Darfur - Why UN Troops are not the Solution!

Ref zeemax #31

[As the Ethiopian said ``when 75% of the world is living on less than $1 a day, and 25% have the rest, how can there be peace?``]

Typical Muslim mentality.

Maybe the 25% got to where they are by hard work, intelligence, etc.

Muslims would rather be highwaymen robbing the 25% as opposed to learning to work within the system.

#31 by zeemax

As the Ethiopian said ``when 75% of the world is living on less than $1 a day, and 25% have the rest, how can there be peace?``

I`m sure the Ethiopian also thinks when the 25% hand over all their wealth to the 75%, there will be peace all over. I`m sure he also thinks Arab Muslims are killing Black Muslims in Sudan because the latter are richer.

``Islamic`` dictatorship of Bashir versus SLA and Turabi`s ``Islamic`` JEM.

It appears nothing can be done but to make some noise.

#30 by aslam644

As the Ethiopian said ``when 75% of the world is living on less than $1 a day, and 25% have the rest, how can there be peace?``

sajjad sahib

The question is why darfur is in turmoil, these tribes have lived together peacefully for 100’s of years, the answer is economic, desertification, over-population.

It is not just darfur, it is most of black Africa that’s in turmoil. unfortunately it is a cesspool of problems ranging from aids, failed states, to ecological disasters. Thousands of them are trying to get into Europe every week, most are sent back, because Europe is turning into a fortress, it will get worse there are 750M Africans, in the next 30 to 40 years it may double to 1.5B.

The west is obsessed with the arab world for economic/political reasons, most of whom are economically sound, it is turning a blind eye to the plight of Africans, which it may regret in the not too distant future.

#28 by harimau

So applaud the killings. Just the typical hindu way. But don`t forget these killings may reach your backyard and take your neck as well.

It is Muslims killing Muslims in Darfur.

Of course the Muslim Ummah cannot be bothered. If non-Muslims were killing Muslims, the Ummah would be crying buckets.

According to the First Law of Islam, it is okay if Muslims kill anybody, including Muslims.

I really don`t understand why non-Muslims are exercised about this Darfur business.

The Sudanese Government is reducing the Muslim population of the world by a few hundred thousand.

This is a goal that should be applauded by all right-thinking non-Muslims.

Come on, we will be less several thousand Mujahideen and suicide bombers in the future.

That cannot be all that bad, can it?

#26 by adamkhan

So look at the advice of masadi in #24. That is what OIC should have done, but didn`t. That is how problems between Muslims can be solved.

Zeemax

What is the OIC? nothing. I mean these people can be rescued under the umbrella of the UN just like the Bosnians were rescued by the NATO. OIC didnt do anything back then did they?

It doesnt make a difference if the killers are muslims, they are killers and they should be stopped. There is no America to veto any security council resolution on this one, so why not use the security council and make a difference here? Or do the Africans have to face a fate that is much worse than what that of the Palestinians.

Here here!

When we organize, hold conferences, fundraise, or work towards any social action in private and public spheres, Darfur should be on the agenda.

Quran 49:9

Check it out.

#22 by adamkhan

Yes the Muslim Ummah CAN make a difference ... but is OIC saying anything? Sudan won`t listen to UN or any goras. They don`t trust them.

And there is no anarchy in Sudan? try telling that to the africans clinging to each other under those polythene tents. This is one problem where the muslim ummah CAN make a difference, yet we await the slaughter of the innocent.

Masadi/Adam Khan

Comparisons with Bosnia are moot because the former Yugoslavian state had splintered, there was no central authority, and anarchy ruled. Thus there was no option but that of international intervention to put a stop to genocide. No such thing has happened in Sudan so no international intervention is warranted.

Instead of repeating well-worn moralistic cliches and platitudes round and round, the author should have told us the causes of the conflict and its relevance in the overall context to the collapse of African society.

`` The life of a Red Indian chief, the life of a black slave from Sierra Leone, the life of a Vietnamese mother, the life of an American cabin attendant, the life of an Iraqi trader and the life of a child in Darfur should be equally viewed as sacred. ``

The real question is whether they view all lives as equally sacred

adam khan writes <<< Should it have been allowed to carry on because the Americans had had one too? >>>

That was not my point in my post, neither is that my point regarding Sudan. This article is not about the Bosnia war, that was mentioned to state the fact of how the US deals in a most hypocritical way regarding human rights, that is the broader picture in which such atrocities are carried out and the armed response to which is always too late is disproportionately barbaric and seldom related to the carnage being carried out and to stop this carnage armed response is not the only option either.

Regarding the Bosnian war, which you are throwing in for the purpose of smoke screen and deception, not dealing with a single point I have raised in my posts, if it was ``intrastate`` or not depends on who you talk to, the Serbs say that but the Bosnians say otherwise, in any case it was distinct from US international conflicts where these barbarians jump oceans to set their footprint where it does not belong.

Re: # 16

You mean the war that ended with the ``Dayton Peace Agreement`` in 1995? I am talking about the same war, tell me was it an ``ïntra-country`` war, that NATO meddled in? Should it have been allowed to carry on because the Americans had had one too?

#15 adamkhan, <<< Didnt the conflict in Bosnia threaten the ``integrity`` of a nation?? Was that an ``internal`` conflict as well? >>>

I was talking about the Bosnia war that ended in 1995.

Re: # 13

No clouds here, all I am saying is that, was the NATO justified in intervening in that massacre or not?

Didnt the conflict in Bosnia threaten the ``integrity`` of a nation?? Was that an ``internal`` conflict as well?

Re: # 8

Yeah what should the government do when citizens are attacking other citizens? it should stop the attackers off course.

But all i see coming from there is this endless mass of starved people huddled under polythene roof.

And on the other side i see well fed thugs dancing and brandishing their ak 47s.

I wonder what side is attacking the other?

Now that the UN is trying to put out the fire, why then is the sudanese government not allowing it to do so?

I sincerely hope your solution would not be a massacre of those people, just because they stole a few goats.

Regards.

#12, I mentioned the Bosnian war in reference to the US doing nothing to stop bloodshed, don`t try to cloud the issues by throwing in distractions

Re: # 10

So the Bosnian conflict was also an ``intra-country`` conflict?

Re: # 10

Masadi (rhymes with Mirasi). You can put the cork back in now. You just justified the Bangladeshi and Armenian genocides and the Jewish Holocaust. Next time your family is raped and butchered by your countrymen, make sure you stand on the door not letting anyone come to save them. Good going. Stupid that you are, nothing of intelligence is expected from you, so keep banging on your drum hoping that someone will listen.

In my diary entry on Sept 10, I had conceptualized what I referred to as the ``Mirasi Mentality``. Point #3 of that read : ``When stumped by an argument, they will try to justify their position by changing the subject and diminishing the importance of the subject that is being discussed. For example, when you talk about poverty they will justify it by deflecting the topic to terrorism, when you talk about war they will say poverty is more important and so on. At other times they will justify one crime (done by those they worship) by a similar crime committed by those they are prejudiced against in a tu quoque fashion. For example, you talk about the US carnage in Iraq and they will try to justify it by saying ``Darfur``. ``

This is precisely the reason why Kulharee states what he did in #6. He has been answered many times over but he keeps repeating the same tune in order to justify US barbarism around the globe.

The situation in Darfur is different to US international adventures because it is ``intra-country`` where the integrity of the country is threatened. The US similarly in its early history fought a bloody civil war. As has been amply demonstrated as is being demonstrated today in Iraq, the US inflames civil wars of this nature by supporting one group over the other, it always used human rights as a legitimating tactic while doing nothing substantive to alleviate human suffering given their unique position in the world to get its instutions to move- Rwanda was another case in point as was the Bosnian war. It is for this reason, given its track record that people are skeptical whenever the US media mentions Darfur and more often than not as Urstruly states the evangelicals have been the spokespersons and on their mind are not human rights but fishing souls for Christ. Why the Sudanese government is not allowing the UN troops is also understandable because more often than not they have served as proxies for the US as they did in Somalia and all through the over a decade of sanctions in Iraq. That said, all kinds of Congresspeople and human rights agencies are strutting around arrogantly in the Sudan talking quite derogatorily of the government, and going wherever they feel like going something the US would not have allowed were a similar thing going on here. Even after all this they say ``Muslims are silent``. Just like they do regarding 9/11. Muslims can speak their lungs out against the killing of civilians but the damn fools will keep repeating their tune that they have done nothing. Pakistan can dispatch a large chunk of its armed forces to fight the US farce on terror against its own people but they will still say ``it is doing nothing``. They are damn fools and nothing will make them happy, especially appeasement by the peons.

Before the Iraq war human rights agencies were warning of massive displacements, but that didn`t affect US war plans, now they decry the displacements in Darfur and what many term a ``genocide`` even though the ICC has not termed it such, they are still investigating. The US did the same during the Lebanon war, so this human rights thing is just a smoke screen that the US uses time and again and people should be skeptical of why the US is bringing that up while doing next to nothing to alleviate the situation leaving all work to private human rights agencies.

That said, all human rights abuse whether by the government of Sudan or anyone of any label should be condemned. Why it occurs in such situations has more to do with economic and political threats that governments feel in a worls system where the driver (the US) uses human rights merely as a slogan while violating them all over the globe. Take that justification and hypocrisy away and countries will little power, like Sudan are bound to comply.

Urstruly #4 {``According to one bbc news report US has established terrorist training camps in neighboring Chad, where rebels are trained and then sent into Sudan, with weapons and money, to fight the central Sudanese government. THerefore, I urge caution while ``condemning the genocide`` in Sudan. ``}

Urstruly Sahib,
Even accepting the nefarious Zionist plot to harm Muslims in the Sudan and certainly watching with curiosity as westerners leap over one another in trying to ``save`` Darfur from Sudan, I am perplexed by two horrible facts:

1. Why is it necessary to rape two hundred thousand women to fight this terrorism?
2. Why should it be necessary to kill hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children to thwart this Zionist plot.

The fact that these are humang beings makes the actions of the Sudanese government and Janjaweed militia ungodly, cruel, un-Islamic, and inhumane. The fact these these human beings are almost all Muslim, makes this act treasonous. Down with Omar Bashir and his gang.

Dear Author
The civil war is Darfur was not political, Do you know how the real dispute started?
It was not the result Religion, Politic, Money, Human right, Oil some one interest.

Believe me or not. It was started before 15 years because of ANIMALS cattle, goats only. When Arab tribes animals cross the farms of African tribe and eats their crops, the African tribes started stealing the animals of Arab tribes. Here… Start the deputes, furthered more three, four tribe of African united to fight the Arabs Here….. Go the civil war. Thinks to the Western media NGOs, UN who put the fire in the patrol instead of solving the conflicts amount Two groups.

Please don’t believe what you see in TV, like Americans Do. No one hurt the Chinese and Chinese Oil Companies; Chinese are busy in digging the oil. Media will never tell you how many Chinese live in Darfur Region.
Yes its State responsibility to protect it citizens, what will State do when it citizens want attack other citizens?
Ahad
Sudan

The author writes [The life of a Red Indian chief, the life of a black slave from Sierra Leone, the life of a Vietnamese mother, the life of an American cabin attendant, the life of an Iraqi trader and the life of a child in Darfur should be equally viewed as sacred.]

Oh yeah? How about the life of a Hindu or a Christian being viewed as sacred as that of a Muslim? When you Islamic mufukkas stop killing Hindus and Christians, you can talk about why the UN is not the right tool for brining a stop to the killings in Darfur.

Enough is enough! I am tired of these muthafuckin` Muslims on this muthafuckin` planet!

The Arab and Muslim silence over Darfur crises is deafening. Yesterday, CNN asked the foreign minister of Egypt about why the Arabs were so silent, and guess what? He didn’t respond… yep, he was also silent. One Palestinian moron gets whacked by an Israeli, the whole Ummah has demonstrations and effigy burning butt shaking going on from Cairo to Abbotabad, but when the violence is instigated and produced by Ummah, all the other members have their tails firmly tucked in behind their legs.

Where are the petty issues we face.

Land of Zion should be left for our foreign policy makers. From far here, our sympathies are not bringing or turning around situations.

The chowk staff seems to be populating its column areas with whatever comes its way. GIGO (Garbage.In.Garbage.Out).

Some thoughts, unrung but near us should be effectively addressed. It was good to have Farzana around.

Chowk has demoted itself one rank, for now.

According to one bbc news report US has established terrorist training camps in neighboring Chad, where rebels are trained and then sent into Sudan, with weapons and money, to fight the central Sudanese government. THerefore, I urge caution while ``condemning the genocide`` in Sudan.

The fact of the matter is that Sudan has long time been on the agenda of Christian Evagalists of America and Zionists, who consider Sudan as a part of ancient Judiac empire that King Solomom (pbuh) established sometime around 1800bc. Readers might find it interesting that the map of greater Israel, the Land of Zion has its teritories stretched from Nile (it runs through Sudan, Ethiopia, and Egypt) to the Euphrates in Iraq. So it is a given that Americans will always keep on committing inhuman attrocities on the people of these lands until Jesus (pbuh) will come down to congratulate them.

Khan sahib,

You words have wisdom and your sentiments are noble. However, your message is misplaced on this forum. This is the bottom of a deep well where the walls obscure all view. You can only look UP and all you can see is a round blue disc. Sometimes there are fluffy white moving objects that interrupt the blue. Here only Pak-Bharat dushmini and Islam vs West issues carry any validity. As for other real issues, they are distant happenings. They might as well be happening on Pluto, which incidently, is not even a planet any more.

Cheers,

...SR

``Mankind in the 21st century has advanced technologically in a way in which our ancestors would have only dreamed of, yet our attitude towards the sanctity of human life remains stuck in the dark ages``

Very true. This is one of the greatest ignorance of today that we think that we have made great progress in history, which we, under the western political propaganda, view as a journey towards continuous betterment. The actual situation of humanity is however far from being ideal. Some of the friends in chowk say that the Muslims must come out of the mediaeval times. However the thing that they seem to ignore is that in actuality, the mankind (and particularly the western world as it is the dominate culture of the time) has continually been showing sign of retrogression and has often succumbed to what is hypothetically thought as the drives of the cannibalistic and veracious man of dark ages.
Only difference is that the cannibals of today are often acting in the name of civilization.

Yet it is not only the Sudanese Government who needs to rediscover the sanctity of human life, we all do.

And here lies the rub of the issue, the sanctity of human life cannot be simply protected by military means or UN resolutions, it requires a transformational change in our collective values and our political actions

Yaar Sajjad, you should try saying this to the Sudanese Black Muslims who are at the receiving end of the Janjaweed`s atrocities. They`ll feel comforted.