I deliberately posted that information from the Zimbabwe government's website to show that the government is not too much in favour with the way the police and Harare City Council are going about cleaning up the city.

It fits neatly into your demonizing campaign to try to make us believe every decision in Zimbabwe comes directly from President Mugabe. I am well aware of how agencies act out of sync with the government, although the government will ultimately have to take the responsibility. Zimbabwe being a hostile environment would have agents being paid by white forces to act in a manner to discredit the government. The anti-Mugabe forces want a coup as they realize they lost the elections and their claims of major electoral fraud have been thoroughly discredited.

The pro-western agenda about what takes place in Zimbabwe is quite evident, you have even incorporated their tactics of distortions, exaggerations and lies. Now you are taking information and phrases that I previously shared on the board, information you did not originally present or indicate you agreed with, so others will forget you WERE trying to paint a different picture.

It has been noted you are now mentioning that the white farmers mostly grew tobacco, the very point I made several times in the past. Previously you conveniently left out this information to create the impression that the Government took over land used for growing food, and since the land has been reclaimed by Blacks the food is no longer being produced. You are now trying to use another route to paint the same picture by stating that Zimbabwe needed the foreign exchange from the white farmer's tobacco sales, while dishonestly and intentionally omitting very important pieces of the picture; the fact that hardships were deliberately created by the US/UK sanctions on Zimbabwe as well as the drought that has affected local food production (mostly grown by peasants).

Re: AU backs off on Zimbabwe issue
Posted By: Masimba Musodza
Tuesday, 13 July 2004, at 3:21 p.m.
http://www.rastafarispeaks.com/cgi-bin/forum/archive1/config.pl?read=418 79

You said: "By "sound business principles", I obviously meant with title deeds, with which one can get a loan from any financial institution, with proper accounting systems etc. You can't run a farm the same way you would a traditional family homestead.
My father possess a large tract of land. Up to now, it has not been utilised, again because he was not running it on sound business principles. My mother has come in to possession of it, and called upon me to help. I have insisted that she will not see a cent of mine until she is ready to run it like a proper business. And she could become a very rich woman if she did."

Based on your idea of 'sound business principles' I do not believe you with this statement: "I am one of those who has put a lot of money in to the informal sector, with a view to empowering my fellow Rastafarians in areas such as Chitungwiza." (sic)

If Rastafarians in Zimbabwe are anti-peasant like you, then I am glad if the government does not take them seriously. Your 'values' and rhetoric are definitely against the common black man, so they are very anti-Rasta in my view.

You tried to paint a picture of Mugabe taking revenge on people who did not vote for him, and those who lack common sense could fall for that crap. Sensible people can view the events there differently.

There is no doubt the white business community is definitely anti-Mugabe, but in this situation, removal of the illegal buildings and vendors would have been a move they see to their advantage. Like most big business owners, they would like the capital clear of other vendors so they can remain in full control of trade in the area. This is true in most countries.

You asked: "Is that how regularisation speedily happens in your country, by sending soldiers and police to beat up people, burn their homes, burn their products?" (sic)

Removing 'illegal' structures and vendors is always a sore point, as it usually affects poor black people, who argue that they are being denied the right to make a living. Where I reside on occasion the government has done the same, and they have also 'regulated' some of the vendors. One of the areas in the capital where the government allowed unregulated wooden structures to remain was destroyed by fire recently. This is a big area in the capital of Trinidad that was set aside for former street vendors.

You are implying Mugabe sent police and soldiers to brutalize people, burn and destroy their homes and commodities, continuing your demonizing agenda.

However, I know of agencies that were sent to clear the streets of illegal structures, resorting to excessive conduct not approved of by the government. The story could spin any way, but to give the impression that this action is about revenge for not voting for Robert Mugabe tries to make it seem that the main opposition forces disagreed with moving the unregulated structures and vendors. The white business owners in the capital - the main supporters of the opposition party in Zimbabwe - supported removing the 'illegal' structures. Now they are torn between wanting the place to be vendor free and using the fallout of removing the vendors in their propaganda campaign.

I do not rely on your information on what is taking place in Zimbabwe since you do not comment from a fact based, historical point of view, although you claim Zimbabwean heritage. You were not the one who presented the history of events on this board. Anyone with some sense can easily show where you are exaggerating, lying or distorting in the posts you make here.