Mugabe is using hit squads, says Tsvangirai

[Lucky]

Just an update on how that Liberator and darling of the Liberals is doing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/20/wzim20.xml

Mugabe is using hit squads, says Tsvangirai

By Peta Thornycroft in Harare and Bruno Waterfield in Brussels
Last Updated: 2:36am GMT 20/03/2007

# Your view: Should the West intervene in Zimbabwe?
# Blogs: Peta Thornycroft on the price of milk

Sitting in the shade of a tree in his well-tended garden, and cared for by his wife Susan, the battered Zimbabwean opposition leader nursed his swollen face.

Morgan Tsvangirai and fellow activists, Mugabe is using hit squads says Tsvangirai
Morgan Tsvangirai and other activists needed hospital treatment after their court appearance in Harare last week

With his arm still in a splint since a savage beating in police detention 10 days ago, Morgan Tsvangirai talked to The Daily Telegraph and gave a bleak assessment of the chances of a peaceful transition to democracy in his country.

Mr Tsvangirai said President Robert Mugabe's strong-arm tactics to crush all rivals to his dictatorial rule had "entered a new phase" which signalled "the beginning of the end" for Mr Mugabe's regime.

The founder of the Movement for Democratic Change and some of his closest allies have been the victims of state-sponsored violence.

Mr Tsvangirai alleged that a new undercover security force had been deployed by Mr Mugabe and Didymus Mutasa, his security minister, to mete out intimidation and brutal attacks.
advertisement

"Instead of random beatings at police stations, [Mr Mugabe] is now using hit squads, unidentified men, unidentified vehicles," he said.

"But we know these are units of state agents that have been given this assignment."

Nelson Chamisa, the vocal and energetic MDC party spokesman, was left with a fractured skull when he was attacked by eight men, one armed with an iron bar, as he checked in for a flight to Brussels at Harare's international airport on Sunday.

His assailants wore military-style clothing and fled in cars with no registration plates.

Mr Tsvangirai said police officers "disagree with me, but not so violently that they wish me to die", and that it was special units of young militants, hand-picked for their loyalty to the Mugabe regime, who were carrying out the violence under orders from the top.

"I can assess who is in charge of this - it is coming directly from Mugabe. Mugabe is a violent man and he doesn't hide it, especially where his power is threatened," Mr Tsvangirai said.

"No excuses, no regrets - the defiance epitomises his attitude."

Mr Mutasa, one of Mr Mugabe's closest aides, yesterday denied Mr Tsvangirai's claims. "It is a flat lie," he said.

Also yesterday Mr Mugabe's regime accused western diplomats of offering support to Mr Tsvangirai's MDC party and threatened them with expulsion.

Mr Tsvangirai said on the morning before his beating, that his wife had "jokingly" warned him he would be arrested as he left their comfortable Harare home for the rally at which he was detained.

The US state department said yesterday that it held Mr Mugabe "personally responsible" for the attacks on Mr Tsvangirai and his colleagues.

The swell of international condemnation, including a rare rebuke to Mr Mugabe from the African Union, has put Zimbabwe at a "tipping point", Mr Tsvangirai said.

He added: "If I were [a member of the ruling party] Zanu-PF I would start saying this is the end or. . . the beginning of the end.

"I suspect any dictatorship raises the threshold, and I think this is a new phase."

But he said the new strategy could be backfiring on Zimbabwe's increasingly isolated leader as it has widened splits in his own party.

It is thought by some observers that if robust criticism is repeatedly directed at the regime, senior members might ultimately wish to distance themselves from the 83-year-old leader, precipitating the collapse of his rule.

"We can't deteriorate to this level of international isolation - international condemnation at this level, when not even our friends will support us any longer, not even our sympathisers will justify this level of barbarity," Mr Tsvangirai said.

"So a lot of them are having very serious self-reflection about their future."

Mr Chamisa was on his way to a meeting of African, Caribbean and Pacific MPs being held by the European Union in Brussels when he suffered serious injuries as he was attacked at the airport.

But yesterday Zanu-PF delegates faced no obstacles to attending the conference, which begins today, despite EU sanctions against Harare. In spite of calls for action to prevent regime figures from travelling to Brussels, the Foreign Office said that its hands were tied.

"EU-African, Caribbean and Pacific meetings are covered by exemptions to the visa ban, so any member state would be obliged to issue a visa," said a British official.

The approach has angered William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, who called for action against Zimbabwe yesterday.

"Now is the time when Britain should be urging the international community to impose additional penalties on the regime in Zimbabwe," he said.

 

[Sistema1927]

What? Governments killing their own citizens? Who would have thought? </sarcasm>

 

[Mongo the Mutterer]

Hard to figure out who the bad guy is. Mugabe is a brutal sob, but the other guy could be a commie.

I know. We'll send Jimmy Carter over to talk with both of them. The one he endorses HAS to be the commie. He never me one he didn't like...

 

[wooderson]

Ah, yes, Robert Mugabe "darling of the liberals"!

Just like Castro, darling of the liberals. And Stalin, darling of the liberals. And Hitler. And Mussolini. And Franco. And Pinochet. And Saddam Hussein. And that Saudi guy, the mean one. And Osama bin Ladin. And... ah, screw it. If they're 'bad,' lib'ruls love 'em!

 

[wooderson]

I left off Charles Taylor because, as everyone knows, he's evangelical Christians' favorite mass murderer.

 

[Lucky]

Race-based 'equalization' schemes, wealth redistribution, centralized control, extensive gov't spending, social engineering, it's Liberal paradise.

And now the male life expectancy is 37, female 34.


P.S. Mugabe was a Marxist himself.

 

[wooderson]

Your so-called 'race-based equalization' is entirely a reaction to centuries of colonialism and 'race-based inequality.' It's the old French Revolution conundrum - aristocrats (or colonial oppressors) may kick peasants around, but eventually those peasants will rise up and start cutting off heads. When they do it won't be pleasant, or moral, or even necessarily fair: but they will feel justified in doing so because they and their ancestors have been beaten down for so long. It's rather a miracle that post-apartheid governments in South Africa haven't been more punitive.

To expect post-colonial peoples to make nice with their white, land-owning former 'betters' is absurd.

Mugabe may profess Marxism and was once a genuinely revolutionary voice against apartheid. But he is no longer that man and few believe him to be, even on the far reaches of the left. And, of course, the far reaches of the left (and Marxism) have nought to do with 'liberals' as you originally stated.

If your argument is that once upon a time Mugabe was widely viewed as a progressive voice (or at least a lesser evil) in Zimbabwe and thus 'liberals' are responsible for him, I have two names for you: Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Ladin.

 

[wQuay]

It's rather a miracle that post-apartheid governments in South Africa haven't been more punitive.

Give it time.

To expect post-colonial peoples to make nice with their white, land-owning former 'betters' is absurd.

Except that it's in their best interest to do so. The whites will move out (many already have), and the blacks will be left to suffer under what is becoming just another African anarcho-tyranny.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Your so-called 'race-based equalization' is entirely a reaction to centuries of colonialism and 'race-based inequality.' It's the old French Revolution conundrum - aristocrats (or colonial oppressors) may kick peasants around, but eventually those peasants will rise up and start cutting off heads. When they do it won't be pleasant, or moral, or even necessarily fair: but they will feel justified in doing so because they and their ancestors have been beaten down for so long. It's rather a miracle that post-apartheid governments in South Africa haven't been more punitive.

To expect post-colonial peoples to make nice with their white, land-owning former 'betters' is absurd.

Did you pick up on the point that the people being beaten, brutalized and assassinated are all Black?

Morgan Tsvangirai and his fellow activists aren't Irishmen, you know!

 

[Lucky]

Let's get this straight - every race based redistribution scheme is a reaction to something in the past. My mother told me that two wrongs don't make a right.

To expect post-colonial peoples to make nice with their white, land-owning former 'betters' is absurd.

So it's OK to abuse an entire race of people, as long as they 'have it coming'?


Plato's 'The Republic'

This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears above ground he is a protector.

Yes, that is quite clear.

How then does a protector begin to change into a tyrant? Clearly when he does what the man is said to do in the tale of the Arcadian temple of Lycaean Zeus.

What tale?

The tale is that he who has tasted the entrails of a single human victim
minced up with the entrails of other victims is destined to become a wolf.
Did you never hear it?

Oh, yes.

And the protector of the people is like him; having a mob entirely at his
disposal, he is not restrained from shedding the blood of kinsmen; by the
favourite method of false accusation he brings them into court and murders
them, making the life of man to disappear, and with unholy tongue and lips
tasting the blood of his fellow citizens; some he kills and others he
banishes, at the same time hinting at the abolition of debts and partition
of lands: and after this, what will be his destiny? Must he not either
perish at the hands of his enemies, or from being a man become a wolf--that
is, a tyrant?

Inevitably.

This, I said, is he who begins to make a party against the rich?

The same.

 

[gezzer]

And this is NEWS! How? unless your head has been buried in the sand.

 

[MechAg94]

Zimbabwe has not been a colony for quite some time. It was a decent democracy and looking to continue to do well. A friend of mine did a Christian Missionary job there for a year. The group he worked for helped small businessmen get businesses off the ground. We are talking about stuff as small as $100.

This guy didn't seize land and farms to get back at white people, he did it to give that land to his cronies. It just so happened that those cronies had no idea how to run a business or a farm and the foreign banks that the previous owners dealt with refused to deal with the new owners. So lots of farm land went unused, lots of farm workers were out of jobs, the country became a food importer when it was an exporter and all the people are much worse off than before.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Just a wild guess on my part but would it happen that the average private citizens is disarmed by law?

Just curious

No wonder the Liberals love him, he's doing what they wish they could do.

 

[wooderson]

Did you pick up on the point that the people being beaten, brutalized and assassinated are all Black?

Morgan Tsvangirai and his fellow activists aren't Irishmen, you know!

Which has nothing to do with the other guy's complaints about Mugabe's Radical Socialist Leninist Democratic-Party-Copying Agenda.

It's almost universally agreed upon that Mugabe has become a dictator with innocent blood on his hands. That's not a point of contention for reasonable people.

 

[wooderson]

Let's get this straight - every race based redistribution scheme is a reaction to something in the past. My mother told me that two wrongs don't make a right.

That assumes that correcting for past inequality and oppression is a 'wrong.' It may or may not be depending on the situation.

What you seem to have missed is that I made no value judgement, only stated a self-evident fact based on human history: oppressed peoples will rise up violently and do harm to those they feel have oppressed them.

Black Zimbabweans, in the upheaval that gave Mugabe a chance to take power, saw a system of capital brought about first by a colonial power and then by an apartheid government: why on God's earth would you expect them to recognize the 'property rights' and social rules they inherited from those governments?

Hey, you want to argue theoretically that they should, that contemporary whites aren't responsible for the wrongs of the past? Great, whatever, but largely irrelevant. I prefer to look at reality and realistic possibilities.

So it's OK to abuse an entire race of people, as long as they 'have it coming'?

You seem to have missed part of my post:
"When they do it won't be pleasant, or moral, or even necessarily fair: but they will feel justified in doing so because they and their ancestors have been beaten down for so long."

Don't mistake a desire to understand (why something happens as it happens) with a statement of value.

 

[roscoe]

Oh yeah, the liberals just love Mugabe. Get a grip.

 

[wooderson]

Zimbabwe has not been a colony for quite some time.

Zimbabwe was an official colony until 1965.
Zimbabwe remained under an apartheid government until 1979-80ish.
Even through the '90s, as in South Africa, political equality has not managed to overcome inherited economic inequality.

It was the guerrilla struggle against white-minority rule that gave Mugabe a chance to seize power in the first.

This guy didn't seize land and farms to get back at white people, he did it to give that land to his cronies.

"This guy" doesn't have the best intentions of his people at heart, no one has suggested that he has - but Mugabe's recent land grabs have been empowered because of a desire to do so among black Zimbabweans. And even with the acts benefitting Mugabe's cronies a great deal, the land is filtering down here and there to a few average citizens.

Which is part of the problem with painting things in stark black and white. It's easy to claim that Mugabe is stealing land solely for his backers and completely screwing his constituency - but it's not true, and we need not pretend that it is true in order to condemn Mugabe.

It just so happened that those cronies had no idea how to run a business or a farm and the foreign banks that the previous owners dealt with refused to deal with the new owners.

And I'll tell you Mugabe's response to this: "the banks are racist" - and as above, there is some truth to that.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Did you pick up on the point that the people being beaten, brutalized and assassinated are all Black?

Morgan Tsvangirai and his fellow activists aren't Irishmen, you know!

Which has nothing to do with the other guy's complaints about Mugabe's Radical Socialist Leninist Democratic-Party-Copying Agenda.

It's almost universally agreed upon that Mugabe has become a dictator with innocent blood on his hands. That's not a point of contention for reasonable people.

But it has everything to do with refuting the claim that Mugabe's actions are somehow "caused" by colonialism and directed against former colonialists.

 

[wooderson]

Er, no. The claim you're referring to was in response to whining that Mugabe, like those awful, awful commie lib'ruls in Washington, is establishing affirmative action of some sort.

And, as noted, Mugabe's entire existence is rooted in anti-colonial/anti-white feeling.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

And, as noted, Mugabe's entire existence is rooted in anti-colonial/anti-white feeling.

Which explains why his current reign of terror is aimed at his fellow Blacks, eh?

 

[ken grant]

Mugabe

Jimmy Carter and his cronie Andrew Young had more to do with helping put Mugabe in power than anyone else in this world.
There were Blacks who wanted a resonable change over in their Government to Black rule but Carter and Young insisted on rapid change over with Socialists taking control.
Go back and check Young's time in the U.N. when all this was taking place.

 

[Lucky]

That assumes that correcting for past inequality and oppression is a 'wrong.' It may or may not be depending on the situation.

What you seem to have missed is that I made no value judgement, only stated a self-evident fact based on human history: oppressed peoples will rise up violently and do harm to those they feel have oppressed them.

Your definition of 'correcting' is otherwise known as theft. Just so you know, when I see you talking about 'correcting' and you're not talking about rights, I know you're talking about thieving.


...So AFTER they receive equality, it's still ok to get bloody revenge? After equal rights have been secured, it's time to take their property? How can you think like that?


Correcting for past inequality... I suppose we have to go straight to the root of it - do you believe in original 'equality of rights' or modern 'equality of opportunity'. People believing in the latter can justify damned near anything.


Personally I'd say that your notion of 'correcting for past oppression' definitely is wrong. Think about it:

-2 groups exist: group A has wealth and more rights, group B has less wealth and less rights.
-Group B receives equal rights to Group A, they're now equal under the law. Some people would suggest the oppression is corrected. They were oppressed, now they are not. That's the definition of corrected.
-Group B then goes on looting and killing spree against Group A. You now suggest this is not 'wrong', but simply 'correcting for past oppression'. Even though it's a clear violation of Group A's rights that Group B fought so hard to get.

Black Zimbabweans, in the upheaval that gave Mugabe a chance to take power, saw a system of capital brought about first by a colonial power and then by an apartheid government: why on God's earth would you expect them to recognize the 'property rights' and social rules they inherited from those governments?

Because either you want equality of rights or you don't!

...Unless you want 'equality of opportunity', of course... (ie from each according to his ability to each according to his needs...)

Hey, you want to argue theoretically that they should, that contemporary whites aren't responsible for the wrongs of the past? Great, whatever, but largely irrelevant. I prefer to look at reality and realistic possibilities.

"I'm innocent!"

"That's irrelevant."

Due you are soooo far out to the left I don't know how you can stand up straight.

"When they do it won't be pleasant, or moral, or even necessarily fair: but they will feel justified in doing so because they and their ancestors have been beaten down for so long."

Either you approve or you condemn. As far as I can tell you approve - and you KNOW it's wrong.

 

[wooderson]

Which explains why his current reign of terror is aimed at his fellow Blacks, eh?

This continues to be a separate issue.

I was, again, responding to one specific complaint.

 

[wooderson]

Your definition of 'correcting' is otherwise known as theft.

And the landless would argue that the system which created their divide of land and property was itself 'theft.'

Why would you expect an impoverished people to respect land rights (and ensuing capital inequality) granted when they were second-class citizens (if that)?

Your central assumption appears to be that 'property rights' is no more challenging a question than 'finders keepers' or 'possession is nine-tenths of the law.'

...So AFTER they receive equality, it's still ok to get bloody revenge?

What part of 'not a value judgement' do you not understand?

In any case, in recent-apartheid nations there may be political equality (in South Africa, at least - Zimbabwe is clearly not a politically free situation), but in no way, shape or form is there economic equality. There have been and will be lasting economic effects of centuries of oppression.

Because either you want equality of rights or you don't!

A guerrilla doesn't think in terms of theoretical rights. A guerrilla fighting against a foreign invader or a government that bars him from voting thinks in terms of wanting his 'fair share.'

But even disregarding the absurdity of lecturing an angry man with an AK on the proper rule of law...

What does a desire for political equality have to do with accepting economic/land inequality left over from the age of political inequality?

Either you approve or you condemn.

Nonsense. You assess and you attempt to understand.

 

[CrawdaddyJim]

You assess and you attempt to understand.

The assessment is Mugabe is killing people. And yet you don't understand? You are making arguments to defend a despot. :banghead:

I see your job is to be the devil's advocate.....all clear now.

Why are most of your posts in this vein? It is like you get all of your opinions from the Daily Kos. Do you post on another board as LJB5? Just wondering.