Absence of street fury in Zimbabwe puzzles analysts

One thing is true though, Morgan Tsvangiri is a British puppet.

To African4, just because Morgan beat Mugabe who is not a British puppet does not mean Morgan is, so who cares if he is, he sure as hell is a better
bet than Mugabe. At least he tries to do everything in a peaceful manner which is more than I can say for Bob. The only chance Zimbabwe has got is if Morgan takes over, the people want him (by the way the people of Zimbabwe are not British)they have a right to choose who they want to rule them and they chose Morgan. Good luck to him. I actually admire him, and everything he has been through he deserves to be President of Zimbabwe!

Morgan Tsvangiri is better than Mugabe.
At this point i time anybody is better than Mugabe.

It still does not change the fact that Tsvangiri is backed by the Brits and that afterwards they would expect to be rewarded with the exclusive rights to some minerals.

It is exactly what the Brits did here in SA with the ANC. Zim will definitely be better off under Tsvangiri, although they'll be poorer than they would have been, had they controlled their own minerals.

The mere fact that Morgan Tsvangiri is even known to the Zimbabwean, as an alternative to Mugabe, is largely due to the funds from the British embassy.

His campaign was paid for by the Brits. Not only this campaign, but every single campaign from the start.

The Brits could have backed anyone. They however choose Tsvangiri after some careful negotiations.

but this is old news as these negotiations took place many years ago.

It's like this.
Let's say I'm a Brit and I have a jod description not unlike that of the Thatcher boy..

First you identify a country with rich mineral deposits that is in need of new leadership.

There has got to be social unrest.
If there isn't you do a little bit to ensure social unrest.

Then you take the possible candidates that are standing as opposition to the current embattled leader. You have meetings with each one, until you identify the one that will give you access to his countries mineral wealth in exchange for your finantial backing.

It's a win win situation, for both the Brits and the new leader. The new leader wins, as he is likely to be elected because of the push that the British cash investment will give to his campaign.
The cash will make him more visible than his rivals.

The Brits will win because once their puppet is in place they will get excess to all that BILLIONS and BILLIONS of pounds in minerals.

The only people in the long run that stand to lose will be the locals, although life will be better for most and they will at least be free

The Brits will of course give millions if not hundreds of millions of rand in aid to Zimbabwe, thus cementing the opinion that they are the knights in shining armour.

Although in truth it is more like you giving me a hundred rands (in minerals) and me giving you back a twenty (in aid)

The Thatcher boy tried the same thing in the Congo. Overthrow the current government and replace it with a puppet, that will grant you access to the minerals.

In return you merely have to promise to support his regime and give him some monetary incentives.

There were there is a military coo, you'll mostly find a Brit somewhere in the background, pulling the strings.

Even the ANC are dancing to the string of their puppet masters in London.

What works even better for the British is that if their is any unrest, they can always blame the local white population.

All blacks in South Africa think that the South African whites have access to the minerals rights of South Africa, which of course they clearly don't have.

It however works in Britians favour.

The likes of Mugabe, Mabuto, Amin, Gadaffi, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, believe in ABSOLUTE power and nothing less.

I recently read the story of Pol Pot, it made my hair on my neck stand on end. If you know the story of Zimbabwe since the early 80's when the 5th Brigade went in, the similarities are uncanny, the brutality the same - no care of human lives - the only difference Mugabe has not burnt reading material in the streets yet ?????

This has been a topic of much debate. Educated opinions supported by historical facts have been laid on the table much to the interest of less educated people like myself. I applaud you all. May this serve as simple proof, to all who argue that blacks cannot prosper in the white man's system, that Africans are in fact educated, intelligent and able to critically analyse any given situation. Your comprehension of the situation in Zimbabwe gives me hope for the future and for that I thank you. Lets keep this debate full of facts, friendly banter and honesty for it is from this we may find a solution to end all our suffering. In shona they say: Kutonga Madzoro...

I would also like to point out that because of my scathing attack on the British, some would think me to be a black African. I am not a black African however, but a white one, a Boer, an Afrikaner.

African4 wrote:

I would also like to point out that because of my scathing attack on the British, some would think me to be a black African. I am not a black African however, but a white one, a Boer, an Afrikaner.

Well, thank you for clarifying that. Ethnic background is always relevant in situatios like this (not). My point is that despite you not being black, your comments were relevant and very interesting. However, you were not the only one in the debate yet you feel obliged to enlighten us on your ethnicity. Why is that? Would you like a Medal?

Bullet Mafirakureva wrote:

May this serve as simple proof, to all who argue that blacks cannot prosper in the white man's system, that Africans are in fact educated, intelligent and able to critically analyse any given situation.

Read above.

You're the one who first brought up ethnicity, in case you've forgotten.

I merely corrected you by saying thank you for the compliment, but that in fact I'm white.

WHY YOU HAD TO BRING UP ETHNICITY is beyond me and the fact that you brought it up first and then act all surprised when I respond in kind, makes you seem a bit hypocritical.

To come back to the topic under discussion: The absence of street fury in Zimbabwe is not puzzling at all! It's 100% normal in an African country under the thumb of a typical black despot WHERE THERE THE RELEVANT NEIGHBOURS ARE IN CAHOOTS WITH THE RULING PERP!

The black population simply will not rise up against the barrel of the gun as long as that gun is wielded brutally and viciously by the Zanu-PF terrorists. Who were terrorists from before 1980, when Perfidious Albion, its cleva Lord Carrington, cleva Fat Lord Soames, and all their cleva minions, put that very same terrorist Mugabe in power,- even though they knew very well that he was a terrorist, and that his armed thugs had intimidated the population for years!

Zimbabwe Image wrote:

At the bottom of it all, most Zimbabweans identify with Mugabe's land reform. They may protest at the economic melt-down, which many know has been fanned by the Anglo-American led sanctions in measures such as ZIDERA. This is the background and premise on which Zimbabweans' political behaviour rests. Our grievances, versus the benefits of our long delayed land reform, are simply too weak to incite genocide.
Any desperate westerner or colonial fossil who wishes for carnage on Zimbabwean streets will be disappointed. Not because we are timid, Zimbabwe is free because we fought white racism and sacrificed our lives. At the moment, no sane zimbabwean can sacrifice his life so that Tsvangirai gives back land to the colonial settler. If the world wants to see how violent we can get, Bush and Brown should try something silly and re-impose the colonial settler on our land.

man u do not know what the fuck u on about people right now in zim where better off under ian smith if zim is so good what the duzvi are you doingin tony's country, I bet ur mum is one of those stupidzanu women that run around in bob's attire, mugabe idhodhi and you are one if you support the duzvi