More Proof for the Monstrosity of Mugabe

12 Responses to “More Proof for the Monstrosity of Mugabe”

1. Andrew Brehm on June 12th, 2008 12:10 pm

   Totally off-topic and I am sorry about this, but I couldn’t think of a better place to say this.

   This German article by the excellent Ulrich W. Sahm (Jerusalem) speaks of a 76 year old Jewish woman who escaped Iraq a few months ago.

   http://www.n-tv.de/55_Jahre_nach_Entfuehrung_frei_Juedin_entkommt_aus_Irak/120620082012/978566.html

   Hanna Menashe’s family left Iraq 55 years ago. Hanna herself had apparently been kidnapped earlier.

   She was forcibly converted to Islam and married to a former neighbour, who appears to have been behind the kidnapping.

   One year ago her “husband” died and Hanna escaped to an unnamed European country (probably Turkey, my guess). There she contacted an Israeli embassy and said “I am Jewish and want to go to Israel”.

   The embassy contacted her family in Israel and decided that Hanna was real. She will move to Israel shortly.

   I’m not sure how much of the story is true, but I guess Hanna is real and did live in Iraq for 55 years after her family fled.

   I couldn’t find an English version of the story. But Ullrich Sahm is usually a very reliable source.

2. D P on June 12th, 2008 1:20 pm

   "What a bunch of filthy animals. Such monstrosity is beyond me. I had a chance to meet the stinking butcher himself and shake his hand previously but I refused fearing I might forever dirty mine."

   Good choice. It makes me think of the Nietzsche saying: "if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." It is best to steer clear of people like Mugabe. He wouldn’t have wanted to meet you unless he could somehow use you or the meeting to his advantage.

3. Drima on June 12th, 2008 4:06 pm

   Andrew,

   you could have just emailed that admittedly intriguing story dude.

   D P,

   Nietzche said that? Nice, never came across that quote before. And yeah, Mugabe is a total bitch.

4. charlie 316 on June 12th, 2008 7:16 pm

   I think he might have slightly misquoted Nietzsche, but it’s close enough to get the point across.

   When the late 20th century history of Africa gets written, it’s going to reveal Zimbabwe as big a catastrophe as Rwanda and the complicity of the South African regime has propped up one of the vilest regimes this side of Pol Pot.

   Still having destroyed some of the best farm land in Africa and gradually starving half the population, I am sure everyone noticed that Mugabe and his entourage in Rome, didn’t seem to have missed many meals.

   I wonder how many Zimbabweans these days look back on the colonial days with nostalgia?

5. Don Cox on June 13th, 2008 8:23 am

   I don’t think many Zimbabweans look back on the colonial days with nostalgia. The Smith regime was pretty bad.

   Mugabe is a typical Marxist dictator, a little version of Stalin and Mao. Famine has been a favorite weapon of these types all along.

   Mbeki is beneath contempt.

6. Andrew Brehm on June 13th, 2008 8:32 am

   “I don’t think many Zimbabweans look back on the colonial days with nostalgia. The Smith regime was pretty bad.”

   Hold on now. The Smith regime was NOT the “colonial days”. The Smith regime was a rebellion against the British.

   The colonial days were the time before Smith.

   A dictator who is white doesn’t make the country a colony. And a dictator who is black doesn’t make the country free.

   Personally, I think it would be better for Zimbabwe if the British took over again, at least for a while, to organise help and free elections. After that Zimbabwe should govern itself as an autonomous colony or Commonwealth dominion.

   Dictators like Smith and Mugabe shouldn’t have happened.

7. Don Cox on June 13th, 2008 5:21 pm

   If you go back to the time of Rhodes, the colonial rule in Rhodesia was based on white supremacist attitudes from the start.

   Smith and his friends were colonials who wanted to preserve the rule of the colonists.

   There is not the slightest chance that Britain would take over responsibility for any African country ever again. Those days are gone. The Zimbabweans are essentially on their own, and will get nothing from other countries except words.

   Even debate in the Security Council is being blocked by Mbeki.

8. Andrew Brehm on June 13th, 2008 6:09 pm

   “If you go back to the time of Rhodes, the colonial rule in Rhodesia was based on white supremacist attitudes from the start.”

   Actually, I don’t think so. The British Empire was officially colour-blind and the British government did try to enforce that too.

   “Smith and his friends were colonials who wanted to preserve the rule of the colonists.”

   No. Like in South Africa they were rebel scum that tried to take power from the British government and the monarchy’s representatives into their own hands.

   The apartheid laws enacted in South Africa and Rhodesia do not date back to the empire, they date back to independence and partial independence.

   It is always surprising to read newspaper articles from the late 19th century and find that the people then were not nearly as racist as we now believe they were and in many cases were far ahead of us.

   Do you think slavery would be made illegal now if it wasn’t already illegal? Do you think the politically correct crowd of today would fight for equal rights for all races, against current law? In 19th century Britain people did exactly that, sufficiently many to bring about changes, despite the economic downsides those changes might have brought, and despite the expenses.

9. Andrew Brehm on June 13th, 2008 6:19 pm

   “There is not the slightest chance that Britain would take over responsibility for any African country ever again. Those days are gone.”

   Well, I think that’s a problem.

   Some countries work better than others and Britain is among those that work best and have the power to enforce their decisions worldwide.

   These days we rely on the UN to administer regions that are unable to administer themselves. And what do the UN do? They watch over the genocide or rape the population. I’m not sure the worst decade of British imperialism wouldn’t have better statistics than some of the UN’s “successes”.

   People in today’s Zimbabwe were certainly not starving under British rule.

   “The Zimbabweans are essentially on their own, and will get nothing from other countries except words.”

   Yes, and that’s the problem. The world believes that just because they have a local dictator, everything is fine; and that any involvement of non-African countries is by definition despicable. And that is despite the fact that few African countries are even able to govern themselves, let alone advise or help others.

   These are the African countries I would trust to be able to help other countries and solve their problems: Morocco, Egypt, Ethiopia, Botswana (incidentally a country that kept the colonial administration in place and didn’t change much and left on good terms with the Empire), possibly Namibia, Lybia (although I wouldn’t want to see them “help” other countries, and South Africa before 1990 (same proviso applies as for Lybia).

   All others seem at the very least poor, usually badly mismanaged, often unstable, sometimes not recognised (Somaliland), and/or like warzones.

   “Even debate in the Security Council is being blocked by Mbeki.”

   I agree with you about Mbeki. In fact, his entire record is very bad.

10. charlie 316 on June 14th, 2008 9:53 pm

    Another example today of the utter corruption of the Mugabe clique, when they arrested a returning opposition leader at the airport and charged him with treason. This is the last refuge of a desperate regime when they start trumping up treason charges against the opposition.

    Another news report has Mugabe’s “war veterans” taking over a former white farmers’ country club and using the squash court as a torture chamber. Shame they didn’t spend some of the time reading the farming text books that were probably left lying around the place, instead of beating the crap out of their nearly starving neighbours.

    There is no possibility of the UK intervening in Zim as nothing would make African states close ranks in support of Mugabe, than the former colonial power getting directly involved. Right or wrong do not come into it. Also the logistics would be impossible, especially when you are already fighting two other wars.

    However, South Africa could have done a lot, but has chosen not to. Still Mbeki should be on the way out soon and you have to hope that the new leader will be more of a man. This may be a forlorn hope - just about the only SA leader who has spoken out against Mugabe is Desmond Tutu.

11. Andrew Brehm on June 16th, 2008 8:31 am

    “There is no possibility of the UK intervening in Zim as nothing would make African states close ranks in support of Mugabe, than the former colonial power getting directly involved.”

    How many Africans really despise the former colonial powers? Maybe those who have an interest in having an enemy are only much louder?

    I agree that there would be a backlash at the British should they intervene, but I doubt it would be by the majority or unite anyone.

    Africans are not stupid.

12. Andrew Brehm on June 16th, 2008 4:09 pm

    “Sir” Robert Mugabe…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZftv83nA0c

Leave a Reply