TERRORISM: Destroying Darfur

The United States and much of the world is consumed right now. The politics, the perception, the terror in Iraq...meanwhile systematic killing termed as "ethnic cleansing" by Human Rights Watch, is currently happening in Darfur. Civilians being hunted down, villages burned, and women raped.

Map of Darfur
Located on the western edge of Sudan, Darfur is one of the poorest regions in the area and is inhabited by civilian populations of Fur, Masalit, and Zaghawa ethnic groups. These groups are now under attack by the Sudanese government and Arab militias who have committed acts of attacking and destroying villages, destroying food sources and means to live, mass graves of civilian villagers, and raping of women. It seems the entire goal, which so far has displaced 1.2 million refugees, is to wipe out all non-Arab families in area and all means of living there. It seems according to the reports, somewhere between 300,000 and 1 million people could die.

In the United States, they talk about 70+ dead in the latest attacks in Iraq. The rest of the world just watches, waits for the handoff of power, and wonders when Bush will stop trying to help the people of Iraq. The people of Darfur want US or UN aid to stop the deaths. Interesting that not one other country seems to care for these people being wiped out.


Mass graves encircle the village of Jijira Adi Abbe in Darfur, western Sudan after the government attack. �2004 HRW Org





[edit on 24-6-2004 by ZeddicusZulZorander]

Where is the imdomitable and oh so useful and concerned UN that has everyone best interests at its heart (voice dripping with sarcasm) or is this the same Kofi Anan that stood by while Rawanda tore itself apart, yup one and the same.

I'm disgusted at this situation; by the looks of it, its turning to another Rwanda. What's the UN and the US doing about, talking and talking, looking for evidence that its genocide. There are news reports that 10 - 30,000 people have been killed already and a million displaced by the arab militia's that are ravaging the Dafur region with the support of the Sudan government by assistance from their air force. I don't know if there is a minimum limit of deaths that has to be reached to call a destruction of a people, genocide. The arabs that are killing the Africans and forcing them out of their homes look down at them as sub-human and have plenty of racist names that they call them, that we know. What if 10,000 Jews were being murdered in Sudan, the first news of such atrocities would've been responded quickly with a possible invasion from US, Israel, NATO, etc. But when blacks are being murdered by arabs, no body seems to care, and this didn't just begin this week, it has been going on for months. Someone has to Intervene, possibly the US, if they do, more countries would give them more support for Iraq, seeing that they don't do everything for the selfish interests.

It is a horrible situation, overshadowed by the Iraqi war. Why don't some of the other countries that are not doing much for the world, like Canada, France, Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Mexico, Cuba, Egypt, Chad, and Venezuela, get together and help these people out?

You are talking about helping out like the US in Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan or are you talking about helping out with real aid?

When it comes to real aid you won't find any country where people donate more money to aid projects than Germany.

Your arrogance smells to the sky, you seem to know nothing about who gives most financial aid, respective to the population, to other countries in the world. Go to africa and ask who is helping them improving their situation, good luck finding somebody who says the USA does. It's europe countries and not even those, who once settled there.

Military help can't be given by Germany, we have a small protective army and the focus is on troop support, catastrophe handling and peace keeping.
That's caused by the allies after the 2nd world war which denied Germany any bigger army or even attack focused army.
I don't say that was wrong but it's the reason why we can't help with military intervention and just with peace keeping forces.

Anyway, who is the first to fight against mad africans? I am the first to say I am the last to fight against those freaks!

By the way jso, I bet you never heared about this one:

www.american.edu...

That's the American way...
and you can already count on the USA to help Sudan if gum arab is running on emtpy

Colonialism 101 shoo. Know about it? Do they still teach that in school today? What European countries went into the countries of/in Africa to reap and milk what they could till the reaping was no more? Germany ring a bell? France? Italy? UK? Cause and effect shoo, those European countries left a void, a vacuum and those inner-African nation's haven't been right since, Sudan included.....

Personally, keep on talking, you might fall/trip over your feet.

.....and you can already count on the USA to help Sudan if gum arab is running on emtpy.

Say what? Tell you what shoo, tell me where Germany is in all the acts of genocide that is currently going on in Sudan, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, etc? Hell dude, where is the United Nation's at to prevent this from continuing? Yeah, I know where.....watching and lamenting the situations, all the while, not doing a damn thing to prevent it?! Where the hell is Germany in all this shoo? Where is her voice of condemnation in all that is happening in Sudan, etc? Just what is Germany doing to help end what is taking place shoo? Yeah, shoo I hear ya, but certainly don't feel ya! Typical anti-US European rhetoric!

Yeah, the US will do...., the US blah, blah, blah.....say what? Think not!....:
U.S. Walks Out as Sudan Elected to U.N. Rights Body.

What is Germany doing? France? Italy? The United Nation's? The EU? Someone? Somebody?


seekerof

It seems you went to a very low-level school. Otherwise you would know that Germany only had one big colony in Africa and guess what - Namibia is better of than nearly every other African country. The others have been under german occupation(and honestly, not very good!) but were lost to french, british etc. after a few years.

There happened a lot of bad things in Namibia back those days but later german governments paid reperations and sent aid to improve the countries situation. And it worked.

Sudan is a child of the Brits and still has most of it's business with them. The british and the french were the most occupying countries down there, so why are you speaking so nervously about Germany? Unsure what to say? Looks like it.

Cause and effect? Lack of knowledge on your side. Most of those countries that have been colonized were no countries at all before colonization, it was a continent with tribes all over...but guess what. Those genocides. mass-murdering and rapings aren't new, they happened there before colonization and they happen now. But it's easier to say that colonization caused all this but being honest and say that most Africans aren't capable of living peacefully especially the leading governments and heads of tribes.
(though I admit that the european countries did everything wrong back those days that could be done wrong. everything. Anyway that's not the main reason for that situation)

You are right, it's mainly the inner-african nations but you ever dared to peek down into a history book and go back a bit more than 100 or 200 years?
If so, you clearly see that exactly at the place where we have all those massacres happening and nowadays countries like Sudan and Rwanda have their political borders, all different kind of tribes came together.

www.geocities.com...
(copy and paste link in adress bar)

About helping: You are absolutly right saying that Germany is doing nothing military to help. The reasons for that, are already mentioned before.

www.initiative-sudan.de...
www.gemeinsam-fuer-afrika.de...
- just a few to help improving the situation in Africa. There is enough war and violence down there. It's only stupid to think that our military can actually help that situation there.

www.nationmaster.com...
...United States placed 21. Great!
And countries like France and Germany which are so loved to be criticised are placing way better.

What's the reason you post the link to that article? How double-tongued the USA are is clearly shown at the example with the gum arabic. As long as it is for US interests it's all fine, if it's against us, bad thing.
With us or against us.

Against.

[edit on 25-6-2004 by shoo]

[edit on 25-6-2004 by shoo]

Shoo, I guess you forgot to mention the direct involvement of France and Germany on the genocide on Sudan and Rwanda. Perhaps this is why neither of them want to do something about Sudan now...

In the following link, i posted one of the options that a French politician said they should follow to deal with Israel... He was actually in favor, it would seem, of the Palestinian terrorists, and claiming that giving wmd to Palestine and other Islamic countries would ensure a balance in the Middle East....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

In this other link, some other members and I posted the involvement of France and Germany in the genocide in Rwanda and Sudan.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The German people in the overall might have learned from the mistake of the holocaust, but it seems that the German and French governments did not learn at all from that genocide, and decided to help out in the genocide in Rwanda and Sudan....

Originally posted by shoo
You are talking about helping out like the US in Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan or are you talking about helping out with real aid?

When it comes to real aid you won't find any country where people donate more money to aid projects than Germany.

Your arrogance smells to the sky, you seem to know nothing about who gives most financial aid, respective to the population, to other countries in the world. Go to africa and ask who is helping them improving their situation, good luck finding somebody who says the USA does. It's europe countries and not even those, who once settled there.

Military help can't be given by Germany, we have a small protective army and the focus is on troop support, catastrophe handling and peace keeping.
That's caused by the allies after the 2nd world war which denied Germany any bigger army or even attack focused army.
I don't say that was wrong but it's the reason why we can't help with military intervention and just with peace keeping forces.

Anyway, who is the first to fight against mad africans? I am the first to say I am the last to fight against those freaks!

You are way out of line here, shoo. The reason I asked about other countries helping out is because inevitably, it will fall uppon the US' shoulders to help out over there. And when we don't do everything exactly the way that the rest of the world wants us to, people like you will be the first to criticize us. Take our money, and the lives of our young men and women, but don't ask us to do more that chip in a few bucks.

Well your money does not release you from the responsiblitiy of being a member of the world community. And your comment "Anyway, who is the first to fight against mad africans? I am the first to say I am the last to fight against those freaks!" tells it all and shows your cowardice. You are not really committed to helping; you are too safe and comfy and don't want to risk things. That's the job of the US, right?

Wrong. My opinion is that NEITHER the USA and European countries should send soldiers to Sudan or other countries like Rwanda.

If YOU want to fight 12-year old with AK's who never learned the principles of humanity and everything else that matters to all of us, who will shoot you without warning, torture your body and make some pieces out of it, alright fine, go and fight those monsters. I won't! And I don't wish US soldiers or any other soldiers having the job to do that.

What I criticise is e.g. the gum arabicum exception. The reason the USA and other countries have trade sanctions with Sudan is the ongoing violence in that country and surely we don't want to support that by giving them money for weapons or?
But now with that exception we are sponsoring it.

I say we? Yes, I am honest. I drink Coca-Cola as well and I bet I used American medicaments as well - stuff that was produced with the help of gum arabicum.

Not commited to help? Depends what you understand as help. Sending thousands of soldiers into a suicide mission? Certainly not.
Really do something against the problem and not only fight the result? Yes, I am eager to help.

@Muaddib
I think you are being unfair here. Surely Germany did something wrong there in Rwanda but please remember:
- this wasn't even Germany but if I remember right with the years we were in Rwanda it was the so called German Empire which wasn't under democratic or even a party leadership but under a German Emperor.
- all, okay, nearly all people who lived at that time are already dead. Either in WW1, WW2 or time has given it.

Everything has changed, there is absolutly nothing obvious in common with that German Empire and the Federal Republic of Germany nowadays.

Of course we don't agree with the Genocide there, but should we say sorry for something we never did but some people we hate as well? I don't think so. We still need to be sorry somehow for what our nearest ancestors did, that's for sure.

The link about the french freak has already been discussed. I think we can agree that he represents by no means the common european or french citizen.




I hope you all understand that I am not asking for US troop support, but there are mistakes that should be mentioned. Those are government issues that aren't related to the US citizens, so don't understand it as criticsm at your people.

There are things that make me upset anyway. As example when I hear talks like from you jsobecky. You want Germany to help in Rwanda and Sudan.
Sure we want to help but didn't you read my posts properly? We have no military chance to help and that's a direct consequence from restrictions given to us by the Allies after WW2(still not saying it was wrong from them, they were right of course!).
So better than doing nothing is fighting the problem with the abilities you have, ain't it?

[edit on 25-6-2004 by shoo]

Failing to stop the genocide is acquiescing in the genocide...

Powell to Threaten Sudan with Sanctions

Help in a number of countries in Africa, in preventing such acts of catastrophic genocide, is and has been long, long overdue, and in most cases, military actions or military troops is/has to be used/are utilized to help bring humanitarian aid in-country or to give some sense of national stability to an otherwise chaotic to hellish scenerio. And as par, the US leads the way, with the UN sucking up right behind....
Dithering as Others Die

Wonder when the anti-US rhetoric will begin speculating on what the US has to gain from Sudan or the surrounding nations? Maybe it will be "oil" also.



seekerof

[edit on 25-6-2004 by Seekerof]

Wonder when the anti-US rhetoric will begin speculating on what the US has to gain from Sudan or the surrounding nations? Maybe it will be "oil" also.

Your way to tell me you didn't read my post?
- the US and all western country have a huge interest because of gum arabicum and I honestly belief without that, Sudan would be a 2nd Rwanda.
Who cares about Rwanda? Same thing there but nobody is going to take action. The french didn't and others don't have the resources to do it.

Nothing Anti-US here, it's still nice to see that the US hold MORE sanctions against Sudan than any other country(but how far they care about morals can be seen at the gum arabicum exception which finances the genocide and will furthermore...you didn't dare to answer this one?). Though, now it is just Britain left to raise Sanctions as they are the biggest import/export partner of Sudan.

Anyway I don't want to blame anybody special I would blame all. The western countries fail to follow a straight line that gives Sudans government no other chance than fighting the genocide.

Okay, we can blame the UN now but has the UN enough power to enable countries to help Sudan? I doubt it. They are more good for the food & development projects than for military response or big politics.

Seekerof, if you really belief that military intervention would help the countries in the line of fire, so Rwanda, Kongo and Sudan, I would call that a little bit naive.

Thanks for posting it but I am taking this action by our FM with a grain of salt.
Translated he said: "The fact alone, that the lights of publicity are shining on this conflict, is of high importance."(didn't want to translate too perfectly so the impression passes right to you all).

All I can say...eh? Sounds for me very much like: If nobody dares, we wouldn't help. But as people have recognized it, I am gonna take that trip.

But to be fair, he just said what all other FM think

[edit on 12-7-2004 by shoo]