It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sudan's president says warrant is conspiracy

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Sudan's president says warrant is conspiracy


news.yahoo.com

KHARTOUM, Sudan – Sudan's president, wanted by an international court on war crimes charges, denounced the tribunal, the U.N. and aid agencies on Thursday as part of a new "colonialism" that aims to destabilize his country.

President Omar al-Bashir danced and waved a cane defiantly before thousands of supporters, as the arrest warrant had its first repercussions on the ground. Sudan ordered at least 11 aid agencies to leave Darfur and cease operations in retaliation for the International Criminal Court's decision to issue an arrest warrant. The groups started the process of moving out Thursday.

Aid workers warned that the expulsion order could spark a humanitarian crisis for up to 2 million people in Darfur who are directly served by the agencies, receiving food, shelter and medical supplies.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Okay...A warrant is issued for the arrest of a Head of State for crimes against humanity. He says he's done nothing and this is all a conspiracy.

His response to the warrant however, is to expel international humanitarian agencies which are feeding, housing and providing medication to HIS citizens in the south of HIS country.

A humanitarian catastrophe is threatened...

My question then is how do you convince the world that you are not a monster by condemning 2 million of your own people to die in the desert as to get back at the Hague?

If even one person dies as a result of this isn't he guilty of additional crimes in addition to the ones that he increasingly looks guilty of already?

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   
I agree that he shouldn't have done what he did but honestly what did the UN expect. I mean are our collective world leaders completely brain-dead or something? Did they expect him to take a warrant for his arrest well. So while he is the wrong for throwing out the aid agencies it is in a way the UN's fault for being so foolish.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cauch1
I agree that he shouldn't have done what he did but honestly what did the UN expect. I mean are our collective world leaders completely brain-dead or something? Did they expect him to take a warrant for his arrest well. So while he is the wrong for throwing out the aid agencies it is in a way the UN's fault for being so foolish.



Foolish? No... it's never foolish for the greater society to allege someone who appears to be guilty of warcrimes and put out a warrant for their arrest. It's called a Feedback Mechanism, aimed at decreasing that behavior.

The UN did not expel the aid groups.... this guy did....

The UN is not at fault at all. As a matter of fact, it is exactly the type of behavior you encourage which caused the League of Nations to fail...



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 02:43 AM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


Actually the League of Nations failed due to the fact that they had no military strength and therefore relied on member countries to place trade embargoes on those they didn't approve of. This didn't work due to the fact that they either were against key trading partners or member countries simply did not want to go against the chosen country. Sorry but I spent several months researching the League of Nations so couldn't let it pass.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cauch1
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


Actually the League of Nations failed due to the fact that they had no military strength and therefore relied on member countries to place trade embargoes on those they didn't approve of. This didn't work due to the fact that they either were against key trading partners or member countries simply did not want to go against the chosen country. Sorry but I spent several months researching the League of Nations so couldn't let it pass.




So you missed the fact that the League of Nations didn't take ANY action when Africa was invaded... or when Austria was invaded?

Now, it's very possible that they didn't take any action, including non-binding action, due to the fact that they didn't have military strength... however my Grandparents go on and on about the League of Nations ad infinitum around here...



new topics

top topics
 
1

log in

join