Mugabe apparently not in charge of Zimbabwe

In a report published today using foreign diplomats in Zimbabwe as sources, it has been said that Mugabe isn't actually the one running Zimbabwe, and that his Generals staged a coup back in March when they heard that Mugabe was reluctantly preparing to step down in the aftermath of the election results. Apparently the Generals refused to allow him to step down, fearing that while Mugabe himself had been guaranteed immunity (And an allowance to leave Zimbabwe) by the MDC, his Generals hadn't been guaranteed the same immunity, and feared that they would be charged with all sorts of crimes by the new government.

Doesn't change the fact that Mugabe is a murderous c*nt, but it's interesting.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23838942-32682,00.html

Yeah, the Oz has the story too - here

And here.

Err.....

OK Trev, you can post the next link - there are at least two more stories on it . . .

The first link that you posted was the one that I had already posted.

Yes, but you hadn't posted it when I wrote it and the 'another post has appeared' thingy doesn't work any more. Not for me, anyway.
Still, we agree, and that's the important thing, right?

Still, we agree, and that's the important thing, right?

I guess?

Get a room you two.

freddled gruntbuggly wrote:Still, we agree, and that's the important thing, right?

We already have a thread for this.

Invader Zim wrote:Get a room you two.

You're just jealous.

Would South Africa feel more obliged to step in now that Mugabe himself is apparently being forceably kept in charge?

Mbeki's loyalty is to Mugabe himself, isn't it? Maybe if he could be convinced of the situation in Zimbabwe he might look at taking steps.

Yes, if Mbeki establishes that Zimbabwe is being run by a bunch of meatheaded, thuggish, overweight generals and not his old pal Bob, then he might even send in the SA military.

The International Criminal Court ought to consider granting immunity to certain people, if it's in the best interests of the country and it's people. I know there's a common desire to bring criminals to justice, but is it ultimately worth it if you know they're not going to be brought to justice (they'll either die or be granted immunity, there's no middle ground where the ICC will be successful). For the greater good, maybe it's actually worth granting these c**ts immunity and letting them piss off to wherever will take them (they'll probably end up in Khartoum, everyone else seems to - Bin Laden was there in the past). Zimbabwe's a mess and millions of innocent people will die otherwise.

Anyway, that's politics by the Augustus book. It probably won't strike a chord with any of you lot.

Actually, Gussie, I tend to agree. The first priority has to be to stop the current violence, and then to remedy the economic and agricultural problems. Giving these bastards a Get Out of Gaol Free card is the lesser of the two evils.

freddled gruntbuggly wrote:Mbeki's loyalty is to Mugabe himself, isn't it? Maybe if he could be convinced of the situation in Zimbabwe he might look at taking steps.

The only steps he will take are dance steps. Mbeki is an arse.

Interesting. Straussy slagging off the ECB & The Government!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/7447446.stm

JKLever wrote:Interesting. Straussy slagging off the ECB & The Government!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/7447446.stm

Let's hope that more players take a similar stand.

PeterCS wrote:

freddled gruntbuggly wrote:Mbeki's loyalty is to Mugabe himself, isn't it? Maybe if he could be convinced of the situation in Zimbabwe he might look at taking steps.

The only steps he will take are dance steps. Mbeki is an arse.

Aye he maybe that.
But he won't take on Mugabe, who is (like it or not), respected by black African states now as the Father figure
(since Mandela left politics) in the fight against white colonialism.