Re: OT Is anyone really surprised?
- From: Bill C <tritonrider@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 04:57:42 -0800 (PST)
On Jan 24, 2:06 am, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <33362ca2-a85c-4c56-9670-2a4769acf...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Bill C <tritonri...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 23, 6:03 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@xxxxxx> wrote:
Yet they keep repeating that myth of "vast liberal
conspiracy". I guess some methods never get old, eh?
We have new audio trainer/training tapes. (A "liberal" just ain't
what they once were.)
Goes along with Howard's noone in the US new or supported Mugabe:
It was not supposed to be this way. Mugabe, the last great African
liberator still in power, was supposed to be Southern Africa's savior.
The son of a carpenter, he was radicalized to Marxism while studying
at South Africa's black Fort Hare University, whose alumni include
Nelson Mandela. In the early '60s, Mugabe joined Rhodesia's black
resistance and was almost immediately jailed by the thuggish white
government of Ian Smith. Released in 1975, Mugabe took command of one
of Zimbabwe's two black guerrilla movements
According to Howard I'm wrong and he was a minor player, who had
little to NO support here among the left because noone knew who he
I didn't say he was a minor player. He wasn't really in the foreground until after
the Smith govt. had just about folded. Anyway, that article has a few errors. It
states that there were two resistance groups, when there were actually more like 20.
One of the largest and most militant groups was led by Joshua Nkomo, while another
large grouop was put together by other people who were more interested in political
solutions (although they too had a military wing). Mugabe did take over in '75 but
mostly continued the political angle, though the military part of the resistance
still played a big role.
We disagree. There was national coverage to some extent, and plenty of
local support and coverage in the college/independent press here. That
being a similar area I have real doubts that there wasn't coverage,
and weren't rallies in support of him.
Anyway (again), my recollection of those times is that people saw the Smith
government as racist and oppressive as hell (people knew that they drafted about
every white male and hired all kinds of mercenaries to fight the blacks and, much
less wellknown until recently, used such tactics as releasing anthrax on innocent
civilians). When they (Smith's govt.) realized that they were surrounded by nations
that had de-colonized (except for South Africa) and that they were outnumbered by
about 100 to 1, they knew that they had better negotiate. When the transitional
government took over, it did seem to be fairly well behaved, hence they did get
approval from many sources (not just "the Left"), including many governments. About
the time that Mugabe started doing stupid shit that got public notice, the situation
in South Africa was kicking into high gear. Media attention on Zimbabwe vaporized.
Yep. They sure as hell weren't going to give a lot of coverage to a
marxist HERO doing what they almost all inevitably do after the
support for him as a "freedom fighter" had been so strong..
I don't think the average person here knew who Mugabe is until Zimbabwe started
getting attention for having huge inflation and seizing farms. They just haven't been
on the radar screen, Bill. it's not all that uncommon, especially in Africa. For
example, what do you think is the deadliest conflict since WW II? At least 3.8
million people have died in only six years in the area around the Democratic Republic
of the Congo. How much of that do we hear about in the news?
I see a fair amount, but that's because of the Euro sources. Agreed
here in the US it's not an issue, but it doesn't have a huge "freedom
fighter" to exploit, as Zimbabwe did.
We're gonna agree to disagree. Neither of us can demonstrate the
Now it's raining pitchforks and women,
But I've already got a pitchfork...
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
level of coverage and support where we were back then, at least
- Re: OT Is anyone really surprised?
- From: Howard Kveck
- Re: OT Is anyone really surprised?
- Prev by Date: Re: OT Is anyone really surprised?
- Next by Date: Re: OT Why No Fusion Powerplants?
- Previous by thread: Re: OT Is anyone really surprised?
- Next by thread: Re: OT Is anyone really surprised?