NationStates Jolt Archive


Over 400,000 Sudanese killed

Ravenshrike
07-10-2005, 03:47
While France and China protect their oil interests. And just in case anyone has a stick up their ass about it, I was using the word ****** to make a point about the attitude taken by the governments involved.

http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=686


The first genocide of the twenty-first century is drawing to an end
There are no black people left to cleanse or kill



At last, some good news from Darfur: the holocaust in western Sudan is nearly over. There’s only one problem – it’s drawing to an end only because there are no black people left to cleanse or kill.

The National Islamic Front government has culled over 400,000 “Zurga” – a word which translates best as “niggers” – and driven two million more from their homes in its quest to make western Sudan “Zurga-free”. Their racist Janjaweed militias would love to carry on rampaging and raping, but the black villages have all been burned down and the women have all been raped with “Arab seed” to “destroy their race from within” – what’s a poor militiaman to do? The first genocide of the twenty-first century has proceeded without a hitch, and the genocidaires have won.

Some of the survivors have washed up on Britain’s shores. Adam Hussein now lives in Doncaster. He explains, “My father was a teacher and my brother was working in a gold mine. We had a small shop in the town and a farm too. In Darfur, people are very kind. Even if you have nothing you can live with other people who help you.” One day last year, he was out with his uncle and sister when “suddenly we saw an aeroplane come through the town and start bombing. After a few minutes, we saw the Janjaweed, who attacked my sister and uncle and… they died. I saw them catch other young girls and rape them.” Adam was tossed into jail by the Janjaweed as part of their pogrom. He only escaped by luck, and scrambled to catch a boat which ended up in London. (Ah, but no doubt the right-wing press believes he only left Sudan so he could live in luxury on the £38.50 the British government lavishes on him every week).

The primary responsibility for this holocaust lies, of course, with the National Islamic Front government in Khartoum. For decades, they treated Darfur in western Sudan as a nothing more than a source of loyal Muslim conscripts to fight in their civil war against Christians in the South. The “Zurga” were good enough to use as cannon fodder – to die in their hundreds of thousands fighting in a futile war – but not good enough to be allowed into government or to have any public funds spent on them. When in 2003 the “Zurga” staged a minor rebellion against decades of being treated like this, Khartoum reacted with staggering ferocity. They unleashed the Janjaweed militias – a fancy term for men on horseback with knives and machine guns – and backed their raids up with helicopter gunships.

As the violence grew more and more wild, the hardliners in Khartoum saw this as an opportunity. Darfur sits on the geographical faultline between Arab Africa and black Africa, and since the 1980s Khartoum’s Islamists have longed to “completely Arabize our part of Africa” and drive the “inferior” black population out. This was their chance. They ensured the crushing of a local rebellion slid gradually into genocide.

It was clear very early on that this was a rerun of Rwanda. Romeo Dallaire was the head of the UN peacekeeping force in Rwanda who tried desperately – and in vain – to persuade the world to intervene, only to watch helplessly while hundreds of thousands of people were systematically murdered. Last year, he called Darfur “Rwanda in slow motion.”

So where were all those people who watched that genocide on their TV screens and solemnly intoned, “Never again?” They did not come for Adam and his family. Tony Blair had pledged in 2001 that “if Rwanda happened again, we would have a moral responsibility to act.” But confronted with precisely that, he offered nothing but a moral fig-leaf: he proposed an African Union (AU) force should be sent to monitor a ceasefire in Darfur. But the AU did not have the physical capability to pacify Tunbridge Wells, never mind Darfur. They sent just 3000 troops to monitor an area the size of France – and the handful of troops they did send didn’t even have a mandate to protect civilians. Darfur expert Gerard Prunier says the AU force consists of “thousands of little black Dallaires, who can only watch while the killing continues. Sending them was the world’s way of doing nothing without actually admitting it.” This was illustrated with hellish clarity last week when a refugee camp supposedly guarded by AU troops was entered by Janjaweed militiamen who butchered 37 people without a single shot being fired against them. It was Darfur’s mini-Srebrenica, a moment that exposed the futility of the world’s interventions so far.

The Bush administration talked tough about Darfur at first, becoming one of the first governments to publicly use the g-word. But at the same time, as the Los Angeles Times has revealed, they were sending jets to Khartoum to fly Sudan’s intelligence chief Salan Abdallah Gosh – the man overseeing the holocaust – to Washington. He was ushered into secret meetings where he was feted as a “close ally” for sharing some intelligence about al-Quaida and moving towards opening Sudan’s oil fields to US corporations. Ah well, what’s a spot of genocide between friends? The state department has even begun spouting the Sudanese propaganda line that the Janjaweed are “wild out-of-control tribesmen” not under the control of Khartoum. But how many wild out-of-control tribesmen have helicopter gunships bearing the insignia of the
Sudanese army?

The list of people who have betrayed the Darfurians continues. China and France both have oil interests in Sudan – so they told Kofi Anan they would veto any attempt by the Security Council to end the genocide. At the height of the murders in Darfur, the United Nations itself appointed the Sudanese government to a three-year term on the UN Human Rights Commission. The jihadists who claim to be fighting on behalf of Muslims from Palestine to Chechnya to Iraq have said nothing to condemn the mass slaughter of 400,000 innocent Muslims in Darfur. No: they support it, because the Khartoum government imposes sharia law wherever it goes and even invited their hero Osama Bin Laden to make Sudan his home from 1991-6. Major corporations – including Siemens and Alcatel – continue to work and pay taxes in Sudan even though they know the money is being funnelled towards mass murder.

The Darfur holocaust is a bleak demonstration of how little the most powerful institutions in the world are motivated by basic human morality. Confronted with a clear example of the most terrible crime of all, they have all conspired to carry on working with the killers as if the holocaust in Darfur is at best a minor inconvenience.

A few weeks ago, it was suggested that we abolish Holocaust Memorial Day. The reasons that were given then – that it ‘discriminates’ against Muslims – were clearly absurd. But I am beginning to think we should indeed remove it from the calendar. How can we bow out heads and murmur ‘Never Again’ next year when Adam and his family know we don’t mean a damn word of it?

A pox on all your houses.
Ravenshrike
07-10-2005, 04:00
Hmmm, perhaps I should have made a poll.
Skyfork
07-10-2005, 04:00
So much for the ceasefire. I guess that attacking west Sudan was much easier than taking on the SPLA down south.

Btw, the Khartoum's airpower, the GoS (Government of Sudan air force) consist of Antonov-24 aircraft, Chinese MiG-19's and Mi24 Hind helicopters. POW's captured by SPLA have proven that other Islamic countries are sending troops into Sudan.
Syniks
07-10-2005, 04:07
While France and China protect their oil interests. And just in case anyone has a stick up their ass about it, I was using the word ****** to make a point about the attitude taken by the governments involved.

http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=686

A pox on all your houses.
Typical. Anyone got a spare nuke I can purchase? I promise to destroy it in a way that harms nothing but plague-ridden vermin...
Druidville
07-10-2005, 04:07
Did I miss the part about what we could actually do about this? The world hates the US for being in Iraq; would they have allowed us to go into the Sudan?
Beer and Guns
07-10-2005, 04:08
Does the United Nations still exist ? Not that they are much use for anything .
Tsaraine
07-10-2005, 04:08
Do not use racial slurs to get attention. Thank-you.

~ Tsar the Mod.
Morvonia
07-10-2005, 04:12
sickining that is all i can say. :mad:
Hobovillia
07-10-2005, 04:12
Capitalism at its best, man, that makes me feel really sorry for my french, fucking, sad and angry :headbang: :mad: DISGUSTED, SICKENED, ANY OTHER WORD THAT COMES TO MIND. And that also reminds me of the song Nowhere Man by The Beatles
The South Islands
07-10-2005, 04:17
Wasn't the United Nations created to prevent this specificly?
Iztatepopotla
07-10-2005, 04:21
Wasn't the United Nations created to prevent this specificly?
China blocked it.
Novoga
07-10-2005, 04:22
So in 10 years we will be saying that we will never let another Sudan happen?
Luporum
07-10-2005, 04:23
China blocked it.

<sigh>
Hobovillia
07-10-2005, 04:24
China blocked it. Don't forget France :mad:
AllCoolNamesAreTaken
07-10-2005, 04:27
While France and China protect their oil interests.



Interesting. Replace the word "France" above with "U.S.A.", and this thread would be fifty pages long of anti-american rhetoric. A little different when you can't blame the big, bad Americans?
Iztatepopotla
07-10-2005, 04:27
Don't forget France :mad:
I don't think France vetoed this resolution. I clearly remember China, and I think maybe Russia, but I think France and the UK aligned with the US on this one.
The South Islands
07-10-2005, 04:28
Interesting. Replace the word "France" above with "U.S.A.", and this thread would be fifty pages long of anti-american rhetoric. A little different when you can't blame the big, bad Americans?

50 Euros says that someone finds a way to blame the U.S. for the Darfur mess.
Hobovillia
07-10-2005, 04:29
Interesting. Replace the word "France" above with "U.S.A.", and this thread would be fifty pages long of anti-american rhetoric. A little different when you can't blame the big, bad Americans?*nods his head sadly*
Novoga
07-10-2005, 04:33
How much longer before someone defends China for its actions and blames the USA instead?
Lacadaemon
07-10-2005, 04:36
Africa. LOL.

Why are people surprised by this. You might as well complain that the sky is blue. No-one cares about human rights or genocide. They never have and never will.
The South Islands
07-10-2005, 04:37
You know, this whole situation is pretty surreal.

I mean, this is the first genicide (and it is genicide) of the 21st Century, and we LET IT HAPPEN!
Novoga
07-10-2005, 04:41
Africa. LOL.

Why are people surprised by this. You might as well complain that the sky is blue. No-one cares about human rights or genocide. They never have and never will.

It doesn't matter that it was in Africa, just because it happened in Africa doesn't excuse it. Could have happened in Asia, Europe, North or South American. Its the fact that the world let genocide occur again, and only a decade after Rwanda too.
Lacadaemon
07-10-2005, 04:41
On much longer before someone defends China for its actions and blames the USA instead?

Well obviously, the US's relentless persecution of religious minorities, especially it's large muslim population in the western provinces, have made china understandbly worried about its impending super-power status. And so, china's vote can be seen as a prinicpled stand serving a larger purpose or something.

It is, after all, always the US's fault.
The South Islands
07-10-2005, 04:43
It doesn't matter that it was in Africa, just because it happened in Africa doesn't excuse it. Could have happened in Asia, Europe, North or South American. Its the fact that the world let genocide occur again, and only a decade after Rwanda too.

After we said "Never Again"?
Lacadaemon
07-10-2005, 04:43
It doesn't matter that it was in Africa, just because it happened in Africa doesn't excuse it. Could have happened in Asia, Europe, North or South American. Its the fact that the world let genocide occur again, and only a decade after Rwanda too.

Yes, and it will continue to let genocide happen. No-one cares about genocide. (Well some people do, but not enough to matter).
Novoga
07-10-2005, 04:44
After we said "Never Again"?

How many times have we said "Never Again"?
The South Islands
07-10-2005, 04:44
How many times have we said "Never Again"?

Way too Fucking often.
Marrakech II
07-10-2005, 05:26
Well I think Africa is way to tribal at this point for these things to stop. If somehow you can steer people from tribal based thinking to nationalism than I believe that they will stop killing there fellow citizens. Then they can have wars between nations like everyone else does.

Anyway have travelled in Africa I believe they are a long, long loooonnnnggg way from getting there sh*t straight. I dont believe throwing money at the situation or throwing our troops in the African meat grinder is the solution either.

Possiblity is to foster real democratic reforms in South Africa, Kenya and Nigeria to bolster there strength so they can take on the duties of sorting out the smaller nations.

It also seems to me that the vast majority of the problems begin at the southren edge of the Sahara. North Africa seems basically stable to me. Most likely due to the mix of several different cultures in all of North Africa's nations.
Skyfork
07-10-2005, 05:29
This isn't a tribal problem. Groups like the Sudanese People's Liberation Army are fighting for chance to NOT live as second-class citizens under the boot of the Muslim Khartoum or as we can see, other worse things. This is a war of independence.
Marrakech II
07-10-2005, 05:30
This isn't a tribal problem. Groups like the Sudanese People's Liberation Army are fighting for chance to NOT live as second-class citizens under the boot of the Muslim Khartoum or we can see, other worse things. This is a war of independence.

Yes your correct in the latter part of your statement. Tribal issues do have a play in this matter. In fact if you look at most of the massacres that occur in middle and southren Africa they are based in tribal warfare.
Der Drache
07-10-2005, 05:54
We were just talking in my prayer group about how the news has been so silent about this. So the question is, what can we do about it? I'm not very optomistic myself about being able to affect anything, but if there is something we can try then I think we are obligated to do so.
Skyfork
07-10-2005, 05:59
We were just talking in my prayer group about how the news has been so silent about this. So the question is, what can we do about it? I'm not very optomistic myself about being able to affect anything, but if there is something we can try then I think we are obligated to do so.
The SPLA and other groups are in desperate need of medicine, weapons and training. Sadly, there really isn't much you can do but try to get in touch with the Suddanese Rehabilitation and Relief Association (SRRA).
Keruvalia
07-10-2005, 06:08
Yo mama so nasty she has to creep up on bathwater.
Ravenshrike
07-10-2005, 13:28
I don't think France vetoed this resolution. I clearly remember China, and I think maybe Russia, but I think France and the UK aligned with the US on this one.
Nope it was France and China, Russia sat this one out. Look up the French company TOTAL's holdings.
Sierra BTHP
07-10-2005, 14:09
Nope it was France and China, Russia sat this one out. Look up the French company TOTAL's holdings.

Reminds one of the real reason that France didn't want to invade Iraq, either. Because they would lose billions in lucrative accounts.

Both wars, to me, are actually competition between the major players on the Security Council over assets - the fact that people think the actual war is about Islam is ancillary.

The Islamic militants in both cases (the Sudanese government and the Iraqi insurgents) are too ignorant to realize that whether they personally win or lose, it's either the French oil companies or the US oil companies that win no matter what.
OceanDrive2
07-10-2005, 14:33
...I was using the word ****** to make a point about the attitude taken by the governments involved...Were you talking about Katrina/NewOrleans?
Iztatepopotla
07-10-2005, 14:38
Nope it was France and China, Russia sat this one out. Look up the French company TOTAL's holdings.
I was speaking from memory, so I could have been wrong. But I wasn't:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/sudanindex.htm

Russia and China vetoed the resolution imposing sanctions on Khartoum. France, UK and US voted for it. France does have oil interests in the region, as I'm sure other do, but they didn't veto this one.

France, in fact, moved a resolution to have those responsible be tried by the ICC. The US threatened to veto it, but then turned around and voted in favor.

Not France and the US this time, rather China and Russia.
Drunk commies deleted
07-10-2005, 15:09
Did I miss the part about what we could actually do about this? The world hates the US for being in Iraq; would they have allowed us to go into the Sudan?
Would they be able to stop us? Unfortunately our troops are tied up in Iraq right now. If Bush really wanted a showdown with evil radical Islamists he should have chosen Sudan, not Iraq. The Sudanese make Saddam look like mother Teresa.
Xeropa
07-10-2005, 15:20
How long have the aid agencies been flagging this one? One year? Two years? More? The leaders of the Western world should hang their heads in shame over this, because they were told about it often and loudly for a long time. But they won't because when it comes down to it, they don't give a shit. That goes for the UN too.

Makes me sick.

The list of people who have betrayed the Darfurians continues. China and France both have oil interests in Sudan – so they told Kofi Anan they would veto any attempt by the Security Council to end the genocide. At the height of the murders in Darfur, the United Nations itself appointed the Sudanese government to a three-year term on the UN Human Rights Commission. The jihadists who claim to be fighting on behalf of Muslims from Palestine to Chechnya to Iraq have said nothing to condemn the mass slaughter of 400,000 innocent Muslims in Darfur. No: they support it, because the Khartoum government imposes sharia law wherever it goes

No-one escapes blame for this. The UN is impotent, the jihadists are hypocrites and the west are greedy bastards.
Syniks
07-10-2005, 15:27
I guess our inability/unwillingness to defend black africans from Islamic-lead genocide just goes to show how much at war with Islam we (Westerners) really are eh Osama? :sniper: :headbang:
Ravenshrike
07-10-2005, 15:29
Were you talking about Katrina/NewOrleans?
My original title went along the lines of:

"Over 400,000 niggers (Oops, I'm sorry, Zurga) slaughtered in Sudan. Few give a damn."

If you read the posted article it shows that the arabs in the area use the word zurga to refer to blacks the same way people like Bull Connor or Robert Byrd used the word ******. Quite creative post title actually, but apparently the mods got upset.
Sierra BTHP
07-10-2005, 15:31
I guess our inability/unwillingness to defend black africans from Islamic-lead genocide just goes to show how much at war with Islam we (Westerners) really are eh Osama? :sniper: :headbang:

Well, I don't recall anyone rushing to Rwanda to stop that genocide.

We were at least showing up for Kosovo. But the victims there weren't black. They were Muslim.
Aplastaland
07-10-2005, 21:17
Interesting. Replace the word "France" above with "U.S.A.", and this thread would be fifty pages long of anti-american rhetoric. A little different when you can't blame the big, bad Americans?

There are two differences: they are not the self-declared police of the world and they have not encroached any country for their oil interests. About letting genocides to take place, Clinton did in Rwanda...
Skyfork
07-10-2005, 21:29
How long have the aid agencies been flagging this one? One year? Two years? More?
This is not new. It goes back far longer than 2 years, more like almost 2 decades if not more. The only way to resolve this is through force. The Khartoum absolutely REFUSE to live with the tribal african unless the africans are treated as second-class citizens and must follow Sharia law. The purging of west Sudan is the Islmaic Libenstraum.
Novoga
07-10-2005, 22:51
There are two differences: they are not the self-declared police of the world and they have not encroached any country for their oil interests. About letting genocides to take place, Clinton did in Rwanda...

Every world leader at the time of Rwanda let it happen, not just Clinton.
Novoga
07-10-2005, 22:51
Were you talking about Katrina/NewOrleans?

What the hell?
Ravenshrike
07-10-2005, 23:16
What the hell?
They changed the original title of the thread, as noted in post #41, I think it confused him.
Iztatepopotla
07-10-2005, 23:39
Every world leader at the time of Rwanda let it happen, not just Clinton.
Nope. That really was France and the US vetoing UN intervention.