Zimbabwe Needs Terrorism

[Xarog]

You do not hurt someone if they hurt you, an emotionally mature person can wait for the other party to come to their senses.

I think this forum alone proves that emotionally mature people are in the minority, unfortunately.

 

[BBSA]

I think this forum alone proves that emotionally mature people are in the minority, unfortunately.

Please see this:

Hows about we put an end to these personal attacks right now.

 

[Xarog]

Please se this:

What of it?

Take a look at practically any Current Affairs or Philosophy thread. Insults, veiled remarks, sniping, self-righteous judgement are all rampant.

Are these the actions of emotionally mature people? No.

And if it is an attack, then it is an impersonal one, because I've not levelled it at any person specifically.

Edit : If you want to see a personal attack, just look at your own sig.

 

[BBSA]

Edit : If you want to see a personal attack, just look at your own sig.

LOL...... we are praising you

 

[krycor]

Pitty they don't have a large oil supply..

 

[kilps]

After reading http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/world/africa/16zimbabwe.html?ref=africa (a must read if you haven't been following the stories of torture in zim) I've been thinking that regardless of arguments of trying to pacify Mugabe by getting him to accept a ceremonial role etc. it is completely immoral to support any deal which includes him and those around him in government - previously I had thought that the best way to get anything done there would be some compromises.

But that conclusion means there are very few 'correct' options open to those pressurising Mugabe and co. - the most obvious being some sort of final ultimatum before the use of force, which isn't a nice option either.

 

[km2]

What I do not understand is why they (the pro-terrorism camp) always have to resort to violence to achieve their goals. Look at Gandhi he accomplish much more with non-violent civil disobedience than any terrorist have ever achieved with violents.

I don't think Ghandi style actions would work here. From all the instances of passive resistance that have actually been effective, there need to be a common theme present:

1) An oppressor who will jail dissidents but won't resort to genocidal tactics on the population

Passive resistance doesn't work against people like Stalin, Mao, and Bob. They'll just ship you all off to concentration camps, slaughter anyone left in your village, and end any form of resistance with an extreme form of collective punishment. We saw Bob is entirely capable of this kind of thing with the 20000 Matabele killed a few years after he came to power.

2) An overwhelming majority on your side

The MDC doesn't have the numbers needed. Bob still has around 40% of the population behind him + the army. If the MDC decided to hold their protests, there would be counter ZANU-PF protests, the protests would clash and then the army would come down on the MDC.

3) A nice clear cause that can't be easily twisted by the Evil Empire's PR Machine

"Whites oppressing Indians" or "Whites oppressing Blacks" is a nice clear cause that everyone can get behind against. It doesn't have all the nuances of "but he was a liberation hero, and I have seen Tsvangirai sitting down and having a good time with a bunch of white farmers, but I'm still sitting here starving" . That kind of uncertainty is easily twisted by the state media.

So really while I think Ghandi is a nice example and all, it works in a very limited group of oppressive regimes. i.e. sissy oppressive regimes.

 

[BBSA]

I don't think Ghandi style actions would work here. From all the instances of passive resistance that have actually been effective, there need to be a common theme present:

1) An oppressor who will jail dissidents but won't resort to genocidal tactics on the population

Passive resistance doesn't work against people like Stalin, Mao, and Bob. They'll just ship you all off to concentration camps, slaughter anyone left in your village, and end any form of resistance with an extreme form of collective punishment. We saw Bob is entirely capable of this kind of thing with the 20000 Matabele killed a few years after he came to power.

2) An overwhelming majority on your side

The MDC doesn't have the numbers needed. Bob still has around 40% of the population behind him + the army. If the MDC decided to hold their protests, there would be counter ZANU-PF protests, the protests would clash and then the army would come down on the MDC.

3) A nice clear cause that can't be easily twisted by the Evil Empire's PR Machine

"Whites oppressing Indians" or "Whites oppressing Blacks" is a nice clear cause that everyone can get behind against. It doesn't have all the nuances of "but he was a liberation hero, and I have seen Tsvangirai sitting down and having a good time with a bunch of white farmers, but I'm still sitting here starving" . That kind of uncertainty is easily twisted by the state media.

So really while I think Ghandi is a nice example and all, it works in a very limited group of oppressive regimes. i.e. sissy oppressive regimes.

You making some good point and I think for the same reasons terrorism will not work. Mad Bob will use his army to exterminate the MDC and all it supporters.

Maybe an assassination?

 

[Alan]

I don't think Ghandi style actions would work here. From all the instances of passive resistance that have actually been effective, there need to be a common theme present:

1) An oppressor who will jail dissidents but won't resort to genocidal tactics on the population

Passive resistance doesn't work against people like Stalin, Mao, and Bob. They'll just ship you all off to concentration camps, slaughter anyone left in your village, and end any form of resistance with an extreme form of collective punishment. We saw Bob is entirely capable of this kind of thing with the 20000 Matabele killed a few years after he came to power.

2) An overwhelming majority on your side

The MDC doesn't have the numbers needed. Bob still has around 40% of the population behind him + the army. If the MDC decided to hold their protests, there would be counter ZANU-PF protests, the protests would clash and then the army would come down on the MDC.

3) A nice clear cause that can't be easily twisted by the Evil Empire's PR Machine

"Whites oppressing Indians" or "Whites oppressing Blacks" is a nice clear cause that everyone can get behind against. It doesn't have all the nuances of "but he was a liberation hero, and I have seen Tsvangirai sitting down and having a good time with a bunch of white farmers, but I'm still sitting here starving" . That kind of uncertainty is easily twisted by the state media.

So really while I think Ghandi is a nice example and all, it works in a very limited group of oppressive regimes. i.e. sissy oppressive regimes.

+1

Amazing how nice and clear the causes are when it's "whites oppressing"

 

[km2]

Maybe an assassination?

Yup, that or the more traditional African coup.

You can't run an effective terrorist organization without proper outside support. You wouldn't be able to run Hamas without sympathies from neighbouring Arab countries, and all the struggle organizations in Africa got immense help from other sympathetic countries. Successful terrorism requires outside people who are fervently sympathetic to your cause, and have some money to back it up.

The MDC (or any other organization) wouldn't get any support from anyone. The West wouldn't want to get caught meddling in African business, and most African states don't want Morgan running the show in any case.

Best case scenario: Ends up like Basque groups where they're effectively denied politcal rights because of "links" to a terrorist organization. MDC banned, any other opposition banned when "new evidence" discovered linking them to the MDC. ZANU-PF thereby gets to control which politcal parties register, cloaks itself in legitimacy, claims it's a fair "war on terror". African leaders nod and go "sounds good to me!".

Worst case scenario: Zim declares "war on imperialist forces". Massacres huge segments of the population. African leaders go "tut, tut, but I guess it was somewhat justified".

Anyway the fundamental reason I don't think terrorism would work is that it's a long term thing. Terrorism never achieves its aims quickly. You've got to go through all those stages where the government goes "we'll never given in to terrorists!", then there's a war of attrition, then hopefully you wear them down to the point that they go "lets talk!", then there's protracted negotiations, and finally (hopefully!) a settlement. That's ten years at least, and Bob needs to go quicker than that.

 

[ic]

The U.N

Mad Bob won't go down without a fight. In any case sending in the U.N will violate mad Bob's sovereignty as well as lead to the deaths of innocent people which makes any sort of forced removal unacceptable. At least that is what I'm told by certain members on this forum

My understanding is that Mad Bob's sovereignty is questionable after the elections that were held, why else would there have been the farce of establishing a mutant government.

Honestly who cares about Mad Bob's rights, and faced with an invading UN force, I am willing to bet that all the king's soldiers will back down and desert their leader.

 

[km2]

My understanding is that Mad Bob's sovereignty is questionable after the elections that were held, why else would there have been the farce of establishing a mutant government.

Honestly who cares about Mad Bob's rights, and faced with an invading UN force, I am willing to bet that all the king's soldiers will back down and desert their leader.

Think the Chinese would ever allow a resolution like that to pass after all the arms they've shipped to Zim (and whatever other deals they have going on with mining rights etc)? I think the UN is going to be especially toothless in this instance, one side doesn't really care, and the other side is doing business with Zim.

 

[Alan]

My understanding is that Mad Bob's sovereignty is questionable after the elections that were held, why else would there have been the farce of establishing a mutant government.

Honestly who cares about Mad Bob's rights, and faced with an invading UN force, I am willing to bet that all the king's soldiers will back down and desert their leader.

I'm just reiterating what I've been told by Chiskop, Daveza and co( devil's advocate). I agree with you. As far as I'm concerned mad Bob has no sovereignty nor any rights and a forced removal that would cost plenty of innocent lives is justifiable given the current state of affairs there. I don't however agree that the kings soldiers will desert their leader. As seen in many conflicts especially in Africa the foot soldiers of these thugs thrive on conflict. Somalia being a good example

 

[ic]

Think the Chinese would ever allow a resolution like that to pass after all the arms they've shipped to Zim (and whatever other deals they have going on with mining rights etc)? I think the UN is going to be especially toothless in this instance, one side doesn't really care, and the other side is doing business with Zim.

I don't know what the Chinese government would or would not do, although protecting business interests would probably be high on the agenda, not a good enough reason to not try for a resolution - rather see what happens first before giving up entirely.

I'm just reiterating what I've been told by Chiskop, Daveza and co( devil's advocate). I agree with you. As far as I'm concerned mad Bob has no sovereignty nor any rights and a forced removal that would cost plenty of innocent lives is justifiable given the current state of affairs there. I don't however agree that the kings soldiers will desert their leader. As seen in many conflicts especially in Africa the foot soldiers of these thugs thrive on conflict. Somalia being a good example

I respect that, like I say I am willing to bet on it - I am however not entirely convinced, but I am willing to gamble - from afar.

Not really sure why I am posting about Zimbobwe - except that it is a disaster that affects all of us [South Africans] in many ways - usually I just keep my opinions to myself where CA is concerned - CA is not something I thrive on.

 

[Alan]

Not really sure why I am posting about Zimbobwe - except that it is a disaster that affects all of us [South Africans] in many ways - usually I just keep my opinions to myself where CA is concerned - CA is not something I thrive on.

Well the U.N certainly isn't getting involved and nobody else will either so you won't be making that bet anytime soon. Still if there was an invasion that's a bet I'd be happy to lose

As Churchill once said of the nazis "We will have no truce or parley with you, or the grisly gang who work your wicked will. You do your worst - and we will do our best."

 

[km2]

I don't know what the Chinese government would or would not do, although protecting business interests would probably be high on the agenda, not a good enough reason to not try for a resolution - rather see what happens first before giving up entirely.I respect that, like I say I am willing to bet on it - I am however not entirely convinced, but I am willing to gamble - from afar.

Ah, but we do know what they'd do, because they already vetoed a pretty weak travel/arms embargo after the election mess. I can't think of any reason why they'd change their stance now, and I know that both Russia and China are strong supporters of the principle of "it's just an internal issue, the UN should only authorize force when countries invade each other".

Also the AU wouldn't support it, and the UN seems to like to defer to the AU, who defers to SADC, who defers to South Africa, who defers to Bob.

I'm all for trying stuff through the UN, but right now betting on the UN serves Bob's goals more by buying him extra time until his friends just veto the action away.

Edit: Just to put that further into context, the UN's order of "resolving problems" looks more like:

Travel Sanctions -> Arms Sanctions -> Targeted Economic Sanctions -> Full Economic Sanctions -> ??? -> Invasion

So if they can't get past the starting block, they've still got one huge way to go before they reach the end game.

 

[ic]

Well the U.N certainly isn't getting involved and nobody else will either so you won't be making that bet anytime soon. Still if there was an invasion that's a bet I'd be happy to lose

What does Zimbobwe have that might spur an invasion?

If a significant amount of crude oil was discovered in Zimbobwe, and GWB not out of the picture, then maybe the USA would show some interest.

Ah, but we do know what they'd do, because they already vetoed a pretty weak travel/arms embargo after the election mess. I can't think of any reason why they'd change their stance now, and I know that both Russia and China are strong supporters of the principle of "it's just an internal issue, the UN should only authorize force when countries invade each other".

Also the AU wouldn't support it, and the UN seems to like to defer to the AU, who defers to SADC, who defers to South Africa, who defers to Bob.

I'm all for trying stuff through the UN, but right now betting on the UN serves Bob's goals more by buying him extra time until his friends just veto the action away.

Edit: Just to put that further into context, the UN's order of "resolving problems" looks more like:

Travel Sanctions -> Arms Sanctions -> Targeted Economic Sanctions -> Full Economic Sanctions -> ??? -> Invasion

So if they can't get past the starting block, they've still got one huge way to go before they reach the end game.

Points taken & noted, so what other options are there then - especially considering the soft-boiled stance SA has towards Mad Bob?

 

[km2]

If a significant amount of crude oil was discovered in Zimbobwe, and GWB not out of the picture, then maybe the USA would show some interest.

I don't think even that would do it. The USA only seems to get interested if you have oil but aren't prepared to sell it (or start to want to get "funny" with who you sell your oil too).

If they had oil, I'm sure they'd happily sell it (maybe even to China for extra veto power), use the proceeds to beef up their army and permanently entrench themselves.

Not having oil/diamonds/all-the-other-conflict-items-in-Africa is probably one of the biggest things going for Zimbabwe. It means the government has to actually try and make an honest buck, and things actually fall apart when they mess around. See if Bob was able to just buy food etc for the people with his oil money, Bob would probably have even greater popular support despite his insane policies. See Hugo Chavez, and even the way Putin has got fantastic popularity thanks a lot to Russia's main export of petrol products. Just think of all those oil rich countries and how few of them have successful democratic governments. It's much easier being a despot when you can buy peoples happiness.

So what other options are there then - especially considering the soft-boiled stance SA has towards Mad Bob?

I'd say the only option that would seriously work is a coup in the same style as Guinea. Get a general or two on your side, bump Bob off anonymously, and take control to "restore order".

Otherwise it's waiting till Bob dies and with that comes the huge chance that just another crony takes power.

TBH I can't see a clear path to a happy ending. African states have one helluva history pointing towards strong military types becoming the preferred leader. Morgan just doesn't seem to have the balls for it. I like the guy, but it really does look like a case of survival of the fittest.

On a side note, watching Morgan makes me sad.

You can see he belives in this stuff, and he really thinks that the "will of the people" and all that matters. And every single time Bob pulls another outrageous stunt he turns to the SADC umpire shouting "HOWZAT! Howzat?" and he honestly looks like he expects them to go "You're out, Bob".

Sadly democracy can only take you so far before might makes right.

 

[DeadCore]

*hires a sniper team to take out the idiot that runs Zim*

 

[DeadCore]

RobertMugabe@Gmail.com