Return Quote By: Fill & Download for Free

I write this on 15th November 2017 at around 1100 UTC.We don’t know much of what is happening there apart from tweets from journalists stationed there and the press statements that the military leaders (and Mugabe himself) have issued. I spoke with friends and colleagues in Harare and they don’t really have much information to add apart from the chatter around which is quite contradictory. Interestingly some of the people I spoke with were jubilant at the thought that Mugabe’s rule may be at an end but also sad about the way in which it seems to be happening.What seems to have happenedSoldiers are on the streets.There are tanks on the road going to Mugabe’s office (image from the New York Times)Soldiers have taken over the State broadcaster.Explosions were reported from the vicinity of the Presidential house.What is the military is saying (My comments in italics)Maj. Gen. S.B. Moyo : "To both our people and the world beyond our borders, we wish to make it abundantly clear that this is not a military takeover of government." : First law of politics - never believe anything unless it has been denied.He added "What the Zimbabwe Defense Forces is doing is to pacify a degenerating political, social and economic situation in our country, which if not addressed may result in a violent conflict" Yeah sure that is the job description of the armed forces.He went on to say "As soon as we accomplish our mission we expect situation to return to normalcy". Hmm. Wonder what the mission is. Reinstating Mnangagwa as Vice President? Putting him in charge?Comrade Mugabe and his family are ‘safe’ but they are confined to their home. Why are they needing to say this? Why would Mugabe not be safe, given that it is NOT a coup?What is everyone else saying and / or doing?Political leaders in Zimbabwe are calling it a coup. In fact Chris Mutsvanga who is close to Mnangagwa praised the military for a bloodless coup. Opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai calls it a coup.Embassies in the capital are evacuating their staff.The streets are empty as people have preferred to stay at home.South African Presiden Jacob Zuma is sending an envoy and says he hopes that ‘peace and stability will return’.(Quotes from military spokespersons sourced from tweets and reports from Al Jazeera and CNN. Other information from other news agencies.)This is what happens or is said in every bloodless coup. No military ever says that they wanted power forever. They always want to rid the country of evils, temporarily. Think Pakistan. Think Nigeria. Think (any place where a coup happened).From what one can see and hear in Zimbabwe today,It talks like a coup.It walks like a coup.It smells like a coup.Perhaps then it IS a coup!It is possible that the military is not saying that it is a coup becauseA coup is not something that most of the civilised world finds acceptable andThe moment a coup is declared, the African Union protocol demands expulsion of the member State. Note that army has not said 'coup' and the AU has not responded with threats.Edit on 19th November around 1200 UTCIt's over. A regime change has happened.After vote, ZANU PF's Paul Mangwana tells me "we are removing (Mugabe). He can go farming. We want a new president." Emmerson Mnangagwa voted new party leader "with immediate effect."— andrew harding (@AndrewWJHarding) November 19, 2017

Seemingly the only information the internet has to offer: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 March 9 - WikipediaWild Geese: "Flight of the wild geese"Where did the name "Flight of the Wild Geese" come from? --12.169.167.154 (talk) 10:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)I found nothing definite, but would have guessed that like the feathered geese, they migrated southward in large numbers, hoping to return one day, when the climate is warmer again.I did find this quote by Seán Ó Faoláin:"The Wild Geese come in their thousands with the October moon. They blacken the sky and they cry the coming of Autumn. Where there are low marshlands, or sloblands, they settle down, and then the cabins are cooking them with much butter or grease in the bastables all the Winter. About the estuary of the Shannon, and all up the river into Limerick, they must have whizzed and moaned, that Winter of 1691, when Ginkel offered the terms that ended the Jacobite War, and started bitter quarrels among the tired and tattered Irish. The flying Irish, down the Shannon or down the Lee with Sarsfield, looked up at the skies, and took the name, The Wild Geese. It was the end of a period. It was all but the end of a race." [1]---Sluzzelin10:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)I found this "French ships, which came to the west coast of Ireland smuggling brandy and wine, would leave with recruits for the Irish Brigade. To hide their movements from the English, the men would be listed on the ship's manifest as 'Wild Geese,' thus the origin of the name" here[2].Julia Rossi(talk) 10:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This whole concept of seeing the past seems to be misunderstood. It's all a question of time-frames. For example, right now it is 10.00 AM Sunday morning in India. I call up my friend in Los Angeles and talk to him. He tells me the time there is 9.30 PM Saturday evening - that is "yesterday" evening for me. Does this mean that I am talking to the "past". Or, if I was watching him on "Skype" while talking to him, does it mean that I am looking at the "past"?? NO! It is the "present" everywhere! It is just the time difference, due to the difference in spatial frames between California and Karnataka.I know how this concept of "seeing the past" has come about. We are able to look at a very distant object through a telescope because the light from that object strikes the telescope making it possible. Now, if the object was ten light years away, that means light from that object has taken ten years to reach Earth - therefore effectively we are seeing light from that object as it was ten years ago - with reference to "our time frame". Consequently, if you were on Kepler-452b today and look at the Earth through a powerful telescope, you will see the light (sunlight reflected) that started from Earth 1,400 years ago. If you were able to somehow resolve details on Earth you may be able to see objects. Hypothetically, you will be looking at Earth as it was in 615 A.D. This happens also due to difference in spatial frames between Earth and Kepler-425b.This doesn't mean that you are looking at the "past". Let me clarify. If you were truly able to look at the "past" of the Earth by sitting on Kepler-425b with a powerful telescope, let me see you look at Karnataka as it was in the year 614 A.D.? Is it possible? Why, try to look at Earth as it was in 1900. Is that possible? Do you realize now, that to look at Earth as it was in 614 A.D. you need to move to another planet which is 1399 light years away, and if you want to look at Earth as it was in 1900 then you need to move to yet another location 115 light years away. You need to move in space to make a difference in time. In other words, you need to move in "spacetime".For you - a human from the planet Earth - who has somehow transported himself to another planet Kepler-425b - what you see on your home planet appears as "history" or the "past" only because you are aware of the history of the Earth. For anyone who was born on Kepler-425b, it would be just Earth as it is at that moment in time. The word "past" here is only figurative. If you were to travel to Kepler-425b in a spaceship at 99.90% of light-speed, you will reach there after 1401.30 years. Right? And light from the Earth has reached there ~15 months before you. Therefore when you reach your destination and set up your telescope and look at Earth, you are looking at Earth almost exactly as it was when you left it, and not 1400 years in the past. (15 months difference is negligible in this time scale) Therefore for you, it is still the "present" whereas on Earth, 30,000 years would have elapsed. There is no "time travel" involved.Another example quoted by everyone is that - we travel at 99.90% of the speed of light but do not go anywhere. We keep circling the earth - roughly 7 times a second - and continue doing so for one year - by our clock - and then get off at the starting point. Roughly 22 years would have elapsed, so do you think we are stepping into "future"? Again, No! The INTER-NATIONAL SPACE STATION is doing something like this already, albeit on a smaller scale. The resident astronauts are circling the Earth every 92 minutes at something like 27,000 KM/ph. They see the Earth below, take photos, and are in contact with Earth 24/7. In other words, they are in sync with the Earth. In fact, for this purpose, their clocks are synchronized to UTC. Suppose they have no contact with the Earth, and they do not see the Earth at all but continue to circle the Earth ~15 times a day and return to Earth after one year. Are they stepping into "future"? True, a lot of things would have changed back home in one year - that's because they were absent on the scene! There is no "time travel" involved.For that matter, someone who is released after twenty years in prison mayfind the world totally changed - that does not mean he stepped into thefuture!I wonder if you have heard of Rip Van Winkle - the main character of a story written by Washington Irving, an American author. This person sleeps off for twenty years in a remote part of the village, and when he woke up, he could not recognize anyone he knew, nor did anyone recognized him. He had stepped twenty years in the future!! No spaceships, no rockets, no clocks! Just zzzzzzzzzz.Now to the next part of your question. First of all, we cannot travel faster than light - as of today. However, theoretically, if you travel faster than light, it is claimed that the clocks will run in reverse. That doesn't mean you can go over to the "past". There is nothing like "past" except in our minds. It is not a location either in space or time that we can "visit" at will. The physics of it may be true - the clocks may run in reverse - which we conveniently translate as "going into the past".According to Relativity, at the speed of light, time stands still - meaning clocks stop. A corollary of that, naturally, will be if you exceed the speed of light, time moves backwards - the clocks run in reverse. This is a fallacy because according Special Relativity, matter can not exceed the speed of light.So - if "time" was running in reverse on a spaceship, then broken bottles should start assembling themselves, water should "flow" upwards, etc. and soon the spaceship will return to light-speed. Do you see the fallacy here? Let us remember, the "arrow of time" goes only in one direction - FORWARD. This is known as the "asymmetry" of time.Time is neither a particle or a wave. No one knows what it is. It's something quite abstract. We develop the concept of time only as we grow up in civilization. Past is just a memory, and Future is just a "hope" - both do not "exist" anywhere except in the mind. It is a concept only experienced by humans. True "time travel" would be when the time traveler returns to the present and relates his/her experiences. :-)I keep repeating this whenever I get a chance: Time travel can be undertaken only in the mind - like a fantasy. Physical "time travel" is impossible.Disappointing, isn't it?