Most of us are aware of the hypocrisy of the UK government's 'defending of human rights' but we continue to support the ordinary people of any country who are being used by their governments, including this country. We fight this government for the rights of refugees to remain here, actively oppose the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as well as the resource wars in DRC, where British companies are literally making a killing and also oppose Robert Mugabe's beating up of women and men on the streets of Zimbabwe. I do not see any point in taking the side of any leader just because they spew rhetoric against colonialism. Know them by their actions. Beware CIOs on Indymedia

White supremacy reigns among white liberals and radicals. It is bizarre given the obvious propaganda against Zimbabwe that whites adopt the position of the Western media. It is obvious that African dictators are usually backed by a world power and usually the West.

Who is backing Mugabe? Since when did Mugabe become the worst African dictator? How is it that after he ‘massacred’ 20,000 of his own people in the early 1980s, and in 1994 was honoured by the Queen, he now is a monstrous dictator when no one is claiming he has massacred thousands? (And I've never seen any evidence to support this 20,000 figure.) Even the 'campaigning journalist' Andrew Meldrum claims he supported Mugabe knowing that he'd 'massacred 20,000' but now claims the same person is a 'brutal dictator'. Can you, so called white radicals explain this? Can you explain why in 1994 the readers of New African voted Mugabe the third most important African leader ever?

I've been to two public meeting in London organised by black people about Zimbabwe. Yes, attended by black people who regard themselves as politically aware. Both meetings supported Zanu-PF.

African monitors at the last two elections in Zimbabwe were clear: the elections that Zanu-PF won "reflected the will of the people". Japan, China, Iran and other countries agreed with that assessment. Yet, Mugabe is a dictator.

Most white betray themselves. When black people of Zimbabwe demanded that they get their land back, what did white radicals do? They joined up with white capitalists and colonialists to attack them. They, no doubt, support the racist slurs about how useless black Zimbabweans are about managing the land which, of course, suggests that the land should go back to white racists.

The Zimbabwean issue is the most important facing Africa. After going along with the IMF in the 1990s and seeing the destruction of the economy, in 1998, Zanu-PF rejected the IMF. The Zimbawean army alongside other African countries intervened in the Congo. Until then, the West had engineered the death of 30,000 people. This upset Western elites who now want to reimpose a colonialism on Zimbabwe and yes they have a whole load of brainwashed black traitors supporting them. Many black Zimbabweans are of course fed up with the hardship they face - a hardship engineered by the West.

This rubbish about not supporting leaders is just another white supremacist con-trick. If not Mugabe and Zanu-PF, who the hell else do you support? Fairies in the back of the garden? The idea that black people have to wait for some saint to rescue them is absurd.

I'm pleased to say that not all white people support white supremacy. But black people are waking up to what's happening in Zimbabwe. As long as you so-called white radicals carry on with your hypocrisy, the more black people will see through you.