stage Mugabe still doesn't compleltey understand the danger he's in. He still thinks there can be some sort of modus vivendi. He's still thinks he can somehow talk his way out of this one. He doesn't want to accept responsibilty for running the state. He still wants whites to do it. Well, they've made it clear they're not looking for partners, they're looking for puppets. He's not fine with that, but it seems he thinks he can get them to calm down and let him keep power. He doesn't realize they've already decided he's to be ousted and killed afterwards. Why? Because he's humilated them, and set an example of blacks using force to kick whits out of power. He's committed an unpardonable sin. The only way to save himself now is to sacrifice them.
Look, we all know this is a war to stop the domino effect Mugabe's land reforms represents. Half the MDC's supporters are bought and paid for by the whites, the other half are the victims of the whties economic manipulation and don't realize they're pawns in the game.
Mugabe also is trying to tiptoe through this minefield. He thinks he can take baby steps toward freedom, and minimize the damages of dislodging the entrenched white power base, when it should be clear by now that the ONLY way he can come out of this alive is going to be to charge forward with all his might. There's no "gentle" way to remove a rotten tooth, you have to rip it out in a single instant! He needs to get his agricultural act together (get blacks in place to take over the farms, and develop the countryside) and oust ALL the whites. He doesn't have the luxury of time here. That's the lesson of Idi Amin. The Indians were put out and no foreigners had enough money to mainpulate Uganda by attacking the economy. When they aren't in the country they can't plan assassinations, nor can they support lapdogs nor engineer "soft" coups.
The sooner the whites are out of Zimbabwe the less position the Brits will have to call for anything. Shove the whites into South Africa where they'll have no land and no political clout. This will neutralize them. The whites in S Africa are already under pressure from the threat of Jacob Zuma becoming president. Seeing the whites cast out of Zimbabwe will serve as lessson to the Dutch squatters of what can happen when you mess with an African leader.
Expeling the whites also solves another of Mugabe's problems. Whites in Britain and the US are so hot to see him out in order to maintain the sham that the white farmers "belong" in Zimbabwe. By putting them out military action aimed at keeping the whites to power is no longer an option. The Brits understand that military action is perhaps saleble but only so long as the whites are in the country or own the land. Sad that Mugabe doesn't understand that. If Mugabe goes ahread and gives the land back to the Zimbabweans no amount of BBC propaganda will sway opinion on that. Zimbabwe would go back to status quo ante .Africans everywhere would be up in arms if the Brits tried a second invasion aimed at putting whites in power. Once the whtis are out not even the most bought-and-paid-for lapdog like Tzvaringai would dare say, "Run the blacks off the land, let the whites back in." They woulnd't even be able to use sneaky laws to institute any such plan.
BTW Any Brit who voted to go into Zimbabwe should be the first one the Royal Marines draft and send in. THEN see how many of those hardheaded whites are so eager for military intervention. Kill 'em all I say, let God sort 'em out!
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
Zimbabwe's Economy Under Mugabe
quote:Mineral exports, agriculture, and tourism are the main foreign currency earners of Zimbabwe.[57] Zimbabwe is the biggest trading partner of South Africa on the continent.[58] The downward spiral of the economy has been attributed mainly to mismanagement and corruption of the Mugabe regime and the eviction of more than 4,000 white farmers in the controversial land redistribution of 2000.[59][60][61][62] Since this land redistribution began, agricultural exports, especially tobacco, have declined sharply. The Zimbabwe Conservation Task Force released a report in June 2007, estimating 60% of Zimbabwe's wildlife has died since 2000. The report warns that the loss of life combined with widespread deforestation is potentially disastrous for the tourist industry.[63]
Inflation rose from an annual rate of 32% in 1998 to an official estimated high of 100,580.2% in January 2008,[64] a state of hyperinflation. Local residents have largely resorted to buying essentials from neighbouring Botswana, South Africa and Zambia. IMF economists estimated inflation at about 150,000% in Dec 2007.
quote: Freedom of association and assembly curtailed
The Public Order and Security Act (POSA) and the Miscellaneous Offences Act continued to be used selectively to prevent the political opposition and civil society groups from meeting or engaging in peaceful protest. Hundreds of human rights activists were arrested or detained under these laws during the year. Freedom of expression
Repressive laws, including the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Broadcasting Services Act, were used to curtail freedom of expression. In July the government introduced the Interception of Communications Bill in Parliament which if passed into law would further restrict freedom of expression. It would allow the authorities to intercept both telecommunications and mail, and raised fears that the government would use it to spy on the activities of human rights organizations and the political opposition.
The trial of trustees and staff of Voice of the People, an independent radio station that broadcast from outside Zimbabwe but maintained offices in the country, started on 25 September. The state withdrew charges against the individuals and was to charge the Voice of the People Trust under the Broadcasting Services Act for broadcasting without a license.
Mugabe is an idiotic tyrannical despot unfit for any leadership position as it has been proven disastrous for his country. There are no freedoms political or economic in Zimbabwe and his people continue to suffer as a result of his ineptitude and corrupt government.
The really sad thing is that not only is his country in shambles, some are actually *defending* his regime here.
Millions of zimbabweans are suffering under his regime and yet some here are blaming this on "evil white people in the west" that's incredibly ignorant and disrespectful to zimbabwes people.
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
Oh, and Mmmkay, brotha nice try but I'm gonna havta go with sb over what you stated on this one for now and
quote:The Zimbabwe Conservation Task Force released a report in June 2007, estimating 60% of Zimbabwe's wildlife has died since 2000. The report warns that the loss of life combined with widespread deforestation is potentially disastrous for the tourist industry.
And how does this demerit Robert Mugabe considering the power struggle as stated by Sportsbilly on Mugabe & Zimbabwe, and also stated by rasol and my Uncle (on the true basis for Iraq war)?
UK and the US are some of the most heavily industrialised nations in the world with Germany (which not to long ago - along with much of inland/Western/Northern Europe was forest and plains, with various animals) now having barely any wildlife at all.
And I don't mean birds that poop on cars and buildings either.
Oh, ohmy not us, let's expect freakin thrid world countries to preserve the wild-life and save our white asses.
This reminds me of the US telling India and other Asian nations getting ready to heavily industrialise - not to drive cars.
This is not even addressing the validity of the ZCTF's numbers peeps.
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
yep, its official Mmmkay is the most reactionary, naive, ignorant negro in here. Not that I am surprised though. I mean AI? Please!
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
^ The interesting thing here is that nobody has even denied/disproven the data that suggests Mugabe is in fact, a corrupt and tyrannical ruler who is starving and politically/economically depriving his own people. Somehow that slipped over your heads.
Who's ignorant then?
quote: Oh, and Mmmkay, brotha nice try but I'm gonna havta go with sb over what you stated on this one for now
Can't agree on everything Atleast your one of the few sane voices left here.
P.S. Despite the cockroach above's idiotic comments (some babbling on about MLK) that was a good and inspiring video Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
Another short speech folks, but this one's for MMMkay's eyes alone.
Mmmkay,there's a lot of people like you out there who believe anyhting that's put in print, or broadcast over the air, because you don't want to think for yourself. We saw this when the American media decided it wouldn't question Bush's rationale for war. Now it's the BBC's and their non-stop Mugabe bashing.
The same British government that's ready to piss their pants if Mugabe isn't hanged doesn't give a rip about thousands dead and CHILDREN being tortured. I have yet to hear the BBC accuse Mugabe of torturing children--though I'm sure they're culling the streets of Harare desperately looking for anyone who'll start such a rumor (an MDC source, no doubt). They don't give a damn about Africans starving or dying. If they did they would have jumped on Sudan and the Congo by now where two MILLION plus Africans have either been killed or STARVED to death.
Now, the hook the BBC is using to fool simple-minded folks like you into siding against Mugabe is to say Mugabe's a theif who's stealing or otherwise mismanaging the Zimabbwean treasury for his own personal gain, and this is why the country's economy is in the shape it's in. That's funny, because the same BBC, and the same British government, didn't think he was a thief for the prior twenty years when he was doing the Brits bidding. You want to tell me you actually believe in the last eight years he suddenly decided to turn to a life of crime? And that the BBC's sudden choice to "report" this has nothing to do with the 2000 land reforms? Because they didn't start bashing Mugabe until he did that. Does the BBC's bullshit actually sound plausible to you?
Let's talk about the economic hardships going on in Zimbabwe and why it's really happening. Here's a hint--It's not the economy, stupid! First of all, the British are the main ones who brought about the economic sanctions that are hurting the Zimbabwean people. If they really cared about the Zimbabweans economic well-being, why not lift the sanctions? Because the goal isn't to see the Zimbabweans better off, it's to get Mugabe out of there. He could stop all his policies tonight and they'd still want him out becausae they don't want any African thinking they can stand up to white power without losing their position. This is about making an example of Mugabe. What you're seeing now should not come as any surprise. It's exactly what the white power elite in ALL these African countries threatened to do if the Africans ever tried to overthrow them. The whites have ALWAYS had the Zimbabwean people behind the eight-ball, just as they have the rest of Africa behind the eight-ball. They control the industries and the wealth. That's been their leverage for thirty years. What's happening in Zimbabwe isn't some local struggle as the BBC has so easily convinced you it is. This is a test case for the entire continent of Africa on whether a ruling white elite can be overthrown. Whenever the blacks demanded the right to nationalize the mines or take back the farmland the whites always threatened to destabilize the economy by shutting down the mines and sending food prices through the roof by stopping food production. Any of this sounding familar to you MMMkay? Every African state has been under this white ecnomomic terrorism, and the same BBC you love so much hasn't reported on it. Rather than ask why Mugabe should remain in power you should be asking why the BBC has suddenly gotten all hot an bothered over this when they havne't made a peep over Sudan. The economy of Sudan in the tank and they're in the middle of a civil war where blacks are being run off their land and slaugtered by the hundreds of thousands. So let's not pretend this has anything to do with the welfare of the African people, or economic conditions, or even white squatters "rights." This is about making sure Africa's resources remian under white European control and that the blacks don't get any funny ideas about changing that.
If the Africans ever hope to overthrow the whites then it goes without saying the whites will play the economic card, it's the only card they've got. The whites will never let the Africans prosper to the point that they could toss the whites out with minimal hardship, so this fight would HAVE to happen, like this, one way or the other. Economic squeeze is the only weapon the whites have got. The line has to be drawn here.
Now, as for the BBC. They're carrying out the Britsh governments political agenda. Making as much noise as possible in order to sway the opinion of the international community--that's the audience they're talking to. The goal is to give Mugabe enough bad press that the African leaders will feel pressured to turn on him in order to keep their own white ruling classes happy. And the matter will hyped to the sky so that the UN feels rushed into "doing something" about a manufactured crisis. The result will be that when Britain announces they're going to send in the British military to "restore democracy" everyone will allow it to happen, because Mugabe is SUCH a bad guy. The exact same strategy Geroge Bush used in 2002. Or do you still believe Sadaam had WMD?
Read my post above where I point out that in England British farmers are losing their farms left and right, and it's not Mugabe who's kicking them off their land, it's Britain's Inland Revenue Service. These are farmers who the British people depend on for food, not the white farmers who only fed the whites in South Africa. Yet, who do the Brits (who are going through the same food shortage as the rest of the world) feel more strongly about? White farmers in Africa who have never fed a single Brit in England. The power of the media.
Mugabe has been in charge for nearly thirty years and for the first 20 we didn't hear a peep about "ecnomomic mismanagement." That phrase only came about when in 2000 he started throwing white farmers off African land. THEN we started hearing how horrible he was at managing Zimbabwe's economy. So after 20 years of great management he suddenly became "corrupt" and "incompetent?" Are you really so dense you can't tell when white power has tired of a lackey and wants a quickie regime change? From Allende's Chile, to Vietnam to Iraq, this is a textbook case of the whites making friends with leaders, then turning on them when they find they can't control them.
The BBC is using a cheap psychological trick. They mention politlcal unrest, economic malaise and white squatters being evicted, all in the same sentance, over and over and over. They do that to build a false association in people's minds. They want people to associate the land reforms with a bad economy so that when Mugabe is out their puppet president will quietly eliminate the land reform program and no one will be the wiser. Now what will this result in? The same cycle of poverty the Zimbabweans have been trapped in. In other words, more of the same. Oh, but cooking oil will be $1.35 again! Guess that makes it worth it.
Tell me MMkay, when Tzaringai's MDC (who is ENTIRELY backed by white money) won seats in the Zimbabwean government, why is it that the whites came running back to the farms they'd been evicted from? They weren't calling for "reconciliation" or a "unity government." They totally disrgarded the government's order and went back to squatting. Tzaravingai is their puppet, who's ONLY job is to make sure they don't lose the land they stole. They were so sure he'd get them back all their lost power and privilege. They don't give a damn about the Zibabwean people, though you seem to think they do. The only choices the whites are offering the Africans is slave-wages or none at all. Now don't you think they deserve a better choice than that? Blame Mugabe for not having done the land rforms 20 years ago, that's legitimate. Blame him for not hainvg black farmers ready to move in the second the whites were put out. That's legitimate. But don't you dare blame him for the fact he's doing this at all.
Mugabe is the white's worst nightmare. They can't intimidate him, threaten him or overthrow him. They're helpless to oust him. Mugabe's example will embolden other African leaders who have been itching to get rid of the white ruling class. Do you know how much money Britain stands to lose if that happens? Hundreds of Billions, Mmmkay. Starting to see why the expatriates in Zimababwe have no trouble getting the BBC to tow the line? White power-mongers stick together.
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay: ^ The interesting thing here is that nobody has even denied/disproven the data that suggests Mugabe is in fact, a corrupt and tyrannical ruler who is starving and politically/economically depriving his own people. Somehow that slipped over your heads.
Who's ignorant then?
quote: Oh, and Mmmkay, brotha nice try but I'm gonna havta go with sb over what you stated on this one for now
Can't agree on everything Atleast your one of the few sane voices left here.
P.S. Despite the cockroach above's idiotic comments (some babbling on about MLK) that was a good and inspiring video
Girl child please, I've enough experience with simpletons like you to know that engaging you in facts is pointless. When you spout ludicrous propaganda lines like there are no freedoms political or economic in Zimbabwe you reveal your ignorance of the situation. No wonder you go for proven white front organisations like AI. It would never even occur to you to broaden your knowledge by reading New African magazines etc, or even your own congress woman Cynthia McKinney because they are not sanctioned by your master. See Mmmkay I had you figured out from day one. Girl you are a waste of time.
SB, Britian is known for starving their own kind, so we expect them to do the same, if not worse, to us.
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
He says he wants peacekeepers, but "he was not calling for military intervention." What a joke. What, are the peacekeepers supposed to be there to coutn the votes? This is it folks! The fall of white supremacy in Africa begins here. Thank GOD for Robert Mugabe finally seeing the light.
Posted by Arwa (Member # 11172) on :
What is going on
This morning this traitor said he wanted international peace corps into the country and monitoring the election
quote:Originally posted by sportbilly: Hey, breaking news! Tzvaringai has slitherd out of his white master's den.
I'm waihttp://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=reply;f=15;t=000419;replyto=000026 EgyptSearch Forums: Post A Replyting for him to vow that if the white squatters are tossed he'll set himself on fire.
Posted by sportbilly (Member # 14122) on :
Read above post. He still is! And sorry, I was adding/editing that in my post when you were quoting me.
Posted by Arwa (Member # 11172) on :
I think he lost any credibility when sought refuge in Dutch embassy.
Well done Jacob Zuma!!
Posted by HORUS^*^ (Member # 11484) on :
Mugabe's my kinda guy. Doesn't waste time whinging. Straight up Gangster.
Posted by sportbilly (Member # 14122) on :
Yes, Zuma is making sure S African Pres. Thabo Mbeki (another white lapdog) doesn't try any overt moves agaisnt Mugabe. If Mbeki does Zuma will benefit from it. Because he too is riding a wave of black disconent which will ulitmately take the form of land reclaimation. Mugabe's example is spreading! Only 48 hours to go until he's victorious. I'll bet there's going to be hell to pay afterwards too.
And aren't the white powers that be SO angry the so-called African Union (a weak, petty organization the Euorpeans created BTW) don't have the ability to stop a kindergarten brawl, much less a political strongman? The only way to stop Mugabe now would be a British-led invasion, which is politcall untenable at the moment. Guess that's why they're trying to pressure the UN to let them.
You try to put a real leader into a corner he's going to fight his way out of it. Good for Mugabe. Now, if he would just start seizing the mines and expelling the foreginers wholesale.
I'm hoping he's just waiting until after the elections on Friday.
Posted by Arwa (Member # 11172) on :
Let's wait until Friday, and I hope nothing will happen to Mugabe.
Mugabe is lucky to have the support of military and the public.
I spoke to a friend of our family few weeks ago, and he is from Zimbabwe, and visited the country recently for a year and two. I asked him if the situation got worse or if the situation in country is like what we see on TV. He said people are well aware of the situation on the country and frankly people are not worry. They consider this a battle between an old man and rich white people. And that is the problem with the White Man. He thinks that Africans are incapable to see through their plan.
I am very proud of people of Zimbabwe and I'll be more proud on Friday Posted by sportbilly (Member # 14122) on :
I'm sure Mugabe will not be assassinated, but he's 84 year old. How much longer can he last?
He needs to finish this now, expel every white in the country, nationalize the mines, and pack the government with reform-minded hardliners. If he lets the whites stay they will slink into the shadows, wait for Mugabe's successor, and try to buy him off. If that fails they'll try to assassinate him, or claim he's a dictator. We'll be right back where we are today.
Mugabe needs to finish this now!
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
Mugabe's situation is the same as Castros's. Neither are US/European puppets, so they both get embargoed and massive demonetization from the anglo press. If Chavez wasn't sitting on an ocean of oil, he'd be in the same predicament.
Mugabe and Zimbabwe need to form closer alliances with South America and Cuba. Perhaps form an alternative power block which come trade on each others strengths. The won't have to try to buy Mugabe or Castro's successors off. They are probably already in the wings groomed and waiting waiting.
Posted by sportbilly (Member # 14122) on :
Mugabe's trying to buld an alliance with China, but I find it disturbing that every time he mentions China he does so in the context of, "We are turning our backs on the west, and looking east." Then he doesn't do anything. It's as if he's giving the whites one last warning or something.
I think he's still trying to reach some sort of modus vivendi with the whites. He still hasn't completely accepted that he must make a TOTAL break with them.
You're right though, meninarmer. Mugabe neends to reach out to reformers like Chavez and bring in the Chinese for supply and advice. Time to put the whties behind him--things have LONG since gone past the point of no return. So far he's only talked about it, but I don't see any damns or bridges being built. I don't see any black-owned farm consortiums eithre.
Mugabe must accept that the future of Zimbabwe doesn't have any whites in it. They've had every chance there is. It's time for them to go.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^ This only makes sense. If Zimbabwe were able to achieve even moderate success in merging it's economy with the South American power block, other African nations would follow. This scenerio would definitely help Zimbabwe with it's current farming crisis. Cuba has successfully implemented some radical green farming programs to sustain them under the US embargo.
The Chinese could prove to be very useful to enabling certain financial flows into Africa, but I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw an elephant.
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
Links are already there with China, Cuba and Latin America. However it is not rational to think you can delink totally from the west and expel every white. It is not even necessary. The success of China and Latin America are precisely because of the trade she has with the west. The reality is trade with the west has huge benefits for Africa. Lets not get carried away. Africa needs only to throw away the bad policies that have led to western companies ripping off the continent. Let Europe know that the old master/slave relationship is over and she will have to pay for what she wants in Africa now. It will take some time to get use to but the west will eventually have to deal with this new Africa as she does China now.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
A couple of points:
1) Mugabe took 20 years before he started moving on the land issue because he was waiting for the British to keep their promises--solemly agreed to during the Lancaster House accords The final straw was that letter from British official Clare Short who just wrote that Britain had no obligation to follow up on Lancaster House. Before that time the British were busy massaging him with all kinds of honorary doctorates and even a knighthood.
2) Some argue that Mugabe didn't move on the land issue until 2000 because he didn't want to create a storm while the end of Apartheid was being negotiated
3)The argument being used by the kith and kin West that elections should be postponed because of--as they claim 'violence'is disingenuous. Elections were held in Sierra Leone during the heights of the civil war there some years ago. Almost the same for Liberia and Sudan.
4) Some years ago elections were held in Algeria and an Islamic party won The West quickly seconded it when the government just annulled the election
5) The inflation in Zimbabwe is directly caused by the huge credit squeeze and denial of access to Euro credit and money. As you know, to import things in any African country requires Euro money, the so-called 'hard currencies' local currencies are always valued according the going exchange rates. The question is always: how many Zim dollars for eqch Western currency unit. Thus the scarcer the Western currency the more local currency you must come up with to get just one unit of the Euro money--just to trade. The West refuses categorically to accept African currency--except the SA Rand. So I wonder why SA never thought of extending the Rand to all of Southern Africa. In West Africa, the CFA is used across many countries but sadly it's controlled by the French treasury.
One of the problems with many blacks is that they have no shame. Example: Tsvangirai running into that Dutch embassy to seek 'refuge'--as he claimed. And by the way the Afrikanners, the architects of Apartheid are of Dutch origin.
Posted by sportbilly (Member # 14122) on :
Excellent point lamin about the Dutch and apartheid! Beautifully stated.
We can all agree that one doesn't have to look far to find out why the Western powers that be are trying to make Zimbabwe into some sort of "crisis." At this point I think they can see they've lost this one. But will Mugabe capitalize on it? We'll see.
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
quote:The interesting thing here is that nobody has even denied/disproven the data that suggests Mugabe is in fact, a corrupt and tyrannical ruler who is starving and politically/economically depriving his own people. Somehow that slipped over your heads.
Still no answers. Sportbilly and our resident cockroach provided nothing in the way ofa real refutation of my above points.
On Mr Mugabes Recently Built Palaces: Since His Tax Base is Screwed Over, He Receives "Donations" From Other Countries to Cover the Cost of his Extravagance
quote: While the poor people of Zimbabwe fight for a days meal, this is how the President of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe lives.
* Arab artists spent a year decorating the ceilings * 3 acres of accommodation * Estimated 26 million USD to build * 25 en-suite bathrooms * Neighbours in Borrowdale, Harare, have been told to sell up and leave to protect Mugabe’s security * China has donated the glazed blue tiles that cover the roof. * Malaysia has donated the timber * there are underground rooms reinforced with concrete * It is 3 times the size of the State House. * has 44 acres of landscaped grounds * A Serbian construction company built it - Energoproject - to a Chinese design. Mugabe said in interview that the Serbian company donated their material and labour * 50 crack riot response police guard it on a 24 hour watch
quote: For those who still think that Robert Mugabe is a hero, think again. This writer has come across people in the past who have proudly stated that Mugabe is about the only African leader who has had the guts to face up to Tony Blair and other western leaders. It isn't Tony Blair or the British subjects he governs that are starving today or fleeing like refugees to South Africa and Mozambique. It isn't Tony Blair that is currently overseeing an economy that has been in continuous decline for the past seven years.
You guys are simply insane if you make this man out to be anything other than a total monster. No amount of western propaganda can create thousands of refugees leaving Zimbabwe as we speak.
This guy needs to be taken out. Both Zimbabwe and Africa will be better off in the end. Jesus.
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
Did you not see Lamin put the socio-economic situation in context, you dufus? It went straight over your head didn't it? Which is why you are convinced your propaganda went unanswered.LOL Jesus girl you are so pathetic.
AI reports, like those from the right wing AEI, are not worth the paper they are written on. Even your crack head article talks about "Mandela doctrine" (LMAO!) which is supposed to "right wrongs" yet it cannot explain the contradictions of high crime, farm attacks, and poverty in this country that supposedly benefited from this "doctrine"! LOL please girlchild just go away you're too annoying.
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
On a side Akoben88 already has over 600 posts LMAO at his stats right now lol
Looking at lamins points, again, keys realities are bypassed to make him look favorable. The fact that mugabe is a dictator who restricts his peoples economic freedoms, builds mcmansions, and beats and jails political opponents is completely ignored.
I'll even make it easy. Simply answer these questions with a satisfactory response:
1) why is he building mansions while his people are starving?
2) why does he rig elections or otherwise make it impossible for anyone to win other than himself, thus continuing his 20+ year reign?
How many times must I bring these points up? I want an answer from someone other than mr. cockroach above. He's on ignore.
Thanks.
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
Hey, girl child, first you have to prove he is a "dictator" rigging elections, i.e. explain the presence of an opposition in parliament and anti-government news papers. Show that it is only MDC being attacked and how the sanctions and credit squeeze are unrelated to the present economic situation. Merely spouting propaganda as if it is truth by default will not do. Youre such a simpleton which is why no ones takes you seriosuly. Me, I like having fun b***h slapping you around.
Oh btw, you also have to prove your propaganda pics:
BOOM! Smackdown! Great job Akoben. Must break Mmmkay's heart to think his precious western media might have--gasp!-- lied to him.
Mmkay, Akoben has already answered your question, as have I. The west/white powers want a puppet, ike Kenya. They want someone who will not take their stolen land or mines. Darfur is a crisis. The Congo is a "crisis". Nightline is doing a piece on the Congo tonight. Watch it, and then come back and tell me that the British aren't trying to use "democracy" and made-up human rights claims as a smokescreen to stop the return of land and recources to the african people. You can't afford to be this naive, you know.
Mugabe is not a "dictator." Dictators don't lose seats in their own government as he did in March. Dictators don't allow their opponents to run against them, and not take their names off the ballots. Dictators "suicide" their opponents, like the president of the Ukraine who was radiation poisoned by the Russians. In a dictatorship a ruling class has ALL the money and owns ALL the land and has relegated the people to second-class citizen status. Has Mugabe done that, or the whites? Dictators do ballot-stuffing and intimidations at the polls. Like the Republicans in the US.
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
Kay, trust me, sportsbilly is a seasoned politics veteran on this forum. He's been paying attention the whole time, which is a lot better than speculative conclusions based on grazing propaganda - especially if the one doing so doesn't seem to have been paying attention the whole time.
Though the claims were slanderous,
quote:* 50 crack riot response police guard it on a 24 hour watch
^And? He's Mugabe. The fact that this would be considered "rash" or "extreme" to anyone says alot about how knowledgable they are on this subject.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
quote:1) why is he building mansions while his people are starving?
2) why does he rig elections or otherwise make it impossible for anyone to win other than himself, thus continuing his 20+ year reign?
How many times must I bring these points up? I want an answer from someone other than mr. cockroach above. He's on ignore.
1) Who knows whether the cost of that mansion is $26 million? After all one can build a 10 bedroom house in Africa for less than $200,000. You will be surprised at how many big mansions you will see in Africa built by successful businessmen, athletes, politicians, diamond and gold dealers, etc. Labour and local materials are cheap. The only expensive stuff would be the steel rods and the imported add-ons like toilets, etc. There were even claims made by British journalists that Mugabe had a castle in Scotland. It was false.
2)If Mugabe is so adept at rigging elections. Then why didn't he just rig this one?
3)The only reason that Mugabe is the best known African leader now is simply that the British and other Europeans are enraged that despite all those honorary doctorates and honorary knighthood he chose to restore the stolen lands to 300,000 landless Zimbabweans.
4) In terms of luxurious living and length of time in office Mugabe is easily outdone by presidents like Mubarak of Egypt, Bongo, Dos Santos of Angola, Ali of Tunisia, etc. all friends of the West.
This is no brief for Mugabe but if you check the record you will see that Mugabe greatly extended the education base of Zimbabawe at al levels post independence. The roads are usually in good shape and clean. Visitors to the Zimbabwe Book Fair now suspended by the West always commented on the orderliness and good roads in Zimbabwe.
As I said, it's just that Mugabe took all that massaging from the West yet in the end he just took back the lands the settlers stole--and handed them over to 300,000 Zimbabweans.
The economic problems in Zimbabwe are directly caused by the Western action of blocking Zimbabwe's access to foreign exchange credit. How else can you ever get such a high inflation rate? It had to be externally generated.
There was droughts in Southern Africa over the last years and that explained problems with the maize harvest.
The people who voted for the Euro party, MDC[all the top officials except Tsvangirai are Europeans]are doing so out of desperation with the economy. Exactly as the West wanted: starve them out so that they riot or stage a coup. If this does not happen then simply have "our man" Morgan ready to vote Mugabe out.
We can then get Morgan to make it easy to get the land back and we will then make Zimbabwe safe again for white business.
It should be remembered that Europeans have always operated on the principle that "what is ours is ours but what is yours is ours too". That's why they just can't understand why an African like Mugabe doesn't understand that.
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay: "Cause I'm Black" by Styles P
btw nice song/vid, I favorited it a couple days ago (or a day ago, can't remember), is it your vid?
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
quote: Mmkay, Akoben has already answered your question, as have I.
He has'nt answered anything, (as usual). I'm not even paying attention to him. His posts are troll-bait and a waste of time.
quote:The Congo is a "crisis". Nightline is doing a piece on the Congo tonight. Watch it, and then come back and tell me that the British aren't trying to use "democracy" and made-up human rights claims as a smokescreen to stop the return of land and resources to the African people.
Nonsense. 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.
Look I understand what you are trying to do. Yes the west is responsible for alot the political intrigues and conflicts raging across parts of Africa today in some way. Western governments have financed coups, assassinations, rebel gangs etc since the 1960's cold war era and post independence.
But the fact remains africa with a few exceptions (tunisia, bostwana) is currently one of the most corrupt regions in the world and one of the least economically free.
quote: Dictators don't allow their opponents to run against them, and not take their names off the ballots.
Thats a narrow concept of dictators. 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.
quote: In a dictatorship a ruling class has ALL the money and owns ALL the land and has relegated the people to second-class citizen status. Has Mugabe done that, or the whites?
He owns mansions. He owns the elections. He owns the fear of his own people. He is a dictator.
I'll address lamins post when I have more time. Unlike akoben88 I'm not on call here 24/7 lol.
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Thats a narrow concept of dictators. 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.
So being elected to office over and again makes you a dictator?! LMAO @ this little girl's twisted logic to justify her lies. You have yet to prove he has rigged elections and is responsible for the economic crisis. You are a proven liar, posting propaganda pictures.
And hey, simpleton, corruption in Africa doesn't exist in a vacuum, and like other parts of the non-white world it's always linked to the west e.g. billions went missing in Iraq and Bush and Co. are no doubt still stealing from Iraqis. The mere fact that you have to grudgingly admit western intrigues ("in some way" LOL) and proclaim Africa least economically free, without even attempting to explain why, shows you're a simple, uninformed reactionary, the typical negro propagandist.
So for your lies and simple-mindedness you deserve another
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
^I have to admit akoben08, that not only are you right about Zimbabwe, but you find and post some funnyass pictures aswell.
Posted by sportbilly (Member # 14122) on :
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.
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
sportbilly
quote:Originally posted by sportbilly: Unless you're going to tell me it was the African Union who slapped sanctions on Zimbabwe.
Your posts are addictive.
More points for the interview point out.
Posted by sportbilly (Member # 14122) on :
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.
Posted by sportbilly (Member # 14122) on :
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.
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
great replies to mmmkay sportbilly, too bad you're wasting your time on her.
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
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.
Posted by sportbilly (Member # 14122) on :
Latest headlines just in: Intimidation tactics expected in Zimbabwe's runoff election
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!
Posted by Arwa (Member # 11172) on :
Beautiful said!
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.
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
quote: those sanctions were travel-related not economic.
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.
Posted by sportbilly (Member # 14122) on :
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.
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
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. Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
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.
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
^ 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.
This is the last time I will post directly in response to you. Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
Oh my, Mmmkay you have grown ugly
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.
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.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Does anybody have any unbiased report of Mugabes election, and what does it mean for South Africa also.
I don't know if Mugabes win is a good thing or not.
Peace
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
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.
Posted by sportbilly (Member # 14122) on :
Lamin says:
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!
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
So too Laurent Kabila!
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
quote:Mugabe wins by a "landslide!"
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".
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
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?
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Maybe this is western progranda?
No this is:
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.
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
ROTFLMAO @ sportsbilly's latest posts, and at this one with the hilarious (for the situation) gif or whatever;
quote:Originally posted by akoben08:
quote: those sanctions were travel-related not economic.
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.
Posted by JMT (Member # 12050) on :
The Real Trouble with Zimbabwe
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.
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.
Posted by ^*^ (Member # 11484) on :
^massively potent as usual. Like a nice hit of the finest sativa in dam.
Posted by Arwa (Member # 11172) on :
You have my vote
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.
Posted by Jo Nongowa (Member # 14918) on :
Lamin:
Brilliant analysis about the post-colonial culture of certain southern & eastern african nations.
Great Post.
Posted by Jo Nongowa (Member # 14918) on :
Arwa:
I am honoured in SECONDING your vote.
Respect
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
Appreciated! Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
Excellent article you posted, JMT.
So get my vote too lamin, one thing though: I'm young so maybe I'm out of the loop on Mandela.
That was a real shocker for me.
Mandela? A self-hater?
And a bit demoralizing, but a wake-up as usual.
First I learned how he was in a completely compromised position (from this site), now I learn that he may have been a self-hater.
Where do you make the connection.
Posted by sportbilly (Member # 14122) on :
How old are you Alive?
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!
Posted by VEILGENIUS^*^ (Member # 11484) on :
^Indeed.
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.
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
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.
LOL
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
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!
Posted by sportbilly (Member # 14122) on :
^^^ 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!
Posted by VEILGENIUS^*^ (Member # 11484) on :
^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 .
Posted by Arwa (Member # 11172) on :
VEILGENIUS^*^
LOL Posted by sportbilly (Member # 14122) on :
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!
Posted by VEILGENIUS^*^ (Member # 11484) on :
quote:Originally posted by Arwa: VEILGENIUS^*^
LOL
Which describes me better, LIVE, VILE, EVIL or VEIL? All of the above??
heh heh Posted by VEILGENIUS^*^ (Member # 11484) on :
Arwa, the info you require is:
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").
Posted by Arwa (Member # 11172) on :
^
Edit:
In FaceBook????
Posted by VEILGENIUS^*^ (Member # 11484) on :
^Naw, on here...
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 .
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
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
Posted by Arwa (Member # 11172) on :
I just want to know your FaceBook id
quote:Originally posted by VEILGENIUS^*^: ^Naw, on here...
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 .
Posted by VEILGENIUS^*^ (Member # 11484) on :
^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.
Posted by Arwa (Member # 11172) on :
^calm down. I searched 526259918 and no profile
Posted by EVILGENIUS^*^ (Member # 11484) on :
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...
Posted by Arwa (Member # 11172) on :
Can't register, anyway, I'll send my user's name on FaceBook
Posted by Arwa (Member # 11172) on :
Horus,
Did you get my e-mail?
BTW, I am off the internet very soon, and yeah, I know, my profile is dull Posted by EVILGENIUS^*^ (Member # 11484) on :
^I couldn't find you (Myra...) on there still... you Internet n00b! lol .
^That's just one of my decoy accounts. Add me as a friend, then I'll send you a link to my real Facebook profile .
Posted by sportbilly (Member # 14122) on :
More good news. The Britain plan to try to place "targeted" (read: personal and illegal) sanctions on the government of Zimnbabwe itself has crashed and BURNED.
So, the African Union didn't bow to British racist/imperialist shenangians and now the UN itself (where we all know Britain was hedging it's bets) has said "No, and shut the f*** up!" as well.
Gee, guess the former colonial powers are getting quit the wake-up call, ain't they? Posted by ZEN_BUDDHA_BOY^*^ (Member # 11484) on :
Happy dayz. Seems I might just see One free African country (or two...) in my lifetime. I'm rolling with Mugabe. Who U Wit? Posted by sportbilly (Member # 14122) on :
Anyone who will take back the land and resources for the people is a man (or woman) that I will stand with.
I never said I agree with what Mugabe has done in the past. I also feel he's too cozy with China, who is starting to dominate African industry to the point where most foodstuffs there come from China. I don't tout him as THE ANSWER.
But Africa's freedom and prosperity depends on one thing and one thing only-- that blacks and ONLY blacks be the ones who are the richest, most influential and powerful people on the continent. Those who answer to whites or arabs or the Chinese can't be tolerated. Mugabe is empowering the people and I'll stand by him as long as he does that.
Posted by ZEN_BUDDHA_BOY^*^ (Member # 11484) on :
^Let's be brutally honest. China saved Zimbabwe's ass from the British. I'm sure they didn't do it for nothing.
Like I always say, nothing wrong with win-win situations as long as he's not putting Zimbabwe under China's thumb. I hope the relationship is one of mutual respect. I'm willing to bet on the Chinese being of the calibre of people one can depend on (unlike Westerners in general).
Posted by sportbilly (Member # 14122) on :
quote:Let's be brutally honest. China saved Zimbabwe's ass from the British.
Seeing as how Russia also blocked the measure perhaps Africa owes undying gratitude to Putin too, huh? Let's not get carrieD away with the gratitude. That's one of the African's worst habits --turning a single act of kindness/benefit into an eternal debt that makes it where we allow our one-time benefactor to walk all over us. This is how the arabs got a stranglehold on Africa and it's also how China is coming to impose economically on Africa as well. Even now we can see that their strength is coming at the cost of our own. That's unacceptable, and if that's the cost of an Afro-Asian alliance then it's a cost that's simply too high.
Yes, they did us a good turn and the African has NEVER been one to show ingratitude (the world knows this and knows that it's our Achilles heel), but they don't get to hold this over our heads. Acts of goodwill simply ensure the relationship remains friendly --it's the LEAST you can do when you're supposed to be on good terms with someone, whether it's a family member, friend, or trading partner. However it doesn't make the person you benefitted into your indentured servant. To wit: speaking up when your trading partner is under threat is part of the price of doing business.
China is looking out for China. African businesses have been having hell because Chinese competition makes it where the Africans, who are already desperately poor, will buy the cheapest goods. African farmers, manufacturers, can't compete with the rock-bottom prices coming out of China. The end result? Africa's money is going into Chinese pockets and these countries can't get any sort of industrial sector going because of this. China doesn't seem too bothered by any of this.
Sooner or later the Africans will get tired of this and decide to do something about it. When that happens China will stop playing nice and bring out the brass knuckles. That's not pessimism, that's history and simple common sense. Remember, the Chinese are still supplying weapons to the Sudanese who use them in Darfur. The Chinese haven't been too bothered by this either.
And as for that "Chinese being dependable" business, as Dr John Henrik Clarke said, "Africa has NO friends...you think the Asians are going to come to Africa's rescue?... there may be [an alliance of sorts] along some lines, but not all the way." And I'm afraid you're simply dead wrong about that "I hope the relationship is one of mutual respect," stuff. In the real world there's only relationships of mutual advantage. But as hsitory shows, where the African is concerned, we've never had anyone who wasn't looking to stab us in the back eventually. China will be no different.
Africa and China have short-term LIMITED interests, the UN vote (seen correctly) is simply part of those interests --China wants resources far more than it's rivals (the UK/US) and it's in China's interest not to allow their trading partner, and his resources, to be taken over by those same rivals. They're getting far better mineral exploitation terms from Mugabe than they ever did, or would, from the Brits.
But their vote is no excuse to deny their economic and political imposition. It makes no sense to supply China's needs at the cost of our own. It's great that China stepped up to the plate on this one, but let's not get carried away here, standing up to what was a blatant attempt to re-colonize Africa was the right and moral thing to do. I mean, all they did was simply say the word "No" when a vote was taken. They didn't vow military action if Britain tried anything, nor did they push for counter-sanctions against Britain. They simply said one tiny word, with no praise for Zimbabwe, or promises of further support, attached. China's big and influential enough where nobody can do anything about it. So they risked absolutely nothing, but will gain a lot. Exactly how much thanks should they get for THAT?
The proper thins for Mugabe to do is to say "Thanks guys," sign the next trade agreement, after rigrous negotiations, and move on. The vote is history now and should be left in the past. Besides, it's not like Beijing isn't getting anything out of this.
Posted by Heru-Behutet^*^ (Member # 11484) on :
Hmmm... a lot of insights there. I didn't know China was supplying Darfur.
Let's hope Mugabe plays his cards right.
Posted by Jo Nongowa (Member # 14918) on :
Western Lies and Hypocrisy How Zimbabwe Exposes Mainstream Media By Ras Tyehimba July 20, 2008
The recent Zimbabwe elections saw an escalation of attempts by external forces to intervene in the sovereign and independent nation. Given the complex circumstances surrounding Zimbabwe, for the millions of people in the Caribbean and around the world, it has been difficult to get balanced views of what is going on; ever since the Zimbabwe government, under President Robert Mugabe, started to reclaim land that was stolen during British Colonial rule. Since the start of this land reclamation exercise to now, the events in Zimbabwe have exposed, firstly, how complicit international media are in the imperial agenda of the United States and Britain and secondly, how irresponsible and lazy the local mainstream media are. Local media seem quite content to jump on the anti-Mugabe bandwagon as they casually parrot news from international media sources such as BBC, CNN, Reuters and Associated Press.
How Do We Know What We 'Know'?
In recent times I have been reasoning with many people about what is happening in Zimbabwe, and a continual theme that emerged is just how much people rely on mainstream media for views about Zimbabwe and the wider world. Many persons admitted that BBC and/or CNN were the main sources that 'informed' their perspective on Zimbabwe. However, the Western Media, especially BBC and CNN, are openly on a mission to demonize President Robert Mugabe and bring about regime change in Zimbabwe. So it is like asking a person's sworn enemy for opinions/news about that person. Very unbalanced stories will be told. It is clear that the Western international media is complicit in fabricating/distorting stories to justify intervention in the affairs of sovereign nations. And that is one of the main points that is connected to understanding the Zimbabwe issue. Local media around the world, especially where I am from in the Caribbean, simply reproduce coverage by the dominant international media. Even when local commentators try to analyze the events they end up giving a very distorted picture mainly because they assume that the news they get from Western sources are true.
What is the importance of Zimbabwe some may ask? The misinformation surrounding Zimbabwe is relevant for many reasons. Firstly, for all people, misinformation hampers the ability to make proper assessments and subsequent decisions. Secondly, people of the 'Third World' are subjected to the same racism and imperial arrogance being directed towards Zimbabwe. Thirdly, it shows that because of the dominance and supposed credibility of Western media and spokespeople, they have great influence in manufacturing reality, world views and 'truth' that excludes and denies the historical experiences and sovereignty of many 'Third World' countries.
All of this raises an important issue. How do we know what we know? Zimbabwe is but one issue, but if the mainstream media cannot be trusted on Zimbabwe, it is not likely that they should be trusted on other issues, especially issues where the domination by Western powers is being challenged. The consequences of their laziness, irresponsibility and uncritical reproduction of Western propaganda is that many people remain ignorant, including many local commentators who are in a position to influence the masses. Many people thus need to re-examine their views on Zimbabwe and President Mugabe given this inadequate and biased reporting.
The land situation in Zimbabwe is crucial to understanding the motives and interests that underlie the Zimbabwe situation. Britain never saw the importance of urgently and fairly addressing the land issue, and from the colonial period to now, it has been intent on maintaining illegitimate White control of the land, which belongs to Black Zimbabweans. What is happening now has implications for countries across the African continent, where, after political independence, White settler families have maintained control of ill-gotten land, thus perpetuating the dispossession of many indigenous Blacks who had their land stolen during the European scramble for Africa. Zimbabwe, under President Mugabe, has made the most progressive moves on the whole of the African continent in addressing the vexing land issue. For more on how the land is at the center of Zimbabwe's liberation struggles read "Zimbabwe, BBC and illegitimate White Control".
Of Sanctions, Half Truths and Outright Fabrications
Make no mistake about the situation. Things are desperate in Zimbabwe, but contrary to media reports, it is not because of the evil or excesses of Mugabe but because of the deliberate actions of the US, UK and other European countries working through, and/or sponsoring a complex web of actors including opposition forces, NGO's, the IMF and the Western media. Contrary to the views of many, sanctions against Mugabe are not a recent act, although the sanctions have increased in severity in recent times.
The sanctions started approximately ten years ago as the Western-instigated response to the land reclamation exercise that saw land illegitimately gained by Whites repossessed and redistributed to over 300,000 Black Zimbabweans. These sanctions include denial of access to development loans, boycotting exports from Zimbabwe, discouraging foreign investment in Zimbabwe and blocking Zimbabwe's access to technology, agricultural supplies and machinery. According to one commentator: "In November 1998, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) implemented undeclared sanctions against Zimbabwe, by warning off potential investors, freezing loans and refusing to negotiate with Zimbabwean officials on the issue of debt. In September 1999, the IMF suspended its support for economic adjustment and reform in Zimbabwe. In October 1999, the International Development Association, a multilateral development bank, suspended all structural adjustment loans and credits to Zimbabwe; in May 2000 it suspended all other forms of new lending."
It is understandable that some Zimbabweans support the opposition given that it is being said by Western leaders that sanctions will be lifted and life made better if Mugabe is removed. Persons inside of Zimbabwe may even have some very valid reasons for being against Mugabe, similar to many people in any country being against their present leader. That is okay if such is the case, then elections will allow them to elect and change their representatives as they want. What I am saying is that the people of Zimbabwe should determine their leader without foreign imperialistic intervention. People should be wary about puppet governments being installed to simply look after Western interests and perpetuate Western domination.
There is political violence in Zimbabwe from both sides. The police have arrested supporters of both parties for acts of violence. Mugabe has implored party supporters not to use violence; the MDC on the other hand, has encouraged the overthrow of the democratically elected government by violence.
Many reports coming from mainstream sources reporting on violence sanctioned by Mugabe appears to be fabricated. For example, supposedly after the elections, there were reports of gangs of Mugabe's thugs going around and beating up those who voted for the opposition. This smells of fabrication, given the secret ballot system. There was one case where a report was made that ruling party thugs beat up a young child, which caused international furore, and was carried boldly by several international media houses. However, when independent doctors examined the child, it was discovered he was not injured but had a preexisting physical condition (club feet); the mother admitted she lied and allowed her child to be used for this ruse because she needed the money. The New York Times, among those that carried the story, subsequently issued a soft retraction. So they lie loudly and retract softly. Story is here.
There are other examples of their fabrications being exposed, a pattern of lying that is strikingly familiar to the lies and media complicity (including the invention of weapons of mass destruction) in the lead-up to the US and UK's illegal invasion of Iraq. Given the agenda of BBC, CNN and others, no report coming from them can be trusted. It is impossible to understand what President Mugabe's motives and actions really are when being relayed from his sworn enemies who have a VESTED INTEREST in demonizing him, the ruling party and their policies. That is the West's blueprint for regime change.
Blueprint for Regime Change
The events in Zimbabwe should not be totally strange to students of history as it is a simple application of the West's blueprint for regime change. This blueprint is multi-pronged and involves but is not limited to:
1) Deliberate lies, fabrications and distortions all in an effort to demonize and discredit the government they are trying to overthrow.
2) Sponsoring of opposition forces, local media groups, mercenaries, NGO's and other subversive elements to challenge the ruling party and destabilize the country. For more see "Zimbabwe at War".
3) Formal and informal economic sanctions and international isolation which amounts to economic terrorism, even in the eyes of one anti-Mugabe commentator. See "The Darker Side of Sanctions".
4) The use of organisations such as the IMF, the World Bank and even so-called independent human rights watchdogs to pressure 'problem' countries.
The imperial logic is that the more poverty, inflation and violence there is, the more desperate the local population will get to remove the leader. Also, the consistent unfair demonization of Mugabe and the ruling party has created allies for the Western intervention project as a direct consequence of the West's web of propaganda that says that Mugabe is solely responsible for the present economic and social woes of Zimbabwe. The United States sponsored 'Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act' of 2001 authorized President George W. Bush to fund 'opposition media' as well as 'democracy and governance programmes' inside Zimbabwe. In fact, the United States and Britain have been quite open about their desires for regime change and the fact that they are actively spending millions of dollars to accomplish that.
The Real Bullies and Dictators
I should state that I have many points of disagreement with Mugabe. However, he does not deserve the type of demonization that he is being subjected to in the Western media. It other words, it is not that Mugabe is not without his faults like any other leader, but his demonization is reflective of Western RACISM. For example, no matter how many millions Bush, Blair, Clinton and many other Western leaders kill, maim, oppress and starve with their sanctions, policies, bombs and acts of violence, they will never be mentioned in the same deep negative light.
Sensible people should easily recognize who are the ultimate dictators and bullies. It is those same countries that are accusing Zimbabwe of human rights abuses and dictatorship that have a long rap sheet of genocide, illegal interventions, economic terrorism and hypocrisy. I am not even slightly convinced that these Western powers are even minimally concerned about human rights and the welfare of ordinary Africans. The United States and Britain are quite content to support the most rabid of rulers and regimes, once it suits their strategic interests. Little mention is made in the Western press about the Ethiopian regime, headed by Meles Zenawi, who has imprisoned opposition members, stolen elections and carried out a brutal invasion of Somalia at the behest of Western powers.
It is the US, the UK and other Western imperialist regimes that have been acting like world dictators and bullies, and they are quite accustomed to supporting dictators who follow their agenda while, on the other hand, resorting to intervention and violence when the actions of a country threaten their interests or capitalist ideologies. The circumstances of Haiti, Venezuela, Iraq and Afghanistan (TO NAME A FEW) show the lengths that these dominant world powers will go to get their way. The invasion of Iraq was a classic example of their blueprint for regime change, one that involved deliberate lies about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction as a pretext for invasion and their dismissal of the objections by the international community.
The Age of Information and Misinformation
People should not be casual about accepting information; instead they should make the effort to explore alternative perspectives and sources. Given the stranglehold that mainstream ideas, views and Western media have on shaping people's world views, in this age of information and misinformation, those who have access to better information should not be naïve or lazy. I would strongly recommend that people expose themselves to a variety of perspectives to better understand what is happening in Zimbabwe. The Zimbabwe Watch website (www.zimbabwewatch.com) is a good place to start. The local media houses also need to get their act together and look at how they get their international news. However, when the public becomes more informed then they can pressure mainstream media into being more responsible.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
Britain has only 60 million people yet manages to fund the BBC[funded by the British government] which has a massive global reach with broadcasts in many languages. The BBC also has a large retinue of reporters almost everywhere.
The sad thing is that Africans get news about the continent mainly from the BBC. And most listeners just naively believe what they hear. Maybe it's because the newscasters are African for news about Africa.
By now there should have been an ABC with African reporters everywhere on the continent and all the other continents too, all broadcasting back to Africa. If Britain can afford it, then why not Africa--with a much larger population?
Posted by Yonis2 (Member # 11348) on :
^^Dont worry the Yorubas are soon gona launch the "NuBian TV" which is going to save the continent from missinformation and BBC.
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
In droves. Posted by Heru-Behutet^*^ (Member # 11484) on :
Hey, at least the Yorubas are making an attempt. What are you doing?
Posted by sportbilly (Member # 14122) on :
Alive, you just made my freaking day! Now, if the Africans get smart and put those immigration controls in place so the Chinese can't get it all will be right with the world.
Africa is purging itself and the white trash is self-deporting. A condition that couldn't come soon enough!
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
Man it makes me feel like so weird when I read about Zimbabwe and South Africa...
I just don't get why these people like Mugabe are doing what they are doing. I hope that some how some way the Zimbabweans find a way to take control of Zimbabwe and put a better person to rule the Nation. If the opposition manages to usher in a democratic change it might help.
Anyway, I think that America needs to do more in Africa, especially South Africa and other developing African nations like Nigeria and Mali
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
I actually would like to see America do less, especially less of the current forms of "help" that really hurt more than anything else. Right now, in order for Africans to get food aid, they often have to DISMANTLE their OWN food banks and agriculture networks, so that they can import AMERICAN GROWN food aid. That is bull sh*t.
Posted by Lord Sauron (Member # 6729) on :
^ I concur. Idiocy of the highest order.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
It is obvious that these countries are incapable of self government. Because of idealism we dismantled colonialism and as a result badly hurt the african people.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
LMAO, You, DJ, KIK are birds of a feather, or even better, peas in a pod.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: It is obvious that these countries are incapable of self government. Because of idealism we dismantled colonialism and as a result badly hurt the african people.
Incorrect. These countries STILL are dominated by white minorities who control large portions of the land and economies of these nations. And the corruption stems from the influence of FOREIGN interests and money into the hands and pockets of dictators. Much of the support was originally justified under the guise of Cold War politics. Now everything is simply about resource control and resource security. Such ideas are contradictory and make no sense, because Africans have NO resource security OF THEIR OWN, so how on earth does someone come in and talk of food security or resource security when Africans HAVE NONE to speak of? In other words, it is all about the foreign desire for African resources that has led to the situation in Africa for the last 400 years. Only a retarded racist would claim that colonialism was the best thing for Africans, when colonialism NEVER did anything for Africans. The only thing colonialism did was rape, kill and DESTROY Africans on a large scale. Any fool who suggests otherwise is to stoopid to even begin having a sane discussion with. The disruption of African lives due to slavery and colonialism has had a SEVERE impact on the fabric of African life and brought about the situations we see in Africa today. Africans WERE NOT starving, suffering from diseases or engaged in endless nonsense conflicts when Europeans first arrived in Africa. It has only been SINCE this time that these conditions have been created and most definitely BECAUSE of it. It was Europeans who mustered black African troops to do the killing and maiming of other Africans in the service of colonial administrations. It was black Africans who were forced to commit the atrocities in Congo under Leopold. It was black Africans who were mustered into the Armies of the Rhodesians and South Africans to kill their brethren thinking they would get ahead. So please, stop spewing ahistorical nonsense that does not reflect the FACT that the WEST and COLONIALISM are DIRECTLY responsible for the state of Africa today. Not only historically, but RIGHT NOW in the present day, through their ONGOING efforts to gain control of AS MUCH of Africa's natural resources they can get their greedy hands on. Where do MOST of the Arms being used in the conflicts in Africa come from? Africans can't even produce a decent MEAL for themselves yet they are armed to the teeth with weapons to kill? How can THAT come about without the assistance of foreigners? It can't. And it is AGAINST Western interests to get rid of the dictators in Africa, because the West only stands to LOOSE the cushy relationships that allow them to CONTINUE to loot the continent of wealth, to the detriment of the people of Africa.
Posted by HORUS of EDFU (Member # 11484) on :
^ Dude, you need to chill on the way you insult Africans. What exactly do you mean by
"so how on earth does someone come in and talk of food security or resource security when Africans HAVE NONE to speak of?"
Have you ever been to Africa? Posted by HORUS of EDFU (Member # 11484) on :
" Africans can't even produce a decent MEAL for themselves yet they are armed to the teeth with weapons to kill?"
Have you lost it Dude? What the **** are you saying???
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
I know someone like this: some people go on a rant and magnify everything when they are overly frustrated.
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
Also, sports -> I've heard from someone that there is already a plan to purge in the works (and liberate) and that they are just waiting for the proper times/signals.
Posted by HORUS of EDFU (Member # 11484) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box): I know someone like this: some people go on a rant and magnify everything when they are overly frustrated.
Yes it's quite annoying. I actually call it anti-African propaganda. Most rural Africans (from where I'm from anyway) have more food than they could possibly consume without trading it for something else. It's a giveaway most times.
And we cook the most fantastic meals. We have pounded yam with egussi, or with okro, or with gbegiri or with spinach stew. We have amala, we have asaro, we have ... in fact, it's rediculous trying to list all the tasty meals we make in my small part of the Yoruba land in West Africa. Imagine what else is out there in gigantic Africa.
Also, the average Nigerian has more "living space" than the average Westerner. This is a fact. Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
quote:Originally posted by Heru/HORUS OF EDFU: Yes it's quite annoying. I actually call it anti-African propaganda.
Darn right it is, and thanks for dropping that information.^^
quote:pounded yam with egussi,
this sound delicious and you've mentioned this before, but what are these things?:
quote:with egussi, or with okro, or with gbegiri
??
quote:... in fact, it's rediculous trying to list all the tasty meals we make in my small part of the Yoruba land in West Africa. Imagine what else is out there in gigantic Africa.
Point taken.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:I think that America needs to do more in Africa
quote:I actually would like to see America do less
quote: ^ I concur.
^ Lord Krishna can't make up his mind. LOL
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
]
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Arwa . I voted on the Guardian.co.uk poll and guess what the cumulative results were?![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Atleast your one of the few sane voices left here. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Now back to trolling.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
.