Mugabe to evict rich land owners

#1
Will this be the last outrage?

Will the population finally tell him to sling his hook??

Owners of property next to President Robert Mugabe's retirement mansion have received written warning that their houses will be confiscated by the state.

The move represents the first time Zimbabwe's elite, both black and white, have suffered at first hand.


Millions of Zimbabweans were affected by last year's "clearances" of urban shantytowns and much of the rural population hit by Mr Mugabe's war on white farmers.

But, until now, many members of the aristocracy have escaped unscathed - and even set up home in close proximity to his putative retirement home.

Mr Mugabe, 82 next month, has nearly completed a huge luxury residence which will cost more than £6 million. It is probably the largest private dwelling in Africa. The three floors amount to approximately four acres and include a ballroom, media complex and 24 bedrooms.
Telegraph
 
#2
Agent_Smith said:
Mr Mugabe, 82 next month, has nearly completed a huge luxury residence which will cost more than £6 million. It is probably the largest private dwelling in Africa. The three floors amount to approximately four acres and include a ballroom, media complex and 24 bedrooms.
It's all good. With the eviction of the neighbours and given the size of the target, even the Spams could hit him with the minimum of fuss. :twisted:

A_S By this point, the population are probably too bloody hungry to overthrow him.
 
#5
Oh for a team of Arrse led mercs to go in and burn it down with the black savage inside it! was that a racist comment drawing attention to the fact he is black and also a savage?
Its an African country so he(Mugabe-black))will be allowed to do as he pleases as we do not won't to be classed as colonial bullies do we(whites)
Seems ironical that the only person to stand up to him is Peter Thatchell-Gay Rights.
 
#8
Her bravery is in publicly stating some of what many people in the country experience and believe - but only some of it; she'd very quickly find herself in deep poo if she made political comment on it. She reports on the effects that the insane (ie: Standard African) Government policies have on the people. She hasn't access to the key figures in and around the Government who could tell what they know about the immense corruption and stupidity destroying the economy, and reducing the people to starving serfs under a man now building a $10m palace for himself, with money which came from ... ok, you see what I mean.


Ceausescu, anyone?
 
#9
Not exactly surprising this, is it?

And our response will be similarly unsurprising: A couple of condemnatory sound bites and, er... that's it.

Mind you I can't honestly blame TCB for the lack of action in this case; what the hell can Britain do? If we went in and sorted it out, the UN would doubtless condemn us for reforming Empire or some such cack, and all African states would be up in arms. Anyway, HM Forces are already somewhat busy at the mo (not that that's ever stopped TCB before).
 
#10
Whiskybreath said:
Her bravery is in publicly stating some of what many people in the country experience and believe - but only some of it; she'd very quickly find herself in deep poo if she made political comment on it. She reports on the effects that the insane (ie: Standard African) Government policies have on the people. She hasn't access to the key figures in and around the Government who could tell what they know about the immense corruption and stupidity destroying the economy, and reducing the people to starving serfs...
Which government policies probably explain why the guy ahead of her in the grocery checkout spent Zim$14 million to pick up a rump steak, a couple of bottles of South African wine, and some cornflakes.

I have read that Mad Bob M. is financing his administration with (1) foreign aid, (2) proceeds of larcenies and expropriations and (3) the printing press.

Couple of years ago I read that he met a crisis shortage of foreign exchange by having his secret police grab foreigners and confiscate whatever foreign currency they had in their wallets.
 
#11
Does this mean Ian Smith was right all along?

My understanding of Zimbabwean history is a little sketchy. But as far as I know he wasn't so much opposed to blacks being allowed to vote its just that he wanted a more gradual handover. In order to give the state time to improve literacy levels etc within the black population - essential qualities for a democracy to function.

Now I know there are lots of ARRSErs who will argue he was indeed right - but is there anyone who can argue against it? I find the idea of not allowing sections of the population to vote very unpalatable, but perhaps it was the only thing possible for Zimbabwe?
Tricam
 
#13
tricam said:
Does this mean Ian Smith was right all along?

My understanding of Zimbabwean history is a little sketchy. But as far as I know he wasn't so much opposed to blacks being allowed to vote its just that he wanted a more gradual handover. In order to give the state time to improve literacy levels etc within the black population - essential qualities for a democracy to function.
Tricam
A nice fig-leaf, until you examine the facts. Smith's regime provided free, compulsory schooling to whites, but any schooling for blacks was at their own expense, and not compulsory. It's a nice little trap, you'll get the vote when you're as educated as we are, but your government is not going to provide that education. Smith shared Malan's view that blacks were only good for hewing wood and fetching water, anyone trying to make them believe otherwise was a troublemaker.
The fact that Uncle Bob's rule is a disaster for all does not mean that racially-based rule was a good thing for anyone - except those with the right skin colour. I'd say that nothing much has changed, there is a small elite that's making themselves rich and living well by screwing over the rest of the populaton. They just ain't white anymore - and that's why the rest of Africa won't do a damned thing about it.
 
#14
Inzile said:
A nice fig-leaf, until you examine the facts. Smith's regime provided free, compulsory schooling to whites, but any schooling for blacks was at their own expense, and not compulsory. It's a nice little trap, you'll get the vote when you're as educated as we are, but your government is not going to provide that education. Smith shared Malan's view that blacks were only good for hewing wood and fetching water, anyone trying to make them believe otherwise was a troublemaker.
The fact that Uncle Bob's rule is a disaster for all does not mean that racially-based rule was a good thing for anyone - except those with the right skin colour. I'd say that nothing much has changed, there is a small elite that's making themselves rich and living well by screwing over the rest of the populaton. They just ain't white anymore - and that's why the rest of Africa won't do a damned thing about it.
That's about right, I think. But in re Tricam's points above, perhaps you should read up on the Matabele genocide directed by Mugabe. I've no real time for the whenwe's, who in my opinion were part of a dinosaurish, arrogant, unashamedly two-tier social system, intent on enriching themselves at the expense of the Africans, and with no real plan for including them in an equitable future of the country. Maybe Mugabe just took his lessons on self-centredness from them. He didn't need any lessons on large-scale human slaughter from anyone, though, and he has no justification for the callous treatment which he's inflicted on the people of the country. If the UN had teeth (and a GenSec with balls) , it would hang him and a large number of his lieutenants publicly, after taking stewardship of the economy.
 
#15
tricam said:
Does this mean Ian Smith was right all along?

My understanding of Zimbabwean history is a little sketchy. But as far as I know he wasn't so much opposed to blacks being allowed to vote its just that he wanted a more gradual handover. In order to give the state time to improve literacy levels etc within the black population - essential qualities for a democracy to function.

Now I know there are lots of ARRSErs who will argue he was indeed right - but is there anyone who can argue against it? I find the idea of not allowing sections of the population to vote very unpalatable, but perhaps it was the only thing possible for Zimbabwe?
Tricam

whats happened to Ian Smith recently, i haven't heard much from him since all this started
 
#16
Whiskeybreath - Yes indeed, I had heard of the 5th Brigade massacres...


Right well - Inzile's post explains the truth behind Smith's argument. More questions for you.

Was Mugabe a pretty good leader by African standards until the emergence of the MDC? My understanding is that he wasn't too bad - the country was doing well even though there was almost no political opposition to him. Then in the 1990's the MDC emerged on an anti-corruption ticket. Mugabe goes 'oh b0llocks! - how am I going to win the next election?' and so he invents an issue about needing to accelerate land redistribution. He rallys supporters with an anti-white message. Is this fairly accurate? I know that my definition of 'pretty good' is going to include the early 80's massacre.

I had spoken to one person who claimed that the forced land redistribution program happened becasue the UK halted payments to fund the existing buyout scheme (payments arranged as part of the Lancaster House agreement). However, this sounds like rubbish to me - I suspect the UK did halt payments but only because Mugabe was distributing the bought land to his cronies as opposed to the black population in general. Am I right? It sounds like the usual Western guilt 'Africa is all our fault' crap?

Tricam
 
#17
semper said:
tricam said:

whats happened to Ian Smith recently, i haven't heard much from him since all this started
I suspect that he finds it difficult to speak out because no doubt there are a number of restrictions placed on him. Also, without being unkind, who knows what his state of health is? He is 87 this year and the years have probably taken their toll. Incidently, I believe he was the sole Rhodesian Battle of Britain pilot.
 
#19
Sorry but to put a few truths here.

Red rag to a bull but I don't care.

Jim_Karna

Wan*er that you are. In fact several hundred if not thousands of Rhodesian pilots/aircrew fought and died for the UK in WW2 (as well as thousands of men in WW1).

In fact that old UK R.A.F stalwart , the redoubtable Air Marshall Sir Arthur Harris even thought enough of the place to join up in the Rhodesia Regiment in German South-West Africa as a bugler and fought in that campaign.

Ian Smith was one of the few from Rhodesia who did his bit and more. He never flew in the battle of Britain as he was then a school-boy then (others did though)

He did fight for the UK/RAF/you and yours over Italy (shot down and badly burnt) got back in the air and carried on for 2 more years.

Right now he is in a nursing home in S.A. – his son died last weekend in the UK of a heart attack.

Which RAF Squadron dropped the bombs on the Falklands?
 
#20
old_bloke,
I am deeply sorry that you took exception to my posting. I meant in no way to decry the service and sacrifice of the many airmen and other servicement from Rhodesia or other members of the Empire/Commonwealth at any time.

I have no detailed knowledge of Ian Smith's service record apart from distant memory. I checked before I posted and this confirmed that he was indeed a distinguished wartime pilot. In 1940 he would have been a similar age to many of the younger pilots (born April 1919, therefore 21 at the time of Bof B).

Please accept my sincere apologies for any offence caused, however inintentionally.
 

Latest Threads