AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: Robert Mugabe's militia burn opponent’s wife alive
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Quote:Robert Mugabe's militia burn opponent’s wife alive

Jan Raath in Mhondoro
The men who pulled up in three white pickup trucks were looking for Patson Chipiro, head of the Zimbabwean opposition party in Mhondoro district. His wife, Dadirai, told them he was in Harare but would be back later in the day, and the men departed.

An hour later they were back. They grabbed Mrs Chipiro and chopped off one of her hands and both her feet. Then they threw her into her hut, locked the door and threw a petrol bomb through the window.

The killing last Friday – one of the most grotesque atrocities committed by Robert Mugabe’s regime since independence in 1980 – was carried out on a wave of worsening brutality before the run-off presidential elections in just over two weeks. It echoed the activities of Foday Sankoh, the rebel leader in the Sierra Leone civil war that ended in 2002, whose trade-mark was to chop off hands and feet.

Mrs Chipiro, 45, a former pre-school teacher, was the second wife of a junior official of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) burnt alive last Friday by Zanu (PF) militiamen. Pamela Pasvani, the 21-year-old pregnant wife of a local councillor in Harare, did not suffer mutilation but died later of her burns; his six-year-old son perished in the flames

Yesterday about 70 local MDC supporters gathered in Mr Chipiro’s small yard in Mhondoro, 90 miles south of Harare, to protect him. Inside the hut where his wife of 29 years died, women sang softly to a subdued drum beat next to the cheap wooden coffin. The thatched roof had been destroyed in the fire so they sat under the open sky. The lid could not be closed because Mrs Chipiro’s outstretched arm had burnt rigid. Her charred hand was found as women swept the hut.

Mr Chipiro, 51, a small, determined man, arrived from Harare on Friday afternoon to find his three brick huts ablaze. “I was trying to put the fire out,” he said. “I thought my wife was hiding in the bushes.”

His four-year-old nephew, Admire, heard him calling her. “He ran to me. He said, ‘Auntie has been beaten and they threw her in the fire’.”

Bright Matonga, the Deputy Information Minister and the MP for the area, lives just over a mile away. There is also a Zanu (PF) youth militia camp near by. Mr Matonga routinely blames the violence – in which nearly 70 people have died and 25,000 have been left homeless since the elections on March 29 – on Britain and the United States. He claims that they pay the MDC to put on Zanu party regalia and attack Mr Mugabe’s opponents.

When Mr Chipiro went to the police, they refused to give him an official crime incident report. They fetched the body at about 10pm, he said. A post-mortem examination was carried out at St Michael’s Catholic mission hospital. At first police gave Mr Chipiro a report that left out the causes of death. An officer intervened and produced an authentic report.

The report said that seven men assaulted Mrs Chipiro “before dragging her in one of the houses and set all three houses on fire”. It said that the body showed “signs of assault since all hands and legs were broken”. The doctor who carried out the post-mortem described the cause of death as haemorrhaging and severe burns. “These youths are taught cruelty,” Mr Chipiro said. “They get used to murdering. They enjoy murdering. They are doing it for money.”

He said that thugs returned for him two nights ago but fled when they saw his supporters. “I am very frightened,” he said. “They want to kill me. But I have no alternative. My presence here as a leader is very important. If I leave, everyone else will leave. I intend to fight the battle, from here.”

Remember the 1970's; the Left demanded Ian Smith to give up Rhodesia and allow Blacks to rule themselves. At that time Rhodesia was the breadbasket of Africa, with a superb infrastructure, and an efficient modern economy, and flourishing agricultural sector. Under Ian Smith Rhodesia's blacks were by far the most prosperous in Africa.Thanks to the liberal Left it is now a failed state with a non-functioning economy. According to a UN Development Program, life expectancy there today is one of the lowest in the world.
WarBicycle Wrote:Remember the 1970's; the Left demanded Ian Smith to give up Rhodesia and allow Blacks to rule themselves. At that time Rhodesia was the breadbasket of Africa, with a superb infrastructure, and an efficient modern economy, and flourishing agricultural sector. Under Ian Smith Rhodesia's blacks were by far the most prosperous in Africa.Thanks to the liberal Left it is now a failed state with a non-functioning economy. According to a UN Development Program, life expectancy there today is one of the lowest in the world.

That is a misuse of history and an infactual way to score political points.

Ian Smith's party 'Rhodesian Front' (now the Conservative Alliance of Zimbabwae) declared independence illegally. It was sanctioned by the UN as well as Britain under Resolution 216. The vote was ten to one with only France abstaining.

The sanctions were ineffective, Rhodesia became a republic and Smith maintained leadership. Eventually an internal settlement with other African leaders was signed in 1978. In 1979 the first multiracial elections were held and the first black leader came into power - Abel Muzorewa. This was welcomed by then British PM Magaret Thatcher (although Britain did not recognise the state).

Although the British Labour government under Harold Wilson opposed Rhodesia's independence they did not force Smith out, nor was there some sort of leftist conspiracy to do so during the 70's, this is just make-belief...

http://www.rhodesian.net/british_reaction_to_udi.htm
Quote:Robert Mugabe's militia burn opponent’s wife alive

This is a real tragedy, another grim tale from Mugabe's regime.
mcabromb Wrote:
WarBicycle Wrote:Remember the 1970's; the Left demanded Ian Smith to give up Rhodesia and allow Blacks to rule themselves. At that time Rhodesia was the breadbasket of Africa, with a superb infrastructure, and an efficient modern economy, and flourishing agricultural sector. Under Ian Smith Rhodesia's blacks were by far the most prosperous in Africa.Thanks to the liberal Left it is now a failed state with a non-functioning economy. According to a UN Development Program, life expectancy there today is one of the lowest in the world.

That is a misuse of history and an infactual way to score political points.

Ian Smith's party 'Rhodesian Front' (now the Conservative Alliance of Zimbabwae) declared independence illegally. It was sanctioned by the UN as well as Britain under Resolution 216. The vote was ten to one with only France abstaining.

The sanctions were ineffective, Rhodesia became a republic and Smith maintained leadership. Eventually an internal settlement with other African leaders was signed in 1978. In 1979 the first multiracial elections were held and the first black leader came into power - Abel Muzorewa. This was welcomed by then British PM Magaret Thatcher (although Britain did not recognise the state).

Although the British Labour government under Harold Wilson opposed Rhodesia's independence the did not force Smith out, nor was there some sort of leftist conspiracy to do so during the 70's, this is just make-belief...

http://www.rhodesian.net/british_reaction_to_udi.htm


Is it? I remember the news broadcasts from the mid 60's and 70's that were biased against the Whites running Rhodesia. The Rhodesian parliament voted unanimously to declare their independence, had the United Nations existed in 1776, it would have ruled the American declaration of independence as illegal as well. The Brits considered both rebel colonies. Rhodesian parliamentarians declared independence because they didn’t want their country to be another corrupt, violent, amoral African dictatorship. Which is exactly what it is today?
mcabromb Wrote:
WarBicycle Wrote:Remember the 1970's; the Left demanded Ian Smith to give up Rhodesia and allow Blacks to rule themselves. At that time Rhodesia was the breadbasket of Africa, with a superb infrastructure, and an efficient modern economy, and flourishing agricultural sector. Under Ian Smith Rhodesia's blacks were by far the most prosperous in Africa.Thanks to the liberal Left it is now a failed state with a non-functioning economy. According to a UN Development Program, life expectancy there today is one of the lowest in the world.

That is a misuse of history and an infactual way to score political points.

Ian Smith's party 'Rhodesian Front' (now the Conservative Alliance of Zimbabwae) declared independence illegally. It was sanctioned by the UN as well as Britain under Resolution 216. The vote was ten to one with only France abstaining.

The sanctions were ineffective, Rhodesia became a republic and Smith maintained leadership. Eventually an internal settlement with other African leaders was signed in 1978. In 1979 the first multiracial elections were held and the first black leader came into power - Abel Muzorewa. This was welcomed by then British PM Magaret Thatcher (although Britain did not recognise the state).

Although the British Labour government under Harold Wilson opposed Rhodesia's independence the did not force Smith out, nor was there some sort of leftist conspiracy to do so during the 70's, this is just make-belief...

http://www.rhodesian.net/british_reaction_to_udi.htm


Is it? I remember the news broadcasts from the mid 60's and 70's that were biased against the Whites running Rhodesia. The Rhodesian parliament voted unanimously to declare their independence, had the United Nations existed in 1776, it would have ruled the American declaration of independence as illegal as well. The Brits considered both rebel colonies. Rhodesian parliamentarians declared independence because they didn’t want their country to be another corrupt, violent, amoral African dictatorship. Which is exactly what it is today?
WarBicycle Wrote:Is it? I remember the news broadcasts from the mid 60's and 70's that were biased against the Whites running Rhodesia. The Rhodesian parliament voted unanimously to declare their independence, had the United Nations existed in 1776, it would have ruled the American declaration of independence as illegal as well. The Brits considered both rebel colonies. Rhodesian parliamentarians declared independence because they didn’t want their country to be another corrupt, violent, amoral African dictatorship. Which is exactly what it is today?

I think people saw Rhodesia's independence as a group of white racists who wanted a breakaway republic that could subjugate the black population without having to submit to the demands of Whitehall. Remember that they wanted independence from the commonwealth but not the Crown (which is very different from America).

The harsh irony is that a fair electoral system, independent of the Commonwealth has seen a dictator rise up in the form of Mugabe. Now he is manipulating the electoral system using the excuse that foreign outsiders are corrupting the internal politics of Zimbabwe...
mcabromb Wrote:The harsh irony is that a fair electoral system, independent of the Commonwealth has seen a dictator rise up in the form of Mugabe. Now he is manipulating the electoral system using the excuse that foreign outsiders are corrupting the internal politics of Zimbabwe...

The "harsh irony" is that tyranny is far easier to accomplish from the back of Democracy, which is what Zimbabwe had forced upon itself by the 'so called' civilized world. That is why I am a staunch opponent of real deomocracy. The Founders were right all along.
---------------------------------

democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."-James Madison

"Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
-- John Adams, 2nd President of the United States

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
-- Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States, author of the Bill of Rights

"The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived."
-- John Quincy Adams, 6th President of the United States

"Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."
-- John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, 1801-1835

"We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy... It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity."
-- Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury to George Washington, author of the Federalist Papers

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
- Benjamin Franklin

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.-- Alexander Tyler, writing in 1787 about the fall of the Athenian republic more than 2000 years before
Zimbabwe is a Kleptarchy - it's leanings, left or right, have little to do with ideology and everything to do with aggrandizement. Mugabe is a master thimblerigger, during the Cold War his sleight of hand milked both the East and West alike. Since the end of the Cold War it has been harder to find candidates to fleece; even China has grown wary of Mad Bob.

As for Britain and its response to UDI, it was in line with the Empire policy of NIBMAR, formulated by the Canadian Premier Lester Pearson.
Monsieur Le Tonk Wrote:...As for Britain and its response to UDI, it was in line with the Empire policy of NIBMAR, formulated by the Canadian Premier Lester Pearson.

Left wing looney and champion of the dishonest and incompetent United Nations.
Mac,

Mugabe's rule is of course self aggrandizement on a large scale,but it's also a clear rejection of the basis of rule of his predecessors.

While racists,they also were free enterprisers aligned with rule of law,thus a welathy and prosperous Zimbabwe back then relatively speaking.

IMO,that's the true tragedy of the nation,the revolt against white rule also was a revolt against the thinking associated with the rule. In India,the opposite occurred,the Indians revolted,yet accepted the current UK dogma of socialist thinking. Had Robert's rule been corrupt,but largely aligned with free enterprise and rule of law,Zimbabwe would be in rather good shape today.
Name one former African colony that has prospered independence independence.
Many European countries had functioning colonial states in Africa until about 1960. Many of them were well run. Now, perhaps an indigenous person may have felt angry about their role (or not). But when they took over, they seemed to have learned nothing from their colonial governments. Rather, they reverted to tribal politics, which is even more brutal to those "not in the right tribe" than the discrimination practiced by the whites. Even South Africa seems to be sliding this way.

So, which is it: the whites practiced unfair repression or the aborigines have no clue how to run a modern country?
Under White rule Blacks were employed, had access to education and were safe walking the streets. They may have achieved better success had they given Blacks gradual autonomy over 100 years.
WarBicycle Wrote:
Monsieur Le Tonk Wrote:...As for Britain and its response to UDI, it was in line with the Empire policy of NIBMAR, formulated by the Canadian Premier Lester Pearson.

Left wing looney and champion of the dishonest and incompetent United Nations.
Haven't you just been told that Mugabe has nothing to do with left or right? Mugabe's not the only one incompetent.
WarBicycle Wrote:Name one former African colony that has prospered independence independence.

Post-independence? Egypt, Tanzania, Madagascar, to some extent Mauritania and Malawi
Stuff like this happens frequently in Africa.
WarBicycle Wrote:Name one former African colony that has prospered independence independence.
Botswana, Namibia, Ghana and Tanzania, all have had ups and downs, but they are stable democracies with good economies, and have all been countries in which I've enjoyed living and working.

One of the biggest problems many African nations live with, is the colonial legacy of boundaries based on lines of longitude/latitude or geographic features, rather than the natural tribal boundaries of custom and language that existed before colonisation.
Tonk,

What's preventing them having amicable seperations? It ain't like the Hutus and Tutsis have to keep Rwanda like France left it.
How about Kenya? Obama's father was Kenyatta's economic minister.
Quote:In 1963, Jomo Kenyatta, who was arrested in October, 1952 on the charges of "managing and being a member" of the Mau Mau Society, seizes control of Kenya and becomes its first prime minister in May.
Palladin Wrote:Tonk,

What's preventing them having amicable seperations? It ain't like the Hutus and Tutsis have to keep Rwanda like France left it.
Largely the 1964 OAU Resolution, under which member states pledged themselves "to respect the borders existing on their achievement of independence".

BTW Rwanda was never a French colony, it was a part of German East Africa until the end of WWI when, under a League of Nations Mandate, it was handed to Belgium, the rest of German East Africa, the Tanganyika region, was given to Britain.