Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Your Rights Online

Wikileaks and Democracy In Zimbabwe 669

Posted by samzenpus
from the loose-ips dept.
OCatenac writes "The Atlantic has an interesting story on the collateral damage of exposing diplomatic communications in Zimbabwe. From the article: 'The reaction in Zimbabwe was swift. Zimbabwe's Mugabe-appointed attorney general announced he was investigating the Prime Minister on treason charges based exclusively on the contents of the leaked cable. While it's unlikely Tsvangirai could be convicted on the contents of the cable alone, the political damage has already been done. The cable provides Mugabe the opportunity to portray Tsvangirai as an agent of foreign governments working against the people of Zimbabwe. Furthermore, it could provide Mugabe with the pretense to abandon the coalition government that allowed Tsvangirai to become prime minister in 2009.' Undoubtedly there are lots of things that our governments hide from us which should not be hidden but it's a shame that no one from Wikileaks could be troubled to consider the potential repercussions of this particular exposure."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wikileaks and Democracy In Zimbabwe

Comments Filter:
  • Mugabe (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MightyMartian (840721) on Wednesday December 29, 2010 @06:14PM (#34704008) Journal

    Why exactly some decent Western power has had that vile repugnant monster Mugabe filled so full of holes you could use him as a soup strainer is beyond me. That incompetent tyrant has turned Africa's breadbasket into a ill-run starving madhouse.

    • That is one robust politician...

      Unless you meant to throw a "hasn't" in there somewhere. In which case would the relevant Western power still be decent?

      • by Motard (1553251)

        That is one robust politician...

        Unless you meant to throw a "hasn't" in there somewhere. In which case would the relevant Western power still be decent?

        I think he did, and yes it would. Better though, if it could be done via fair elections. But that was the original problem. The next step would be to bring them about through the pressures brought by sanctions by other nations. But thanks to the leak, that will not now be possible.

        The question then becomes, what are the next steps? They're likely to be less pleasant for all.

    • Re:Mugabe (Score:5, Insightful)

      by wowbagger (69688) on Wednesday December 29, 2010 @06:22PM (#34704090) Homepage Journal

      "Why exactly [hasn't] some decent Western power has had [sic] that vile repugnant monster Mugabe filled so full of holes you could use him as a soup strainer is beyond me.

      Because you cannot bring about Democracy by force. Either the people are ready for it or they are not, and the single best test of "are they ready" is that they overthrow the tyrant (bonus points for NOT filling him full of holes, but trying him in a civilized manner).

      If "some decent Western power" fills the sovereign leader of a foreign country full of holes, they immediately invalidate the adjective "decent".

      Moreover, since the people aren't ready for Democracy, the result will just be the rise of a new tyrant.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by NeutronCowboy (896098)

        Some people can only be removed by force, and will keep killing until they are killed. Mugabe is one of them. If the citizens don't have the firepower to do it, it is the moral duty of someone who can to do it. I'm all for arresting him and giving him a fair trial, but I also will not shed a tear if he is killed while resisting arrest.

      • by Yvanhoe (564877)

        Because you cannot bring about Democracy by force. Either the people are ready for it or they are not, and the single best test of "are they ready" is that they overthrow the tyrant

        Well I would like to believe in that myth, but I doubt that this is a universal rule and I think the ability to overthrow tyrants depends a lot more on the state of warfare technologies than on the willpower of the people. France, USA, had it easy to revolt at the era of the riffle. At this time, a riffle in a hand was worth another riffle in a hand. Numbers gave victory and thus, military victory was often democratic as well. Nowadays you can exterminate protestors with a few assault tanks [wikipedia.org]. You have to hav

      • by Q-Hack! (37846) *

        "

        Because you cannot bring about Democracy by force.

        Forgive me if I am wrong, but didn't the USA bring about democracy by force? Removing a tyrant from power and replacing that power with democracy will always require force.

        However, I will agree with your assessment that if a 'decent Western power' does the perforation of holes, they do in fact invalidate the adjective "decent".

        I suspect that you meant to say "Because you cannot force a country into democracy by waging war on their tyrant of a leader." Although, gauging by the current situation in Iraq, ev

      • by geekoid (135745)

        Germany was ready for democracy, but it took western powers to deal with that tyrant.

        It's not an error where you will have to musket opposing groups shooting it out. It's an era where when the people arise, the get squashed with helicopter, bombs, fire, machine guns and tanks.

        People also need the tool. Contrary to what you seem to think, it's a complex issue.

      • by Motard (1553251)

        Because you cannot bring about Democracy by force. Either the people are ready for it or they are not, and the single best test of "are they ready" is that they overthrow the tyrant (bonus points for NOT filling him full of holes, but trying him in a civilized manner)

        Perhaps you can't bring democracy by force, but you can prepare them for it, as the UK proved in India and Hong Kong. We'll have to watch Iraq to see if the original premise is proved false or not.

        Well, wait. If we consider the cases of Germany and Japan, actually, they prove pretty definitively that you can bring democracy as a result of bringing force.

      • Re:Mugabe (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Mashiki (184564) <mashiki&gmail,com> on Wednesday December 29, 2010 @06:51PM (#34704496) Homepage

        Guess you missed most of the world shifting to democracy. Shifting to democracy wasn't love, hugs, and cookies. It was violent, unbelievably so. France slaughtered royalty and politicians alike. In the UK they were drawing magistrates in the streets. The US not only fought the British, but threw them out. India's shift was very violent as well, so was pakistan's. Israel's was the same. Oh lets not forget Argentina either.

        People can be ready and want democracy. The shift to give people rights beyond what the government(royalty, or dictatorships), was violent everywhere. So yes, you can bring democracy by force. In fact, most of the democratic world was brought into existence by force. It's the erosion of democracy that's silent.

      • Re:Mugabe (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Vinegar Joe (998110) on Wednesday December 29, 2010 @07:33PM (#34705024)

        Because you cannot bring about Democracy by force.

        Hmmmm.....seems to have worked fairly well in Germany and Japan.

    • by Abcd1234 (188840)

      Yes, that's certainly worked out well in the past. I'm sure if you look back at history, every time a tyrant was killed, a really nice guy rose up to take his place...

    • Sorta like Saddam Hussein and his sons running Iraq. But Jesus, did America catch hell for doing something about it. We still are.

      If it's one thing I've learned, dictators are protected by larger nations so that they may be used like pawns and creating stalemates in global diplomacy. Nice huh?

      • Re:Mugabe (Score:5, Insightful)

        by spun (1352) <loverevolutionary@@@yahoo...com> on Wednesday December 29, 2010 @06:33PM (#34704226) Journal

        Sorta like Saddam Hussein and his sons running Iraq. But Jesus, did America catch hell for doing something about it. We still are.

        We caught hell for that because we put Saddam in power and supported him for decades. When you have to take out the same guy you put in, it makes the game itself look ridiculous. All the players hate it when you make the game look ridiculous.

        If it's one thing I've learned, dictators are protected by larger nations so that they may be used like pawns and creating stalemates in global diplomacy. Nice huh?

        We are one of the worst offenders in that regard.

        • by c6gunner (950153)

          We caught hell for that because we put Saddam in power and supported him for decades.

          Even if that were true, what would be the more rational response:

          1. "Alright, you guys finally got smart and decided to remove the bastard! Good job!"
          2. "LEAVE THAT EVIL DICTATOR ALONE!!!" .... well?

          We are one of the worst offenders in that regard.

          Well duh. Larger, more powerful nations nations have more influence around the world - Film at 11!

          • by spun (1352)

            But he was an evil bastard when we put him in power, we just don't care. Do you have any idea how many ruthless bastards we have put in power?

        • Re:Mugabe (Score:4, Informative)

          by Alaska Jack (679307) on Wednesday December 29, 2010 @07:50PM (#34705212) Journal

          Myth. Sadam didn't need U.S. help getting into power. There are some things that happen, believe it or not, without the all-powerful USA pulling strings behind the scenes.

          Don't get me wrong -- the CIA was all over the Middle East in the mid-to-late 1950s, and they had peripheral involvement in just about everything. But there is no evidence whatsoever that the CIA played any kind of fundamental role in his acendancy to party power.

          The "we put Saddam in power" thing is willful disbelief at its worst -- just a trope trotted out by those who can't bring themselves to admit that at least SOME good was done in forcibly removing a psychopathic dictator from power. The only rationalization they can come up with is, "Well, that wouldn't matter if the US was the one that put him there to begin with!" So they believe it.

            - AJ

      • by vadim_t (324782)

        And now that Saddam is gone, Iraq is enjoying democracy in all its glory? I seem to have missed that happening.

    • Re:Mugabe (Score:4, Interesting)

      by spun (1352) <loverevolutionary@@@yahoo...com> on Wednesday December 29, 2010 @06:29PM (#34704170) Journal

      Funny how we shift the blame here. And funny how no mention is made of the fact that all the diplomatic cables were redacted by the five newspapers Assange pre-released the cables to. No, it is not Mugabe or the papers who are to blame here, it is that rapist Assange again. The spin and manipulation seem so blatant to me, so orchestrated, that it amazes me how few people seem to notice the man behind the curtain.

      • by rickb928 (945187)

        Precisely. Don't blame a thug dictator. Don't blame his sponsors.

        Pathetic. The man behind the curtain is certainly in the right, isn't he? Ha!

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by kalirion (728907)

        Assange is to blame as well.

        To invoke Godwin's Law, would you have supported a leak of where all the Jews were hiding in Nazi Germany? Only the Nazis would be to blame for what happens next, right?

        • Re:Mugabe (Score:5, Insightful)

          by spun (1352) <loverevolutionary@@@yahoo...com> on Wednesday December 29, 2010 @06:53PM (#34704544) Journal

          Assange is to blame as well.

          To invoke Godwin's Law, would you have supported a leak of where all the Jews were hiding in Nazi Germany? Only the Nazis would be to blame for what happens next, right?

          No, but if diplomatic secrets were given to party A, and party A went to five separate well known and well respected papers to redact those diplomatic secrets, and people were then harmed by unredacted material, I would blame the papers, not the person who went to the papers. You do realize that Assange, responding to criticism that he was not redacting confidential information, made a deal with five venerable papers of record in various countries, and gave them the cables to redact, right? So Assange is still not to blame, the papers are. Nice attempt at deflection though.

    • That incompetent tyrant has turned Africa's breadbasket into a ill-run starving madhouse.

      Call Mugabe anything you want, goodness knows he deserves it but don't call a place a starving madhouse unless you have anything other than hyped up and horrendously biased Western media stories to prove it.

    • by Haedrian (1676506)

      Do they have oil in that country?

  • by lkcl (517947) <lkcl@lkcl.net> on Wednesday December 29, 2010 @06:23PM (#34704100) Homepage

    "it's a shame that no one from Wikileaks could be troubled to consider the potential repercussions of this particular exposure."

    NO. WRONG.

    it's a shame that no-one criticising wikileaks realises that mugabe is an insane criminal and murderer who will take advantage of *anything*.

    it takes wikileaks reporting to expose mugabe by "triggering" him to act out his true (insane) nature, for the world to observe how inappropriate a leader he really is.

    the days of living in the shadows are over, and the leaders and dictators of the world, as well as the rest of us, need to wake up and realise this.

    • These charges [guardian.co.uk] are mostly just to distract the media from Mugabe's involvment with blood diamonds [upi.com], but it's not obviously working. [guardian.co.uk]

      We've also got lovely summaries of Mugabe's criminality by U.S. ambassadors [wordpress.com].

      Btw, the 'sanctions' being discussed don't hurt people beyond Mugabe's immediate circle.

    • Re:wrong way round (Score:5, Interesting)

      by twoallbeefpatties (615632) on Wednesday December 29, 2010 @06:53PM (#34704546)
      it takes wikileaks reporting to expose mugabe by "triggering" him to act out his true (insane) nature, for the world to observe how inappropriate a leader he really is.

      To further that argument, remember that when we uncovered abuse of tortures at Gitmo, we were told that there were terrorists who would now know what kind of interrogation techniques we use and would train their operatives to resist those techniques. We were told that we needed to keep our interrogation processes secret in the name of national security. And to some extent, there's some truth in that - if terrorists want to be arrested and made into martyrs, it helps to know how your captors will deal with you.

      I don't know how I feel about this particular incident. I think there's a lot in the latest batch of WL releases that the public deserve to know, while a lot of it is just backroom chatter and face-saving things said behind doors that could've just been let there alone. But I absolutely hate this argument that we can't uncover the truth about things because TEH BAD PEOPLE will use that information against us.

      Number one, the bad people will always find something that they can use to fuel their propaganda. You're not going to stop the bad people by keeping these things secret. Number two, if you give people a freedom, then some people will use it for bad purposes. You give people the right to bear arms, then some people are going to get shot. Some people will say that if you ban guns, then only the criminals will have guns, and I sympathize with that argument. I would say that if we don't have information getting out to people about how their governments are functioning, then only the government itself will know how it is functioning.

      I want to quote a paragraph from TFA here: Zimbabwe's Mugabe-appointed attorney general announced he was investigating the Prime Minister on treason charges based exclusively on the contents of the leaked cable. While it's unlikely Tsvangirai could be convicted on the contents of the cable alone, the political damage has already been done. The cable provides Mugabe the opportunity to portray Tsvangirai as an agent of foreign governments working against the people of Zimbabwe. Furthermore, it could provide Mugabe with the pretense to abandon the coalition government that allowed Tsvangirai to become prime minister in 2009.

      What that paragraph says to me is - Mugabe is still in control, and if Wikileaks hadn't exposed this bit of dirt on one of his rivals, then it still would have happened for the first bit of negative information he could uncover. On top of that, the author of the post isn't talking about a loss of support for the prime minister that's already happened - he's predicting everything that's going to happen in the future, so there's no direct guarantee that the whole coalition government is about to collapse. It's terrible that Zimbabwe could be back in trouble again - not new trouble, just the trouble that was already there and was simmering quietly - but I still find blaming Wikileaks for this trouble to be the equivalent of blaming a pebble for the avalanche.
  • by GPLDAN (732269) on Wednesday December 29, 2010 @06:23PM (#34704116)
    While Ellsberg supports Assange and what they are trying to do, in actuality he redacted many names and even entire sections of diplomatic reports that assessed the allies of the US who were secretly supporting the Vietnam war, like Poland.

    He felt he wasn't doing the world any favors by exposing the murky dealings and backroom pacts that make the globe spin, and may delay his goal of a swift end to the Vietnam war.

    Assange has no goal, and that is part of his problem. His treatise is to make the world more open, as if the very nature of classified conversations and secret deals between nations offends him, so he is to bring a giant flashlight to things regardless of what happens.

    He has some very large bombshells to drop, such as I believe he has documents which tie Bank Of America to the Feds knowing that CDOs had no accountability, and that most mortage notes didn't have legal basis, and then of course TARP money - much of which is unaccounted for despite being taxpayer money. But like his bombshells that showed US helecopters attacking what may or may not have been journalists in the street, it did nothing. Nothing has changed despite Manning smuggling that video from the Apache gunning those guys down, including wasting their van that had children in it. I don't think it altered the US Army's engagement policy one iota.

    Despite all these findings he has, nothing will change and his duress which may cause him to continue to reveal all kinds of things without edit, he simply WILL cause collateral damage. The question is, is it worth it? To see how the bankers and the financiers and the heads of state control the world and the wealth in the world? Will it REALLY help democracy and display capitalism's flaws? Haven't we known that since Marx?

    I hope Assange or his followers continues, but does do more selective editing. the truth is not always its' own reward, as we are now seeing.
    • by twoallbeefpatties (615632) on Wednesday December 29, 2010 @06:33PM (#34704224)
      While Ellsberg supports Assange and what they are trying to do, in actuality he redacted many names and even entire sections of diplomatic reports that assessed the allies of the US who were secretly supporting the Vietnam war, like Poland.

      Assange (or whoever at his organization) also redacts names from the majority of Wikileaks releases, generally except where the names are of public figures.

      The question is, is it worth it? To see how the bankers and the financiers and the heads of state control the world and the wealth in the world? Will it REALLY help democracy and display capitalism's flaws? Haven't we known that since Marx?

      This is the most cynical, hopeless thing I have ever heard. It's essentially an admittance of defeat. You're saying, we may as well let the government and the corporations operate in secret, because we know that exposing their crimes won't do any good anyway. And the sad thing is, you might be right.
    • assessed the allies of the US who were secretly supporting the Vietnam war, like Poland.

      Poland was our ally and secretly supported us in the Vietnam War (1965-1975)? Wait, what?

    • by Stregano (1285764)
      Didn't the Anonymous attacks get more publicity after Wikileaks? People are slowly moving over and listening, but a problem is that most for profit media in a state of crisis is state run media. Do you honestly think CNN or Fox News is going to keep a story about soldiers taking out kids or journalists?

      When the media brushes serious incidents under the carpet, most of America is dumb enough to do the same. It is unfortunate, really, but eventually, one of these leaks is going to stick.

      If you are a
    • by oblivionboy (181090) on Wednesday December 29, 2010 @07:22PM (#34704884)

      You are mistaken I'm sure. Whatever you value them as, Assange seems to have very specific ideas and motives behind him as illustrated here:

      http://www.mara-stream.org/think-tank/julian-assange-conspiracy-as-governance/

      In addition to this, and as has been pointed out elsewhere on Slashdot, unlike the Ellsberg leak, Assange has no actual interest in the US. Rather what he has is an interest in letting the rest of the world understand its influence upon different citizen's countries and how their governments may have interacted or even been pressured into doing deals with the US to further its own interest, often at the cost of democratic values.

      The only people I see complaining now are those that are in the US. Well too bad. You made your bed (Cambodia, South and Central America, Africa, the list goes on and on), so deal with it. Its quite possible that the US are not "the good guys" that Americans would like to think and that this rallying against Wikileaks is not against the leaks, but rather a very deeply rooted cultural self esteem which is now threatened. The US is coming out as not very nice at all -- and if it was Russia no one would care, because you'd expect that from Russia, right? But the US? Bad?

      Don't believe me? Its very interesting that the nature of the discussion is all about whether Wikileaks should leak, rather than the contents of the leaks themselves. Information is just information after, no? But suddenly everyone is defending Hillary Clinton and who ever else on needing this kind of secrecy to broker "important deals" and keep "security" whatever that means. This is not democratic freedom.

      People in the US are probably very good people or bad people within the usual statistical distribution of a Western population. I see alot of people from the US complain endlessly about their "one party" system, and how everyone is in bed with the lobbyists and the corporations and that something should change, but then Wikileaks comes along to challenge this, and everyone complains. Its mysterious. Its important to separate yourself as a citizen from your government which Wikileaks is working against. Stand back objectively and make up your own mind.

      Here's an exercise, try and place yourself in the position of any of a number of countries that have been muscled by the US in the last 50 years, and see if you can see the other side. Then understand that its not you, but your government which is responsible for this.

  • by ConaxConax (1886430) on Wednesday December 29, 2010 @06:24PM (#34704124)
    There will be never be democracy in Zimbabwe with Mugabe in power.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by jeff4747 (256583)

      Good thing that cable was leaked then. Now Mugabe can beat back the reformers again.

  • by kaptink (699820) on Wednesday December 29, 2010 @06:27PM (#34704150) Homepage

    I had no idea there was democracy in Zimbabwe. I was under the impression that Robert Mugabe bullied his way into power and has fixed it so he never leaves? Is this not right?

    • by hedwards (940851)
      No, he was a halfway decent leader that won legitimately at first. These days though, you're impression is pretty apt. He lost the last campaign but was able to use militias to beat, torture, murder and rape his was to a coalition government over the actual winner of the poll.
  • by mosb1000 (710161) <mosb1000@mac.com> on Wednesday December 29, 2010 @06:30PM (#34704190)

    If the cable proves that Tsvangirai is working with foreign governments to subvert Mugabe, shouldn't the people of Zimbabwe know that? It seems like it would be in their interest to know.

    • Do you have any idea who Mugabe is? Subverting Mugabe is very much like subverting Hitler or Stalin: the entire world should give you a frickin medal, and the citizens of the country should pay your retirement.

    • by Senes (928228) on Wednesday December 29, 2010 @06:45PM (#34704386)
      It doesn't necessarily mean that what Tsvangirai is doing is illegal or immoral. Mugabe is just misrepresenting information and using it to fuel his own propaganda machine. Wikileaks isn't at fault either; they're not passing judgment on anyone.

      It seems like what is happening here is that Tsvangirai is trying to cooperate with 'western' governments, and Mugabe is painting this as an evil action which needs to be stopped.
      • by chihowa (366380) *

        Did you read the cable, though? Tsvangirai encouraged the 'western' governments to keep up the sanctions as they were putting pressure on Mugabe. Economic sanctions are (supposed to be) great for getting leaders ousted, but they (genuinely) suck for the common people living in the country, too. It came out that Tsvangirai was trying to continue the starvation of the people to further his political goals (which were honorable). Mugabe doesn't have to twist this at all. Tsvangirai did all the damage himself.

        T

  • by vadim_t (324782) on Wednesday December 29, 2010 @06:40PM (#34704314) Homepage

    This case:

    Tsvangirai (good) hiddenly supports sanctions against his own country to harm his opponent, Mugabe (bad). That scheme comes to light, possibly spelling doom for democracy. Shame on Wikileaks for screwing it up.

    Now let's try in reverse:

    Mugabe (bad) hiddenly supports sanctions against his own country to harm his opponent, Tsvangirai (good). That scheme comes to light, possibly spelling doom for the tyranny and opening way for glorious democracy. Glory to Wikileaks for uncovering Mugabe's shady deals.

    I don't like double standards. Christopher R. Albon seems to be saying that the end justifies the means, and so long that the end is democracy, pretty much anything goes.

    IMO, the problem here is not with Wikileaks. It's one of two things:

    A. Tsvangirai isn't all that saintly, and not that much better than Mugabe, so he must to resort to underhanded means to defeat his oponent.

    B. The people don't really want democracy. They either like Mugabe for some reason, or he convinced them his oponent is worse, or just don't give a damn. Whatever the issue in such a case should they get this democracy it's unlikely to make things all that much better for them, because democracy requires people who care, and parties willing to represent the will of those people. If the people don't care, or all the choices are horrible, it's democracy in name only.

    • by corbettw (214229)

      Yes, because when your opponent has a history of murdering people who oppose him, the only acceptable course of action is stand up and oppose him publicly. Nevermind that little red dot on your forehead, just keep giving that speech about the horrors of farm collectivization.

      It is exactly this kind of naive and misguided thinking that gets people killed in the real world.

    • You seem to have missed the actual case - probably because it lets you uphold your doublethink and blame the problems on everyone but Wikileaks.
       
      C. Mugbage has the military and the police and the courts and virtually 100% political control supporting his dictatorship. That leaves his opponents (those supporting ousting him and restoring democracy) with very few weapons and dependent on foreign support - much like the various Resistance groups in occupied Europe.

  • From a Zimbabwean (Score:5, Informative)

    by beneppel (1378655) on Wednesday December 29, 2010 @07:05PM (#34704686)
    I grew up in Zimbabwe (my family still live there) and there are probably a few things that are worth pointing out about this:
    • This is not the first time Mugabe has had Tsvangirai charged with treason
    • The sanctions placed on Zimbabwe are "smart sanctions" against specific members of ZANU (PF) (Mugabe's party) and their personal interests
    • The state media in Zimbabwe consistently blame the country's economic hardships on the sanctions, which is clearly preposterous - but fools a lot of people who have no access to alternative media
    • There is likely to be an election in the next 6 months, and this is mostly a ploy to sabotage it
    • If it wasn't for Wikileaks, something else equally infuriating would undoubtedly have happened anyway (i.e. political turmoil in Zimbabwe is hardly collateral damage of cable gate)

    I think Wikileaks is great. I am sure Zimbabwe would be a different place if the majority of people had access to unbiased information - the vast majority of people only have access to state media check out http://www.herald.co.zw/ [herald.co.zw] and http://www.chronicle.co.zw/ [chronicle.co.zw] for a taste of what that's like!

    • by mutube (981006)

      Mod parent up.

      Seriously, the majority of other posts on this thread just demonstrate what is depressingly wrong with the majority of the Slashdot audience. It's just endless rehashing of opinions without recourse to a) reality b) context or c) TFA.

      Half the comments here could have been posted on any Wikileaks thread going. No insight, no relevance, yet modded 'Insightful' and 'Informative' based on how they agree to individuals existing point of view.

      Sad.
       

  • BFD (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rainer_d (115765) on Wednesday December 29, 2010 @07:48PM (#34705186) Homepage
    As if anybody really cared about Zimbabwe. Mugabe didn't exactly fall out of the blue sky last year.
  • PsyOps (Score:4, Informative)

    by AftanGustur (7715) on Wednesday December 29, 2010 @07:50PM (#34705204) Homepage
    I see the US PsyOps team have all created /. accounts ..

Recursion is the root of computation since it trades description for time.

Working...