It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Robert Mugabe's militia burn opponent's wife alive

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 11:11 AM
link   
America being such a peaceful nation and respectful of human rights is doing what about this? I mean they love to blow their own trumpet on how wonderful they are and how they are the worlds saviour, what are they doing about this?

*sound of crickets*

Guess who is an arms supplier to these regions?

[edit on 13-6-2008 by mOOmOO]




posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quazga
You obviously don't see my reasoning.


What worries me is I do. You demonstrate what happens when reasoning is allied with an extraordinary lack of knowledge and compassion.

If you'd made your points more succinctly and wittily, I'd have guessed you were parodying the pig-headed bigotry and isolationism of a right-wing American fundamentalist. As it is, I was never tempted to use ignore before - but until you evolve a little, I'm afraid your opinions are only of interest as products of a culture of ignorance.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quazga
The US should drop a nuclear weapon on the entire country, then say it was because of this type of tyranny, and say "Anyone else want to act like a fool?"

It's time to treat this kind of community injustice with community reprisal.


I say turn the country into glass and start fresh. Let the brutality in the world see what happens in this situation, then pick off Somalia, Iraq, etc.

We have Nuclear weapons for a reason, and it's HIGH time we used them to prove a point.


You are exactly why these countrys Hate us, Send you to Africa with a bomb vest, are you still willing to take this man out?

I hate Ignorance.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by rjmelter

Originally posted by Quazga
The US should drop a nuclear weapon on the entire country, then say it was because of this type of tyranny, and say "Anyone else want to act like a fool?"

It's time to treat this kind of community injustice with community reprisal.


I say turn the country into glass and start fresh. Let the brutality in the world see what happens in this situation, then pick off Somalia, Iraq, etc.

We have Nuclear weapons for a reason, and it's HIGH time we used them to prove a point.


You are exactly why these countrys Hate us, Send you to Africa with a bomb vest, are you still willing to take this man out?

I hate Ignorance.


The MAJORITY of the American voting public is like him, after all they voted Bush in not once, but TWICE. To say it is not representative of the majority is a lie. Look at the voting turn out, look at the result. The results speak for themselves.



[edit on 13-6-2008 by mOOmOO]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by HeadFirstForHalos
 


I speak as a liberal when I say dan tanna (spelling?) was spot on in his first post.

The PC brigade, the gurdianista's and the left wing liberal elite (a label I know) are so terrified at being labelled imperialists that they won't touch africa with a barge pole.

They'll make all the right noises and say it's the fault of imperialism (and they have a point) but at the end of the day they would rather see people die than betray their core values.

The British government are terrified as well of being called imperialists - which is why mugabe throws it out at every opportunity.

Meanwhile, opposition leaders in zimbabwe are being arrested, people are being tortured and the zanu pf takes an ever increasing hold on the country.

And that's what this is about - the Zanu PF are terrified of anyone else getting into power, because it will spell the end for them, perhaps more than that, because the persecuted will quite likely become the persecutors.

If we didn't have the PC brigade, the UK would have already intervened in all likelihood, like they nearly did a few years ago when white farmers were being murdered and having their farms seized - something which has led to the famine conditions we are now seeing.

Just to be clear here, I think intervention is required - the UK has a responsibility to it's former colony and commonwealth partner, and has a greater responsibility to it's people.

Sadly it's unlikely to happen.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 11:55 AM
link   
There is nothing we can do, without the African Union playing the race and colonial card.

When we tried to prevent Mugabe attending a African-European summit and then rightly boycotted it, but many African leaders said the British were being "white imperialist" again


Africa is incapable of governing itself due to corruption, tribalism and poor government. South Africa is far from democratic too, due to the political power of the ANC it should be classified as a one party state. No one can oppose the ANC. Zambia is another nation with poor human rights and lack of free press. And lets not even start with the Democratic Republic of Congo (note: any nation with democratic in the name is far from it).

Only way to sort out Africa is to use financial aid as a weapon against certain countries. Good governments will get support and undemocratic nations face sanctions. The Chinese are turning corrupt nations, like Zimbabwe, into satitilite states and we need to start doing the same to those who are lite-democracies. It is the only way. The United Nations and the African Union have failed them.

If not, Africa is going to become a major problem with more failed states resulting in the next decade or so.


[edit on 13-6-2008 by infinite]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Finn1916
Ya know, I don't think this Mugabe fellow needs to be arrested at all.

Give him to me for a few days, justice will be served. I despise people like this, in power, and treat your people horribly. even if he didn't kill the woman himself, he did nothing to prevent it, and he is just as guilty.


Which means you would be too then? What did you do to prevent it?



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quazga
Heres the deal. High levels of cruelty can only be offset by deterring it. But first you need an example.

I'm not saying do it for the heck of it. I'm saying do it very deliberately for the purpose of calling attention to what happens when cultures "teach cruelty".

I don't care if it is a square block of a city, or a nation, or an entire continent that goes. We have too many people on this planet to begin with. So what's the loss of a culture which "teaches cruelty".


I used to feel this exact same way. I called it the "Swordfish mentality," after the movie Swordfish. They bomb a building, we destroy a city. They destroy a city, we wipe them off the world, etc. There was a time when I thought this would work. We all thought it would work. I think that's the whole reason we're stuck in Iraq 5 years later, because we needed someone to make an example of, to vent our anger on, and show the world what happens when you _____ with America.

So we went in there, guns blazing, with no plan other than shoot first, ask questions later, bomb the crap out of anything that looks foreign (in a foreign land) and let God sort 'em out. That was supposed to scare the bejezuss out of Al Qaeda, Hammas, North Korea, Iran, China, Russia, and anyone else who might decide to raise a hand to our great nation. There was no thought to rebuilding, there was no thought to working with the citizenry to establish a stable and viable infrastructure, they didn't even keep a peace officer force around. There was only the thought of "making an example" out of Saddham's regime.

And while mistake after bloody mistake was made, costing roughly 5000 American soldier lives, probably around 100,000+ civilizan contractor lives, and millions of Iraqi civilian lives, we watched as North Korea achieved Nuclear Statehood, Iran has started weaponizing Uranium right in front of us. Al Qaeda, who didn't even have a reasonable base in Iraq, became very strong within it and our attack of Iraq legitimized their presence as a major world network to be reckoned with, and ours as a country of fat complacent pigs with bad aim (we couldn't even pick the right country). Meanwhile, Russia achieves massive wealth by selling their petrol fuels in the disruptions, China begins plans to kill off India, and Hammas gains control of Palestine and Hezbollah gets control of Lebanon.

And in the process of failing in every single conceivable aspect (due to terrible leadership at the highest levels, not the bravery or competency of our military), we managed, due to that same poor leadership, to alienate our military, cultural, and economic allies, and turn the entire world against us for the forseeable future. We waged an illegal war, against a country that never attacked us, under false pretenses, and then used that war as justification to impose tyranny on the homefront, and torture foreign nationals off the homefront without a trial after keeping them in "detainment camps".

Frankly, it's a g-ddamned MIRACLE that the entire world didn't declare world war against US.

I think the only reason we haven't been attacked by even our former allies is because most of the world associates our actions with Bush the Younger, and is waiting to see what will happen after the next Presidential election. It's much less expensive to wait a year for the democratic change in leadership than it is to hop into a war that could be perpetuated by martial law in the country you're invading.

So, Quazga, while I understand what you're feeling, and why you think it might work, the honest truth is that we live in a different world now, and that philosophy doesn't work anymore. The world is too small for us to offhandedly destroy a country without angering the rest of the world, and it is far too large for us to take on all on our own. The last seven years has proven that.

I don't know what we can do about Zimbabwe, but I do know that we cannot afford to destroy our relations with all of Africa, which is exactly what will happen if we nuke a place within it. Africa has far too many untapped resources that we need, and there are far too many countries in the world willing to work with someone like Mugabe. The whole reason most of us think Mugabe needs to be brought down in the first place is because we live in a country where, overall, the idea of senseless, brutal, and unaccountable violence is an unacceptable act. And it's that same mentality that does not accept the destruction of millions of innocents "just to make a point."



[edit on 6/13/2008 by thelibra]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by infinite
 



Africa is incapable of governing itself due to corruption, tribalism and poor government.


Fascinating. So the US is capable of governing itself due to good governing? WTF does that even mean? A bit circular no?

How is it both a cause and an effect?



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
I speak as a liberal when I say dan tanna (spelling?) was spot on in his first post.

The PC brigade, the gurdianista's and the left wing liberal elite (a label I know) are so terrified at being labelled imperialists that they won't touch africa with a barge pole.


You and I generally agree on most things, but not this. Why? Because the left wing liberal elites (IMO) are actually centrist PC thugs, who care more for their public image and private stock holdings than they do for leftist activism and real progression.

To me, it seems you reduced essence to form. While those you would label Left wing Liberal Elites call themselves liberal (and to be sure, they probably lean left on occasion) rarely practice true liberal progressive politics, and are more concerned with the general crass pursuits accompanied with being an Elitist.

Oh well, agree to disagree?



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quazga
My point is this. I for one cannot stand cruelty of this nature.


So use cruelty of a different nature to teach the other kind of cruelty a lesson? You don't see the problem with that?



I for one believe that we need to drop an atomic bomb at least once every 7 generations, or something akin to it so that the leaders of the world don't forget the truly terrible and awesome power that can be unleashed.


There is no need to destroy a part of our planet in order to remind world leaders that we wield such power.



Walk softly, but carry a *mega* stick.


An Imperialist statement.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by wytworm
Fascinating. So the US is capable of governing itself due to good governing? WTF does that even mean? A bit circular no?


Typical Westerner who thinks world governments are all the same


No, if you pay attention to African politics you'll understand tribalism is a very dangerous thing. Nothing like you see in the West. The recent violence in Kenya, over the election, was linked to different tribes. Please do not be blind and compare everything to the United States


Some political parties in Africa are rooted in their tribal culture, which results in civil conflicts and prevents the ability to form strong governments. Power sharing is sometimes needed to prevent a civil war (i.e Kenya again). We do not see these problems in the West, all are based around politics not a certain type of culture. Your President would not just govern for Texas, but all States in America.

This does not occur in Africa, their president will govern for his tribe and supporters. Notice in Zimbabwe all Zanu-PF supporters get food, houses et al and the opposition get nothing from the state.

In future, before jumping down my throat please learn about the effects of tribalism and understand it is completely different from the US political system.



[edit on 13-6-2008 by infinite]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by thelibra
 


There is an even more fundamental flaw in that logic as it implies that the two choices are, they destroy a city and we can choose only between escalating to destroying a country or doing nothing? This of course is called a false dichotomy.

I like, they destroy a city, we investigate, arrest and incarcerate them.

[edit on 13-6-2008 by wytworm]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by infinite
 


You have an amazing ability to reply to posts without reading or not comprehending the post you are replying to. It is such a consistent phenomena I must assume it is intentional and is in fact the 'subject matter' that you are an expert on.

If you had read and comprehended my post you would understand that it challenges you not to use circular logic/definitions when attempting to make a point.

Africa is incapable of governing itself due to poor government?

Really? Again, WTF does that even mean?

My suggestion is that you use 'preview post' or at least re-read your posts before walking away. It makes no sense!

[edit on 13-6-2008 by wytworm]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by infinite
 


Anyone who thinks GWB is not governing based on tribal principles has not been paying attention to the last 8 years. If you are lauding him for not killing members of the opposition party, I would agree, but as we have discussed before I am not as much of a relativist.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by wytworm
 


Yeah, I take time with my posts and reading over members arguments, but the way you acted in the thread regarding the UNHRC; I came to the conclusion you are not worth replying to.

And by the behaviour you've shown in this thread (i.e being rude and making personal remarks) you are still not worth it. Those words were uncalled for.

*clicks ignore*



[edit on 13-6-2008 by infinite]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by wytworm
There is an even more fundamental flaw in that logic as it implies that the two choices are, they destroy a city and we can choose only between escalating to destroying a country or doing nothing? This of course is called a false dichotomy.


Of course I do not suggest we do nothing, but I certainly cannot advocate dropping a nuke on a country "just to make a point" about tyranny.


Originally posted by wytworm
I like, they destroy a city, we investigate, arrest and incarcerate them.


Yeah, here's the problems with that, though.

One, we refused to be a part of the International Criminal Court. Ergo, we have given up any legitimacy in the eyes of the world to persue such a thing internationally.

Two, our credibility, thanks to Bush, has been completely and utterly shot all to hell. No one can trust us to try a non-US citizen under a fair and speedy trial, or to execute due process, or to have any alterior plan for it, because for the last 7 years, we've just been throwing people in detainment camps, torturing them at our whim, and denying them access to a lawyer, their families, evidence against them, charges, or anything even remotely resembling what a civilized country SHOULD do with criminals.

Three, our use of corrupt corporate armies and contractors such as DynCorp, Blackwater, and others has left no trustworthy and responsible agents to attempt such a task. I CERTAINLY would not trust the apprehension of Mugabe to the same organization that is running coc aine across the border of one country, smuggling underage sex slaves in another, and assassinating entire villages to clear a trucking route for other heinous acts. And use of these mercenaries has further destroyed any hope of a country cooperating with our efforts except under extreme duress (such as surrender in a war).

If I were a foreign country, and the U.S. told me they were going to start apprehending what they viewed to be international criminals on our soil, to be honest, I'd fight tooth and bloody nail, because the last seven years we Americans have demonstrated that we not only lack the moral, ethical, and lawful high-ground to do so, but that we actually voted to lack it TWICE.

[edit on 6/13/2008 by thelibra]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by thelibra
 


I don't disagree with any of your problems with the more reasonable course of action, I would just suggest it might be better to address them so we do not get stuck with the former two options!



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 01:11 PM
link   
I think the spec ops and FBI should arm the entire citizenry of Zimbabwe and let them take back their country, if it turns out bad then infer the Quazga method. Nuke it. Sorry, but it's gotten that bad.

I don't want to go lose my life over this, call me selfish, cause I am. I'd rather they sift it out on their own. If they want it bad enough then at least allow them to fight for it.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   
I just don't understand how someone can do this to another human being, it's crazy. I know they have training camps where people are forced to torture, there was a article about it a while ago where one man was forced to "pop" another mans testicals with pliers. How can this man not be arrested when he leaves the country, it makes me sick, what is the point in the UN when they just let these men get away with this, it's worse than murder it's just barbaric. It's the same with Idi Amin, man this world is so messed up at times but the fact that they are allowed to do it and get away with annoyes me the most.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join