I'm talking ofcourse about the sunni arab genocidal jihad against black christians in Sudan.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0714/p09s02-coop.html

President Omar Bashir and his fundamentalist Islamic government declared a holy war against African groups in the south - the Dinka, Nuba, and Neur peoples. More than 2 million people have been decimated, millions more have been internally displaced, and hordes have been exiled.

The inimitable War Nerd on the conflict,

http://www.exile.ru/2004-May-27/war_nerd.html

And with a lot of cash help from those Wahabbi morons in Saudi Arabia, who fund the whole miserable war, they're winning. The Northerners already starved and bombed the Dinka into surrender, and they're using the same tactics on the Fur right now.

I wonder what we're supposed to say about that? I mean, what are you seeking Sepulchrave? Should I say, "Geez, that's too bad."?

Baron Max

you call islamic jihad "holy"?

The concept of "jihad" is not limited to violent action. Look it up, MySpace.

The concept of "jihad" is not limited to violent action. Look it up, MySpace.


It sure starts from ideological points no question, but I was referring to the action part, especially in relation to Sudan genocide of millions of victims.

To Stop Sudan's Brutal Jihad, Support Sudan's Opposition, Sudan's radical Islamic regime has created one of the world's worst human rights situations and one of its largest humanitarian crises.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Africa/BG1449.cfm

http://the-american-interest.com/contd/?p=577

The current Darfur conflict was not started by the government in Khartoum; it was started by Darfur rebel groups that were inspired by the SPLA’s achievements in 2005. They represent the same ethnic group—indeed, the same tribe—as the one in power in neighboring Chad, and if African borders were drawn rationally to represent underlying ethnic and tribal realities, Darfur should be part of Chad and not Sudan.

The root of so many of Africa’s contemporary problems is that it has inherited a state structure from European colonialism that makes no sense, leaving states that are either too large and diverse, like Sudan, or ones that are too small to be viable, like those in the Sahel. The norm since independence has been to respect the sanctity of existing borders, supported both by the African elites that inherited those political entities, and by the international community.

Americans and Europeans conveniently forget that their own state-building process was accompanied by a huge amount of violence, involving massive changes of borders: the thirteen colonies didn’t belong in the British empire; Texas and California didn’t belong in Mexico; Europe went from over 300 separate sovereign entities at the end of the Middle Ages to less than 30 by the beginning of the 20th century, accompanied by a huge amount of ethnic cleansing as Germans, Poles, Czechs, Ukrainians, and others were pushed or pulled into more ethnically homogenous states. Europe and America are at the end of a long, painful state-building and state-consolidation process, while Africa is just at the beginning, and yet the West pretends that African states have the same sanctity as their own.

We of course want Africa to avoid the bloodshed that other parts of the world suffered in the state-building process, but we offer them only the freezing of the existing status quo and no route to the creation of more viable states with more rational borders. The ceasefire that Bob Zoellick negotiated last May was yet another example of this: it did not address the larger question of Sudanese sovereignty over Darfur, and was rejected not by the Sudanese government, but by two of the three Darfurian rebel groups. It has broken down not simply because of recalcitrance in Khartoum, but because it did not meet the political demands of the Darfurian rebels.

More:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1234863&postcount=8

Arab janjaweed militia that targets "blacks":rolleyes:

http://www.qantara.de/uploads/476/1914/44b3d7cd044a5_janjaweed.jpg

Makes about as much sense as anything else that happens in North Africa.

http://www.petitiononline.com/msaimva2/petition.html

The slaughter of Christians and animists by the Muslim government in southern Sudan has been ongoing for over a decade, shame on the whole world for doing nothing.

It's the "peaceful religion," Islam, which is commanding these people to convert to Islam or die, nice folks.

The slaughter of Christians and animists by the Muslim government in southern Sudan has been ongoing for over a decade, shame on the whole world for doing nothing.

I think America tried to do something about it years ago, and the whole world condemned us for it.

Baron Max

A lot of the people getting killed are African Muslims, so I don't think the religion angle counts for much.

However, despite Sam's pic, I've heard that the soldiers use a lot of ethnic, if not racist, slurs. Nazism saw Poles as an inferior race even though they had the same skin colour as Germans, so both sides being 'black' doesn't mean there isn't some tribal hatred between them.

I think America tried to do something about it years ago, and the whole world condemned us for it.

Baron Max

Be specific. The US went to Darfur?

Arab janjaweed militia that targets "blacks":rolleyes:

http://www.qantara.de/uploads/476/1914/44b3d7cd044a5_janjaweed.jpg

Did you read that Exile.ru article I linked to? The muslim descendants of Arab traders who married local women consider themselves superior to the 'black' christians.

And 'black' Muslims.

I'm talking ofcourse about the sunni arab genocidal jihad against black christians in Sudan.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0714/p09s02-coop.html



The inimitable War Nerd on the conflict,

http://www.exile.ru/2004-May-27/war_nerd.html

I don't think race has much to do with it. I think it's the same war that these arab islamist extremists wage against Europeans, and Americans, and anyone else.

I think in this situation, Somolia is involved in fighting the same enemy everyone else is fighting, islamic terrorists. So lets support the Christians and push the arab extremists out of Africa, before Africa becomes radicalist and extreme too.

A lot of the people getting killed are African Muslims, so I don't think the religion angle counts for much.

However, despite Sam's pic, I've heard that the soldiers use a lot of ethnic, if not racist, slurs. Nazism saw Poles as an inferior race even though they had the same skin colour as Germans, so both sides being 'black' doesn't mean there isn't some tribal hatred between them.

Race is not what it's about, it's about tribe. Like I said all along, race was never about skin color, whites and blacks have different races because white and black are not races.

Arab, is at best a mixed race, because there are dark Arabs and pale Arabs, so according to American skin race standards they are mixed, however as a culure they are distinct. Africa, is mostly muslim, thats just how the place is, but the extremists know this and want to radicalize the African muslims into terrorists. This must be stopped.

It's not in America or Africas best interest to have radical terrorist training camps. If people in Africa want to be muslim, it must be of the moderate kind.

I'm not sure what the war in Somolia is about, but it seems to be a religious war, not a "race" war, because race is a very American black and white idea that the majority of the world does not follow. In Africa there are tribes, races, and they might all look the same to you, but they know the differences.

Just like to a lot of Americans think all Asians look the same, but they know the differences. The situation in Africa is being handled, and as long as American troops are not involved, it's better for America.

Why would the Sundanese government kill black Muslims when the black Muslims are on their side?

The slaughter of Christians and animists by the Muslim government in southern Sudan has been ongoing for over a decade, shame on the whole world for doing nothing.

It's the "peaceful religion," Islam, which is commanding these people to convert to Islam or die, nice folks.

Islam is as peaceful as Christianity. It's not important what religion people have, it's most important to know who the extremists are. Most Muslims are not terrorists just like most Christians are not and were not part of the inquisition.

would the Sundanese government kill black Muslims when the black Muslims are on their side?

How do you know "black" Muslims are on the Sudans side? How do you come to these conclusion that the sudan would choose either side? What if the Sudan is on the Sudans side?

The "moderate kind" of Islam is the kind where the reader of the Koran doesn't follow the plain instructions on how to deal with "infidels."

The "moderate kind" of Islam is the kind where the reader of the Koran doesn't follow the plain instructions on how to deal with "infidels."

The moderate Christians don't follow an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, they follow the role model of Christ. The moderate Islamists follow the portion of the Koran which they believe in. The radical extremists on both sides, choose to follow the most extreme and violent interpretations.

It's obvious you know nothing about Islam and never read the Koran. The Koran does not say go out and kill people. The Koran, or Quran, says that Muslims should defend their faith, defend Islam, and as a result of this, it can be interpreted to mean just about anything by extremists.

The reason Islam had to take a militant interpretation was because Christianity was militant when Islam was invented. Islam came after Christianity, the Muslims saw what happened to Christ, Mohammed knew the story of Christ, and knew what happened to the Jews, and they made a conscious decision, that they would have to militantly defend their religion from outsiders.

The problem with this is, while they did avoid having the religion completely corrupted by outsiders or foreigners, they became so militant that they corrupted their religion from within.

Today, it's the same way, you have some people within Islam who are corrupt as hell, who control by force.

Christianity is corrupt as well, but you don't see it because I'm guessing you are a Christian, but I think it's most fair to say organized religion always ends up like this. All religions start with peaceful intentions, including Islam, but over time they confront or have conflicts with other religions, and adopt militant attitudes, usually to defend themselves at first, but if they become good at defending themselves, they usually go from self defense mode into conquerer.

Christianity did this too. Organized religions are almost always corrupted, not because the whole religion is bad, or because the original designers of the religion are bad, but because only the most militant decide which interpretations survive and get passed on.

A perfect example is the debate within the Christian community, you have the gnostic Gospels, you have the King James bible, the old and new testaments, and all the religious wars of Europe which went on for sometimes 100 years, which I guess people seem to forget about.

All organized religions have extremists, and if you cannot see that it's extremists who hiijack religions and do these acts, then how exactly can you ever win? If you have a holywar and condemn the entire religion as evil, you can't ever win, just like if radical Islamists claim all Americans are infidels, or all Christians are infidels, they can't ever win.

Ah yes, blame the "infidel" for making the Muslim an evangelizer of the sword.

The goal of Islam is to convert the entire world to Islam, by willing conversion, and if not that, the non "submitter" is to killed, nice way to "grow" your faith-group.

Ah yes, blame the "infidel" for making the Muslim an evangelizer of the sword.

Who is the infidel?

Did you read anything I wrote? Extremism is not exclusive to Islam. Extremism occurs because organized religions are competitive and this competition attracts extremists.

The goal of Islam is to convert the entire world to Islam, by willing conversion, and if not that, the non "submitter" is to killed, nice way to "grow" your faith-group.

You are not Muslim, what right do you have to determine the "goal" of Islam? Why are you trying to fan the flames of extremism by saying something like that?

Yes there are Muslims who believe that, but those Muslims are the extreme. Do you think that the majority of Muslims think Allah wants people to be converted by force? That's not what the Quran says. In fact the Quran recognizes that all 3 of the main religions are connected to the same source/God. I suggestion you at least read some of the Quran if you want to discuss Islam, and don't try to say that "The goal of Islam is..." as if a religion can have a goal.

New converts to Christianity are achieved by the Holy Spirit working through preaching, or through dreams.

New converts to Islam are often achieved by force, and those who leave Islam are fair game to be killed by the Islamists.

New converts to Christianity are achieved by the Holy Spirit working through preaching, or through dreams.

New converts to Islam are often achieved by force, and those who leave Islam are fair game to be killed by the Islamists.

That's BS. Just recent American history will show you, that Native Americans, Slaves, and the third world were forced into Christianity. It might not be at gun point, but if people wanted to learn to read, or want charity support, or etc, Christianity is encouraged.

In America, witches were burned for not being Christian.

Before this period, in Europe, there were people like Pope Innocent, who literally had people killed for not being Christian enough.

I don't know how you figure violence is exclusive to Islam. Maybe in this era, Islam is more violent, but it was not always that way.

All I can say is, don't become an extremist yourself and attack an entire religion with over a billion people. We need to focus on the extremes, like Al Qaeda, and not try to make this into some, huge unwinnable global holywar.

A holywar is impossible to win, you can't tell a billion + people that their religion is bad, and you should not attack Islam as a faith when a billion people, most whom are not extremists or violent, believe in that faith. Have some respect for other religions, and join forces with the people who have respect for Christianity, thats the only way you can target the extremists.

Islam has always behaved in that manner, and I condemn the horrific actions of the Roman Catholic church through the centuries, the manual for Christians is the New Testament, and the Catholic church didn't let the people read the Bible until the Protestant Reformation forced their hand.

Islam has always behaved in that manner, and I condemn the horrific actions of the Roman Catholic church through the centuries, the manual for Christians is the New Testament, and the Catholic church didn't let the people read the Bible until the Protestant Reformation forced their hand.

Alright now thats fair. If you can condemn the actions of the Christian extremists as well as the Islamic extremists, then you can create a proper dialog. The problem is religious extremism, the main enemy is Al Qaeda and Islamic extremists because those are the ones who attacked us and who are launching terrorist attacks. In order to fight these extremists we will need the help of moderates of all religions, to join forces and target the terrorist extremists.

The terrorists will try to recruit from among the moderates, and I think we should recruit them first. Moderates therefore should be the first line of defense, because they understand Islam better than you or I ever could, and they are the ones who can save Islam as a faith from violent extremism. I think we should help people who want to make Islam less violent.

As the Madrasas keep spewing their message of evangelism by force.

TimeTraveler, but just as the Catholic church supported the radicals in the day of the Crusades and Inquisition, and forced conversion, and found every excuse to defend their actions, which I condemn, so to should we condemn any who use the moral relativism arguments of history to justify, and plead understanding for the Islamic radical terrorist, history is just that history, and should be used not to further blood feud's.

TimeTraveler, but just as the Catholic church supported the radicals in the day of the Crusades and Inquisition, and forced conversion, and found every excuse to defend their actions, which I condemn, so to should we condemn any who use the moral relativism arguments of history to justify, and plead understanding for the Islamic radical terrorist, history is just that history, and should be used not to further blood feud's.

I never used moral relativsm, I'm speaking as a humanist, and these are the laws of nature, and organized religion.

While you say history is just history, holywars are by nature, about history and religion, the two sort of things which if you don't understand each side it will NEVER end. So we must understand both sides, and be able to spot the extremes on both sides so we know what people are fighting over. If you don't know the extremes, you can't end the war. So we must be aware that religions are not bad, the violent extremism is bad.

How exactly can you win a war that you don't even understand? How can you defeat an enemy that you can't see? It's not as simple as saying Islam is the enemy, islam is neutral. Islamic extremists are the enemy, pin point the enemy down. It makes the difference between billions fighting, and thousands.

And I don't disagree with you, pin point the enemy but doesn't that include there supporters and excuse makers? and the only thing you have to understand about the enemy is that they are the enemy, their weak point, and how to exploit those, and that when you fight, you fight with every thing you have, until the enemy begs for peace, and then you worry about the defeated, and offer them comfort and aid, until they are defeated they are the enemy, and war should be conducted with all the viciousness that war is.

Buffalo Roam;1259250]And I don't disagree with you, pin point the enemy but doesn't that include there supporters and excuse makers?


Be realistic, if you think like that you'll be at war FOREVER and EVER. When you get into the fuzzy world of supporters and enablers, and all of that, no one really knows what those people were told, in order to get their support. It depends on the level of support, but thats a very fuzzy area. If you apply this to other wars, do you know how many people would have been declared the enemy? Just about everyone. Then you look at the USA, I mean we all pay taxes, does that mean we all support the war? Why do you want to widen and expand the war?


and the only thing you have to understand about the enemy is that they are the enemy, their weak point, and how to exploit those, and that when you fight, you fight with every thing you have,

That is ridiculously simple. You can never win a war simply by hating people who hate you, or trying to win a hate contest, or trying to be more brutal or more violent, you'll never be able to win. All this will do, is make the war wider and wider until every human on planet earth is involved in some way.

Why exactly do you want to expand the war? The war is against Islamic Extremists, because they are the ones who attacked on Sept 11, in specific, the war is against Al Qaeda, but it can be expanded to include Islamic Extremists. If you expand the war to include ALL of Islam itself, and make it into a holy war, how exactly can you win? There are like 1.5 billion Muslims, and the more you expand the war the more power you give to those thousands of extremists who want to expand the war.

These thousands of extremists have no chance of winning unless the war widens, so it's in the best interests of the extremists to have as wide of a war as possible. How is that in the best interest of global security? It's easier to win when theres less enemies. To win the war you simply need more friends than enemies. How can you have more friends than enemies if you launch a religious war? What would be the result of a religious war? No one knows how it would go.


until the enemy begs for peace, and then you worry about the defeated,

You don't even know who the enemy is. The enemy are the extremists who want war. The moderates are already begging for peace, and don't want war. However if you attack the moderates you force them to join the extremists because they don't have any other option. So instead of declaring war on Islam, focus on the violent extremist element, otherwise it will be an unwinnable religious war, and billions will die, and hell it might never end.

and offer them comfort and aid, until they are defeated they are the enemy, and war should be conducted with all the viciousness that war is.

So what you are saying is that all Muslims should be defeated, essentially wiped off the face of the earth?

Either you are not being realistic, or you are being extreme yourself, which is it?

TimeTraveler, all I see is Fuzzy logic in you post, you can pinpoint terrorist, and there supporters, it has been done, but the weak sisters don't like the method, it was called MAC/SOG, they used police methods to identify terrorist/insurgents, and then used the military to prosecute the target, it was very effective, but the liberals didn't think it was fair, they wanted a trial for the identified terrorist.

TimeTraveler, all I see is Fuzzy logic in you post, you can pinpoint terrorist, and there supporters, it has been done, but the weak sisters don't like the method, it was called MAC/SOG, they used police methods to identify terrorist/insurgents, and then used the military to prosecute the target, it was very effective, but the liberals didn't think it was fair, they wanted a trial for the identified terrorist.

I think computers can be used to identify potential terrorists. I don't trust any human to have the ability to do it without bias.

Example, if someone starts buying bombs and weapons, this person should be watched carefully. If this person is radicalized, and starts to become violent, after a certain amount of red flags, then humans should examine this individuals personality or psychological profile to see if they'd be capable of terrorism and how capable they'd be.

Behavior profiling -> http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2004/11/profile_hinky.html
http://www.corpus-delicti.com/behavior.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5072447
You have to be able to judge the difference between people who talk like terrorists, and dress like terrorists, but who would never actually commit a terrorist attack, and people who actually act like terrorists and are violent.

The extreme to me, they are the people who actually ARE terrorists, who organize the terrorist groups, who are training and buying weapons, who are commiting certain sorts of crimes, and who, through our human intelligence sources, we can confirm have bad intentions. I think when they start to make plans, and we can prove they made plans, thats when you can arrest them and give them some sort of trial.

If there is no trial, how exactly do you prove they are a terrorist? They has to be some sort of trial I think, at least if we are dealing with terrorism in western countries like USA, or Europe. If we are dealing with terrorism in foreign countries, then you can apply the military approach, because some of these countries might not have a functional legal system, and I can understand why we may not trust Iraqi's to do it, at least at this time.

But ok, you have to explain more in detail, like paint a description of terrorist behavior so we have an example, and then paint a picture of the response. I'm sure we have behavior profiling, and I support behavior profiling, but I want to at least paint the image of what terrorist behavior patterns are so we can agree "Thats a terrorist!".

But is not the individual that provides aid and support to terrorist just as much a danger as the Terrorist, and that to me includes those that find reasons to justify the terrorist actions, and that is how MAC/SOG worked, profiling, which is now politically incorrect in this nation, and for use in looking at the people who are the biggest providers of terrorist, Moslems.

But is not the individual that provides aid and support to terrorist just as much a danger as the Terrorist, and that to me includes those that find reasons to justify the terrorist actions, and that is how MAC/SOG worked.

That just seems too narrow. I'd like to learn more about MAC/SOG because it seems interesting, but seriously, people say a lot of shit, and people can be tricked into supporting a lot of things.

I support behavioral profiling, because then you know for SURE. If someone has the behavior of a terrorist, then you have real evidence. If someone just says something suspicious, or gives money to some front group, theres no way to prove they did it deliberately.

Anyway, how do you handle terrorist supporters, and how exactly can you reduce them?

Using military methods to attack third parties to a conflict, meaning civilian targets, hiding in the civilian population, to take advantage of the collateral damage in operations against them for propaganda purposes,, not wearing a uniform, having a unified command structure, and following the Geneva Conventions.

It was a covert operation we used in Vietnam to Identify Communist leaders and command structure in South Vietnam, and then removed them with extreme prejudice.

Using military methods to attack third parties to a conflict, meaning civilian targets, hiding in the civilian population, to take advantage of the collateral damage in operations against them for propaganda purposes,, not wearing a uniform, having a unified command structure, and following the Geneva Conventions.

Alright I can see you know more about this than me, you must be in the special forces.

No, I just supported them, flew slicks in Vietnam, 1st Air Cav. Div.

I'm talking ofcourse about the sunni arab genocidal jihad against black christians in Sudan.

The Christian Holocaust is always a good idea.

http://www.blackplague.org/holocaust/

Apathy for Sudan genocide is one of the biggest faliure of Kofi Annan.

Apathy for Sudan genocide is one of the biggest faliure of Kofi Annan.

Yeah, perhaps. But it's just one of a long list of many, many failures ...both of Annan and the UN itself. Central Africa is also just another one of many.

The UN sucks giant donkey dick!

Baron Max

Yeah, perhaps. But it's just one of a long list of many, many failures ...both of Annan and the UN itself. Central Africa is also just another one of many.

The UN sucks giant donkey dick!

Baron Maxespecially that Kofi Annan being black should have had more sensitivity to his people than to cave in to the massive Arab oil lobby that works hard not to act against the Arab militias cruelty in Sudan.

especially that Kofi Annan being black should have had more sensitivity to his people than to cave in to the massive Arab oil lobby that works hard not to act against the Arab militias cruelty in Sudan.

you are being racist. Just because someone looks like someone else, it does not mean they are the same tribe.

Black is an American concept, do you know what tribe Mr. Annan is from? Do you know which country in Africa, or anything?

As far as the UN handling the Sudan, I think the African Union should have been empowered to handle it, but since it couldnt, the UN had to join in. I think considering whats going on in the middle east right now, the UN has it's hands full.

the racist genocide against blacks is the biggest calamity today.

especially that Kofi Annan being black should have had more sensitivity to his people than to cave in to the massive Arab oil lobby that works hard not to act against the Arab militias cruelty in Sudan.he didn't rush to the Congo victims either.

he didn't rush to the Congo victims either.

Did he (the UN) actually go anywhere and help anything? I know they went to somewhere in Africa where the UN soldiers raped women and kids, but...?

Baron Max

Did he (the UN) actually go anywhere and help anything? I know they went to somewhere in Africa where the UN soldiers raped women and kids, but...?

Baron Maxyes, they helped the huzbullah using it's post in the Lebanon Israel war...