Monday, April 11, 2005

ZIMBABWE STATE TERROR AND ITS SOUTH AFRICAN ANC SUPPORTERS

The crimes taking place in Zimbabwe may only pale in comparison to Sudan's in Darfur or North Korea's concnetration camps. However, you see a striking thing here, the fervent support Mugabe gets from the South Afriacan President and the ANC? Why are his disgusting atrocities not important or even questioned? They almost seem to be supported? (Hat tip Damian Penny)

Its similar to a phenomenom BigPharaoh of Egypt describes but its more than this -

  • I will tell you why nobody moved after the Hilla massacre or after yesterday's massacre in Mosul that slaughtered over 50 Shias. They didn't move because those Iraqis were not killed by mericans. They were not killed by Israelis. I said it and I say it one more time: here in the Arab/Muslim world, a corpse with an American or an Israeli bullet in it is worth a billion times more than 100 bodies that were torn apart by non-American and non-Israeli explosives.

Andrew Kenny, in The Spectator -

  • President Mugabe of Zimbabwe must be extremely grateful to President Mbeki of South Africa, without whose constant support and encouragement he would probably not have been able to sustain his tyranny.
  • The ANC shouted and screamed against apartheid South Africa and Ian Smith’s Rhodesia and called for sanctions against both. It denounces what it sees as crimes of the Israeli government, such as the building of the wall to shut out Palestine. But against the mass murder, torture, terror, gang rape and deliberate starvation of the Zimbabwe people by Mugabe’s dictatorship, neither President Mbeki nor any other leading figure of the ANC in his government has whispered one word of protest.
  • Mbeki’s policy of ‘quiet diplomacy’ towards Zimbabwe has usually consisted of picking up a big megaphone and bellowing the virtues of Robert Mugabe. The ANC’s support for Mugabe is total.
  • The most frightening question hanging over the future of South Africa is this. Does the ANC support Mugabe out of political expediency or because it agrees with his actions? If the latter, will South Africa go the way of Zimbabwe?
  • Expediency would be easy to understand. The curse of black Africans, in Africa and abroad, is their unrequited obsession with the white man. Black Africans try to reduce all human existence to a simple morality tale in which the white man is the source of all evil and misfortune. They have little interest in black people beyond their borders but enormous interest in white people. If there is an atrocity in an African country, black people outside that country will not care unless there are white people concerned, either as instigators or as victims.[...]It needs no skill at all to win the applause of black activists around the world.
  • Any African president can kill as many black people as he likes knowing that, if he then condemns white imperialism, he is guaranteed acclamation. Idi Amin, no Machiavelli, did it in the 1970s. He murdered about a quarter of a million Africans but became a great African hero by expelling Asians from Uganda and announcing himself as a conqueror of the British empire. For this achievement he was made president of the Organisation of African Unity. Mugabe’s tactics are almost as crude. Mbeki would be an idiot to be surprised by them, and he is not.
  • Moreover, the ANC is now almost unassailable in South Africa. It won 70 per cent of the vote in the election last year and has no credible rival for power. Mbeki could easily stop supporting Mugabe’s reign of terror without losing significant support at home. So then there is the sinister possibility that Mbeki genuinely approves of Mugabe’s actions, both the persecution of opponents and the confiscation of white assets.
  • Mugabe and Mbeki are similar in many ways,
  1. Both men spend fortunes on pomp and ceremoNY.
  2. Both attack white Western culture while adoring it.
  3. Both try to dress like English squires and to sound like Oxford dons while at the same time ranting against white colonialism.
  4. Both silence all critics by calling them racists. (A difference, which probably does not have much practical importance, is that Mbeki seems to be a genuine racist whereas Mugabe’s racism is simply a device for retaining power.)
  5. The ANC and Zanu-PF both believe they are not just political parties but divinely ordained ‘liberation movements’, entitled to rule in perpetuity. Both seem unable to distinguish between the state and the party, and the opposition and the enemy.

Robert Mugabe's hired goons turning against him

  • "They used to give us pills before we went to beat people, but never food. We beat up one old man, he must have been in his 60s, for criticizing the lack of development in the area. He kept apologizing, but none of us stopped. If you were not enthusiastic enough, you would be the next victim."
  • The Green Bomber, who begged to remain anonymous, was so terrified of retribution that he insisted the interview take place in a moving car before dawn.He said that many thousands of young Zimbabweans who had been forced into militia training camps have fled the country.Other Green Bombers, he said, remained outwardly loyal to the government but planned to cast their votes for the MDC."They promised us jobs if we went through border [camps], but we never got anything," the Green Bomber said, hiding his distinctive olive vest under a sweater as he and a reporter passed a police vehicle. "I registered to vote last year, and I am going to vote MDC."

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home