Friday, July 04, 2008


Zimbabwe is no longer, as The New York Times put it back in 1999, “sliding into tyranny.” It has long since arrived. Freelance correspondent Joshua Hammer, who traveled to the country earlier this year, says it’s still possible to do journalism, that is if you pose as a tourist.

Comments [5]

yuda sheperd from wakefield

hey i need to know what my fellow zimbabweans say about my secret film. They seems not intrested in the issue. Why?

Aug. 07 2008 12:52 PM
Brian from NYC

Now here's a dictator that needs to be removed with armed forces. Unfortunately, the US military is busy playing in the desert. Oh, and of course there's the fact that we don't really have any moral ground anymore to remove people from power for lying, cheating and killing.

Mugabe is lucky Zimbabwe doesn't have any oil.

Jul. 22 2008 10:53 PM
andrew storer from UK

The fact of the matter is that Mugabe is not going to be removed absent his assassination. No "removal from power" is going to be effected.

Nothing else will work.

He has killed perhaps 30,000 of his fellow Zimbabweans since 1980. I note you are not caring about them. A small total compared to some dictators I agree but he has also bankrupted and/or driven into exile 4,000,000 people- who knows how many? When is this going to stop?

Mugabe with his generals will remain in the lap of luxury (and ordering the burning alive of pregnant women and children) until he is removed by death- whether natural (10 years?) or deliberate death. I do not think you realise the realiities of llife out there.

That is why I advocate his assassination and please do discuss this with me- another way would be much better for all.

The only other way I can think of at the moment is hyperinflation ruining the country so much that he can no longer pay his political cronies, the army, the police, the secret police, the concentration camp guards and commandants and the torturers so they turn on him-but that may take a year or so.

Jul. 18 2008 06:09 PM
Chris Gray from New Haven, CT

I supported this monster 30 years ago, but I never advocated killing his adversary. I was wrong to have believed in him and advocate his removal from power, but not his assassination.

Still, the lack of policing of these comments pages according to your own guidelines and the apparent removal of an admittedly odd comment of mine that met those guidelines suggests an only half-hearted commitment to dialog. That happens with institutions.

That's what kept going through my head as I listened to the piece on the gentleman at WNYC for 35 years, last week. He was an institution!

Jul. 11 2008 01:11 AM
sam bob

Here are your Comment guidelines:

Be civil: Please respond insightfully and respectfully. There is room for disagreement, but please disagree with people's ideas. Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

How did "Assasinate Mugabe?" slip through?

Mugabe is reprehensible, evil and a murderer. But this a dangerously slippery slope OTM is going down. Which leaders is it okay to advocate assassinating? And which ones is it not okay to advocate killing?

Jul. 10 2008 10:22 PM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.