'Apocalyptic' scenes in Chad
10/04/2007 14:01 - (SA)

# 'Many dead in Chad rebel clash'
# Fighter jet crashes in Chad
# 'Chad needs UN peacekeepers'
# 65 killed in Chad villages

Geneva - Aid workers have found "apocalyptic" scenes in two villages in Chad where up to 400 people may have died following attacks blamed on Sudan's Janjaweed militia, said the UN refugee agency on Tuesday.

"Estimates of the number of dead have increased substantially and now range between 200 and 400," said Ron Redmond, a spokesperson for the office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

"On Sunday, an inter-agency assessment mission led by UNHCR to Tiero and Morina found a situation that one of our staff described as 'apocalyptic'," he said.

A Chadian official said last week that the death toll in the attacks in the southeast of the country on March 31 had risen to about 100.

Decomposing bodies were still being found in the area, including those of a 70-year-old man and a 30-year-old father of eight, said Redmond.

The mission found that "hundreds upon hundreds" of homes had been burnt to the ground and some were still smouldering, while the area was beset by the stench of rotting animal carcasses.

'Slain by local milatia'

Most of the dead were buried where their bodies were found, sometimes in common graves.

Redmond said: "We may never know the exact number of deaths.

"Many who survived the initial attack - particularly those most vulnerable such as the elderly and young children - died in subsequent days from exhaustion and dehydration, often while fleeing."

The incidents occurred after two members of an Arab tribe were slain by a local militia composed of members of the African Dadjo tribe.

Racial tensions between local Africans and the descendants of Arab settlers who fanned out across Africa centuries ago have often led to bloodletting, especially in Sudan which was the scene of Africa's longest-running civil war.

The Khartoum-backed Janjaweed militia and the Sudanese military have been accused of carrying out mass killings during attacks on villages in Darfur, which borders Chad, forcing at least two million people to flee their homes since 2003.

http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/News/0,,2-11-1447_2096266,00.html

*patiently awaits samcdkeys justification*

Im sure as usual its the US\Israel fault.

If anyone wants Apocalyptic scenes they should go to Iraq.

When will Americans stop trying to shrug off their responsibility for slavery and racism?

like one Saudi cleric said about mujahedeen attacking the 'infidel' Saudi government: good job guys... Jihad akbar. but why don't you fight other infidels. there's so many places to choose from! Chechnya, Phillippines, Iraq, etc.

Unlike Christianity (mostly), Islam is both a political system and a religion. Everything a Muslim does is associated with Islam. If they decide for whatever reason to fight some other ethnicity, it will be seen as motivated primarily by religion, even if it isn't.

http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/News/0,,2-11-1447_2096266,00.html

*patiently awaits samcdkeys justification*

Why do you await sam’s ‘justification’? was she responsible for the attacks? did she play any part in them?

Why does anyone have to justify anything to you, especially Muslims. Are Muslims one body, are all Muslims around the World attached in some way? Does one Muslims sitting on the other side of the World, busy shoving kebabs down his throat have anything to do with a Muslim slicing heads off in Sudan? How so? Do Muslims have to explain the actions of other Muslims, do we have to apologise for them?

Do something useful. Stop playing with your small willy and actually look into the situation objectively.

Religion of peace spreads to Chad

Cock.

Face the facts Ghost.

Im sure as usual its the US\Israel fault.

You slimy bastard, how many times do you have to say that?

Face the facts Ghost.

What facts "Dick breath."

:runaway:

Oh, those Muslim attacks in Chad were all made up?

Unlike Christianity (mostly), Islam is both a political system and a religion. Everything a Muslim does is associated with Islam. If they decide for whatever reason to fight some other ethnicity, it will be seen as motivated primarily by religion, even if it isn't.

I think thats spot on.

Oh, those Muslim attacks in Chad were all made up?

Hahaha.

When did I say those attacks were made up?

Why do you await sam’s ‘justification’? was she responsible for the attacks? did she play any part in them?

Why does anyone have to justify anything to you, especially Muslims. Are Muslims one body, are all Muslims around the World attached in some way?
the fact that they aren't is beside the point. (is that called 'red herring' or 'strawman'?)

the point is that Sam (and some others) endorse and/or justify these acts. it's one thing to say "i had nothing to do with this, why are you asking me?" and it's entirely another to take a side, i.e. yes i approve / disprove. and when she and others do take sides, they are the first to play defense lawyer / apologist for barbaric Islamists and their actions.

that's what wizard and spock were saying.

the fact that they aren't is beside the point. (is that called 'red herring' or 'strawman'?)

the point is that Sam (and some others) endorse and/or justify these acts. it's one thing to say "i had nothing to do with this, why are you asking me?" and it's entirely another to take a side, i.e. yes i approve / disprove. and when she and others do take sides, they are the first to play defense lawyer / apologist for barbaric Islamists and their actions.

that's what wizard and spock were saying.

the point is that Sam (and some others) endorse and/or justify these acts.

Really? I find that hard to believe. Please post some links.

they are the first to play defense lawyer / apologist for barbaric Islamists and their actions.

Janjaweed are barbaric 'Islamists'?

I would say 'Arabists' is a more appropriate term. The Janjaweed are a racist militia at the end of the day.

The Janjaweed are a militia drawn from Darfurian and Chadian Arab-speaking tribes that became notorious for racist rhetoric, massacre, rape and forced displacement in 1990 and 2003-2004.

The Janjaweed first emerged in 1988 after Chadian President Hissène Habré, backed by France and the United States, defeated the Libyan army, thereby ending Col. Muammar al-Gaddafi’s territorial designs on Chad. Libya’s Chadian protégé, Acheickh Ibn Omer Saeed, retreated with his Arab militia forces to Darfur, where they were hosted by Sheikh Musa Hilal, the newly-elevated chief of the Mahamid Rizeigat Arabs of north Darfur. Hilal’s tribesmen had earlier smuggled Libyan weapons to Ibn Omer’s forces. A French-Chadian incursion destroyed Ibn Omer’s camp, but his weapons remained with his Mahamid hosts, along with an Arab supremacist ideology associated with the Libyan-sponsored ‘Arab Reunion’.

Prophet Muhammad:

An Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab, nor does a non-Arab have any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a black, nor does a black have any superiority over a white except by piety and good action.

http://www.islamonline.net/English/In_Depth/mohamed/1424/kharitah/article02.shtml

You slimy bastard, how many times do you have to say that?

I think the question is how many times they have to be accused of it. :rolleyes:

Unlike Christianity (mostly), Islam is both a political system and a religion. Everything a Muslim does is associated with Islam. If they decide for whatever reason to fight some other ethnicity, it will be seen as motivated primarily by religion, even if it isn't.

And this is the core of the problem; however, many islamists see it in those terms and have no compunction about so doing. Moreover, the restrictions on human rights associated with sharia and political islam have everything to do with religion, since this is their derivation.

the fact that they aren't is beside the point. (is that called 'red herring' or 'strawman'?)

the point is that Sam (and some others) endorse and/or justify these acts. it's one thing to say "i had nothing to do with this, why are you asking me?" and it's entirely another to take a side, i.e. yes i approve / disprove. and when she and others do take sides, they are the first to play defense lawyer / apologist for barbaric Islamists and their actions.

that's what wizard and spock were saying.

Quite right. There is an alarming tendency to apologetics here.

Just read the history (http://www.the-american-interest.com/contd/?p=577) of North and South Sudan and the recent history (http://www.twf.org/News/Y2001/0614-BushSudan.html) of same old same old.

The 13 June 2001 resolution of the United States House of Representatives to provide Sudanese rebels with ten million dollars worth of assistance has confirmed the concerns of much of the international community at the negative influence American government policy continues to exercise on the long-running Sudanese conflict. (3) It had been hoped by many that the incoming Bush Administration would adopt a more progressive and better-informed approach to Sudan than that shown by the Clinton Administration. The Sudanese government had also welcomed the possibility of constructive American involvement in Sudan.(4)

History would appear to be repeating itself. Former President Carter has in the past stated that the millions of dollars of assistance to the rebels previously provided by the Clinton Administration had a negative effect on the SPLA's interest in negotiating a political settlement. (16) The Bush Administration's financial support for the SPLA has also clearly encouraged the SPLA to once again ignore calls for a negotiated settlement of the conflict and to continue with what can only be described as a no-win war.

damned if you do, damned if you dont.

Sam, I thought that we already discussed this and concluded that American aid came after the campaigns by Islamic militias against defenseless non-muslim southerners. Not so? You're talking Clinton and Carter, but islamic aggression against Animists and Christians in southern Sudan started long, long before them.

Sam, I thought that we already discussed this and concluded that American aid came after the campaigns by Islamic militias against defenseless non-muslim southerners. Not so? You're talking Clinton and Carter, but islamic aggression against Animists and Christians in southern Sudan started long, long before them.

You mean before the colonialism? The artificial borders? The formation of countries containing ethnic groups with a past history of conflict?

Ghost,

first i want to say thank you for not posting hateful or sarcastic crap. re: your points, i agree that the Ganja:m:weed are probably more racist than they are Islamist. as for your quote about Muhammad, i think it's either wordplay or the author is ignoring that [other] Islamists do believe in slavery, and in fact justifying it with Islamic verses / hadith (thereby continuing to twist your religion).
or maybe the guy who wrote the article you quoted is twisting Islam... but in a good way, making it more modern. slaves were common back in the day, so i wouldn't be surprised if Muslims / Christians or whoever did have slaves.

but responding to the ganjaweed actions with "the Prophet said all humans are equal" is like responding to suicide bombing with "Islam is the religion of peace". such a rsponse is complete bullshit. nobody has asked you if Islam is this or that. people asked you about the act which was justified with "that's how we do in Islam."

OK, Islam doesn't allow this or that, and it's a religion of peace. but then, what about the guy with the beard and turban saying that Islam is something else?

i guess what people really want to hear is Muslims say "these fuckers are bad and i don't like them"... not go into a debate about whether Islam is a "good" or "bad" set of beliefs.

Ghost,

first i want to say thank you for not posting hateful or sarcastic crap. re: your points, i agree that the Ganja:m:weed are probably more racist than they are Islamist. as for your quote about Muhammad, i think it's either wordplay or the author is ignoring that [other] Islamists do believe in slavery, and in fact justifying it with Islamic verses / hadith (thereby continuing to twist your religion).
or maybe the guy who wrote the article you quoted is twisting Islam... but in a good way, making it more modern. slaves were common back in the day, so i wouldn't be surprised if Muslims / Christians or whoever did have slaves.

but responding to the ganjaweed actions with "the Prophet said all humans are equal" is like responding to suicide bombing with "Islam is the religion of peace". it's complete bullshit. nobody is talking about Islam itself, which is separate from the act. people are talking about the act which was justified by Islam.
i guess what people really want to hear is Muslims say "these fuckers are bad and i don't like them"... not go into a debate about whether Islam is a "good" or "bad" set of beliefs.


All terrorists are bad, especially those with extremist religious views. The idea is that one cannot expect an extremist to support secularism so systematically funding such groups is an option suitable only for the brain dead, or for Americans.

You mean before the colonialism? The artificial borders? The formation of countries containing ethnic groups with a past history of conflict?

Oh for fucks sake sam how long are you going to use that tired excuse to abdicates peoples responsibility for thier actions. It's colonialisms' fault, false borders, whose the egyptians, the arabs? (both of them imposed thier rule and beliefs upon the region we call sudan today for millenia before the brits short 130 year stint) obviously they don't concern you :rolleyes: If colonialism and imposed borders are the blame why didn't they just readjust when the colonialists pulled out? What were they incapable because they were only africans or something??

Oh for fucks sake sam how long are you going to use that tired excuse to abdicates peoples responsibility for thier actions. It's colonialisms' fault, false borders, whose the egyptians, the arabs? (both of them imposed thier rule and beliefs upon the region we call sudan today for millenia before the brits short 130 year stint) obviously they don't concern you :rolleyes: If colonialism and imposed borders are the blame why didn't they just readjust when the colonialists pulled out? What were they incapable because they were only africans or something??

Why do you think they are having a civil war?:rolleyes:

Take any civil war in history, supply one side (extremists) with millions of dollars, let them kill plenty of civilians, what do you think is the result going to be?

You slimy bastard, how many times do you have to say that?

7-1

:bravo:

Just couldn't stop myself. Carry on.

All terrorists are bad, especially those with extremist religious views.
Sam, are you following some Islamist Apologist guide book? you've done the "...but Islam is the religion of peace" one, now you're doing the "condemning abstract non-specific concepts" one... the next one should be the "but look at what Zionists / America are doing."

as usual, such defense comes up short, for it fails to name the rapists and murderers and enslavers and genocides.

of course "genocide is bad". but it is the ganjaweed who perpetrate it. we must condemn the ganjaweed, then. not genocide in general.

Why do you think they are having a civil war?:rolleyes:

Take any civil war in history, supply one side (extremists) with millions of dollars, let them kill plenty of civilians, what do you think is the result going to be?

Please tell me that you are aware of the actual roots of the problem in southern sudan, christans muslims, that conflict was going on before the USA even existed started by guess who? (who was there first christians or muslims). It wasn't caused by the US. International politics is such that countries tend to support one side or the other, arabs do it, indians do it, pakistanis do it, russians do it, chinese do it and yes americans do it. Regardless this is about Darfur not the southern Sudan.

Of course for the record I don't think this has anything to do with islam (so you can relax on that)

Please tell me that you are aware of the actual roots of the problem in southern sudan, christans muslims, that conflict was going on before the USA even existed started by guess who? (who was there first christians or muslims). It wasn't caused by the US. International politics is such that countries tend to support one side or the other, arabs do it, indians do it, pakistanis do it, russians do it, chinese do it and yes americans do it. Regardless this is about Darfur not the southern Sudan.

Of course for the record I don't think this has anything to do with islam (so you can relax on that)

Sure but is there a point in supporting those militants who are bent on genocide?

And unfortunately the conflicts are related to borders and rebels on both sides.

http://www.bakutoday.net/view.php?d=36091

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/07/19/darfur9096.htm

http://www.africaspeaks.com/articles/2004/1907.html

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/nov2004/sudn-n19.shtml

Sam, why do you say religious terrorists are worse than other terrorists?

And unfortunately the conflicts are related to borders and rebels on both sides.

http://www.bakutoday.net/view.php?d=36091

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/07/19/darfur9096.htm

http://www.africaspeaks.com/articles/2004/1907.html

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/nov2004/sudn-n19.shtml

And agriculturalists and pasturalists and christians and muslims and animists. Don't simplify to fit your political preferences

Sam would never do that, right Sam?

You mean before the colonialism? The artificial borders? The formation of countries containing ethnic groups with a past history of conflict?

Yes: but after Sura 9. After al-Buhkari. After the massacre of the Bani Quayrash. After. After. After. But before Clinton offered to arm them. Before. Before. Before. Follow?

It's funny, too: you'd expect the Christian and Animist southerners to have armed as rapidly as the islamic northerners did. But they didn't.

I wonder why. History sure is odd, no?

Yeh, those evil Black Christian and Animist southerners are a real threat to the Muslims, in that they are alive.

Sure but is there a point in supporting those militants who are bent on genocide?

Well, if one side is armed (islamic northern Sudan), and the other side is not (southern, non-islamic Sudan), then...yes. I think arming them for their own self-defense is perfectly reasonable. The alternative is, indeed, genocide. I assume this isn't the preferred outcome for you? The only fault is that they weren't armed sufficiently or early enough, apparently.

Then again, it would be simpler still if the islamic side in that conflict had just avoided jihad to begin with. But let's concentrate on the achievable. ;)

This has been going on for a decade, truly amazing, and the West does nothing, truly shameful.

Did anyone heard the rumors of something called oil in Sudan? Im not familiar with this oil thing, but maybe that got something to do with the war and people being killed on oil fields. For oil.

Then why hasn't Bush, Halliburton, and the U.S. Army moved in?

Then why hasn't Bush, Halliburton, and the U.S. Army moved in?

maybe its the Illuminati?

And agriculturalists and pasturalists and christians and muslims and animists. Don't simplify to fit your political preferences

My political preferences? What a joke.

Islam is political, it orders Islamic Theocracy, right Sam?

Yes: but after Sura 9. After al-Buhkari. After the massacre of the Bani Quayrash. After. After. After. But before Clinton offered to arm them. Before. Before. Before. Follow?

It's funny, too: you'd expect the Christian and Animist southerners to have armed as rapidly as the islamic northerners did. But they didn't.

I wonder why. History sure is odd, no?

Sure, but the present conflict is nothing to do with Sura 9:

Last month, more than $20 million worth of US government contracts were awarded to US firms to operate in Darfur in support of the AU mission. This included an unspecified mission for Dynacorp, which runs a security operation in Afghanistan for the US government. This puts potentially armed US civilian contractors with close US ties into Darfur.

Of primary concern to the US is the conclusion of the southern peace deal between Khartoum and the US-backed Sudan People’s Liberation Army/Movement (SPLA), which will allow access for US oil companies to the large oilfields in the south. The deal has been close to agreement since May.

The US maintains good relations with Eritrea, which was recognised by the US less than two years after it broke from Ethiopia, and continues to send tens of millions in humanitarian and military aid. In October, the US made an official military visit when the missile destroyer USS Hopper docked in Masawa. Eritrea is also on good terms with Israel, which recognised its independence at the same time as the US in 1993, and is accused by Sudan of running rebel training camps in Eritrea, and also of being involved with the rebels in Darfur.

The Eritrean opposition has recently accused the Eritrean government of giving the Darfur rebels military training in Eritrea. The SLA and JEM were almost crushed a year ago but suddenly got stronger, leading to speculation about their possibly having received Western and regional aid. The government of Sudan has officially complained to the UN about Eritrea’s backing of several armed groups fighting against Khartoum. The NDA has openly begun negotiations with Eritrea, with which it is heavily connected

“When considered in context of the broader situation in Sudan,” Stratfor observes, “US support of Eritrea, and by extension Beja rebel groups, begins to make sense.... The support of the Beja rebels is in accordance with Washington’s overall policy, but is also linked to a greater strategic vision.”—i.e., in helping to create a Red Sea region favourable to US and Israeli interests. Also, the oil pipeline from the southern oil fields cuts across Sudan to the Red Sea at Port Sudan in the Beja territory.

It's always about the money.

What a great religion.

May eternal peace be with those who ask for it. Chad, embrace the emptiness thereafter the blood rivers of Styx.

Does Islam mean Peace or Submit?

Sure, but the present conflict is nothing to do with Sura 9:


its got something to with jihad against the infidels. there are plenty of muslims that believe in this.
It's always about the money.

its about the money you dont have, so you go and blow up those who have it.

its got something to with jihad against the infidels. there are plenty of muslims that believe in this.


its about the money you dont have, so you go and blow up those who have it.

Not in this case. The SLA came to power with external aid and the current militants also need cash to sustain their power.

Sure, but the present conflict is nothing to do with Sura 9...It's always about the money.

Sam: this is from 1993. The war began far, far before that, and you know it. The 'present conflict' is nothing more than a continuation of the old conflict. And where is your condemnation there? Where, too, your condemnation of the Janjaweed? You only seem to want to criticize the Americans who, whatever their basis for doing so, armed the southern Sudanese so as to give them at least a half-chance of survival. Why? Why is it now such a worse conflict that the other side is armed too? Genocide is preferrable when it's easy?


But of course! If only those 6 million (yes, mountainhare or HH8H or whatever you're calling yourself these days, 6 million) Jews had just walked quietly to the gas chambers; and the 200 million Russians, and the 700 million Hindus. If only. Things would be so much easier then, no? After all, no one wants a war. Anything is better than that. Not so?


Oh, wait: oppression is worse than slaughter, isn't it? But whose oppression? And whose slaughter? Hmm. A tricky one.

Whenever I ask Sam about the goal of Islam to subdue the World for an Islamic Theocracy, she ALWAYS clams up.

Sam, as you are reportedly a Muslim, how will this unfold, and what are you doing to foster this goal of Islam? How are you helping to actualize this goal of Islam?

Sam: this is from 1993. The war began far, far before that, and you know it. The 'present conflict' is nothing more than a continuation of the old conflict. And where is your condemnation there? Where, too, your condemnation of the Janjaweed? You only seem to want to criticize the Americans who, whatever their basis for doing so, armed the southern Sudanese so as to give them at least a half-chance of survival. Why? Why is it now such a worse conflict that the other side is armed too? Genocide is preferrable when it's easy?


But of course! If only those 6 million (yes, mountainhare or HH8H or whatever you're calling yourself these days, 6 million) Jews had just walked quietly to the gas chambers; and the 200 million Russians, and the 700 million Hindus. If only. Things would be so much easier then, no? After all, no one wants a war. Anything is better than that. Not so?


Oh, wait: oppression is worse than slaughter, isn't it? But whose oppression? And whose slaughter? Hmm. A tricky one.

You may want to continue with your fantasies, but the economic disparity between north and south was not a result of religion, but deliberate policy, the Americans have simply taken over where the British left off.

And not everyone swallows the popular media pictures, as you seem so prone to do, notwithstanding your unbiased outlook.

Offtopic: Here is an interesting lecture I came across in another thread
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1351904&postcount=137

Since Sam is in favor of genocide in Sudan, as one side is far weaker, then does the same hold true elsewhere Sam?

Not in this case. The SLA came to power with external aid and the current militants also need cash to sustain their power.

And - to use your points about historical conditioning and example - think how little any of that would have been needed if only the islamic Northern Sudanese had never started the genocide of the southerners - muslim and non-muslim alike, though initially the former only.

I do agree with you on one thing though: Why would anyone attempt to draw borders with two distinct and different peoples within them? It's obvious they'd fight. No, a two-state solution is the only way!

...oh.

Well, obviously you and I don't mean Kurdistan and Iraq, or Baluchistan and Iran, or - dare I say it - Israel and Palestine. Only an utter cad would draw any comparison between your argument on any of the latter and the case of the Sudan. It would be wrong...somehow. In some way.

And - to use your points about historical conditioning and example - think how little any of that would have been needed if only the islamic Northern Sudanese had never started the genocide of the southerners - muslim and non-muslim alike, though initially the former only.

I do agree with you on one thing though: Why would anyone attempt to draw borders with two distinct and different peoples within them? It's obvious they'd fight. No, a two-state solution is the only way!

...oh.

Well, obviously you and I don't mean Kurdistan and Iraq, or Baluchistan and Iran, or - dare I say it - Israel and Palestine. Only an utter cad would draw any comparison between your argument on any of the latter and the case of the Sudan. It would be wrong...somehow. In some way.


More futile rubbish, the conflict was religious in appearance only because the country was divided like that by the British. It was economic rebellion against a policy of discrimination, divide and rule.

Not in this case. The SLA came to power with external aid and the current militants also need cash to sustain their power.

i thought they came to power by killing and murdering. thats odd.
maybe this entire thing actually got to do with the oil fields and some Swedish company. plenty of money there...

Chad has been majority Muslim for centuries. With an animist south. 2007 problems arise because of an unstable neighbor. How is Islam idictable for this?

More futile rubbish, the conflict was religious in appearance only because the country was divided like that by the British. It was economic rebellion against a policy of discrimination, divide and rule.

so the poor muslims were oppressed and started blowing up things?

so the poor muslims were oppressed and started blowing up things?

what else is there to do, when world is silent to the cries?

You may want to continue with your fantasies, but the economic disparity between north and south was not a result of religion, but deliberate policy, the Americans have simply taken over where the British left off.

The Brits separated the two on the basis of probable clashes between them, as I recall. Thank Allah that that has never come to pass now they've been reunited. :rolleyes: But maybe it was a British plot? That they would separate the two, who would then recombine and that bloodshed would ensue? And yet they took pains to separate them. Was it a deliberate plan? Could the war against and oppression of southerners been averted, say, by a choice on the part of the Northerners to help out themselves and their countrymen instead of bombing and enslaving them? Why do you condemn American occupation, but not Sudanese, nor Iranian, nor Iraqi?

And not everyone swallows the popular media pictures, as you seem so prone to do, notwithstanding your unbiased outlook.

Well, it's just the absolute lack of any (as they say in the business) "evidence" to support the picture of eeevil British and eeeevil American complicity in creating the conflict between northern and southern Sudan that forces me to "swallow" (:rolleyes:) the "popular media pictures" and their equally evil "reporting" and so forth.

But aside from all that, I'm right on side with you on this one Sam. Right on side.

Geoff
Eeevil Lizardoid, 2nd Class

i thought they came to power by killing and murdering. thats odd.
maybe this entire thing actually got to do with the oil fields and some Swedish company. plenty of money there...

You got it.

http://www.workers.org/2006/world/darfur-0608/
Unlike Saudi Arabia, however, the Sudanese government has retained its independence of Washington. Unable to control Sudan’s oil policy, the U.S. imperialist government has made every effort to stop its development of this valuable resource. China, on the other hand, has worked with Sudan in providing the technology for exploration, drilling, pumping and the building of a pipeline and buys much of Sudan’s oil.

U.S. policy revolves around shutting down the export of oil through sanctions and inflaming national and regional antagonisms. For over two decades U.S. imperialism supported a separatist movement in the south of Sudan, where oil was originally found. This long civil war drained the central government’s resources. When a peace agreement was finally negotiated, U.S. attention immediately switched to Darfur in western Sudan.

Recently, a similar agreement between the Sudanese government and rebel groups in Darfur was rejected by one of the groups, so the fighting continues. The U.S. poses as a neutral mediator and keeps pressing Khartoum for more concessions but “through its closest African allies helped train the SLA and JEM Darfuri rebels that initiated Khartoum’s violent reaction.”

he U.S. corporate media is unanimous in simplistically describing the crisis in Darfur as atrocities committed by the Jan jawid militias, supported by the central government in Khartoum. This is described as an “Arab” assault on “African” people.

This is a total distortion of reality. As the Black Commentator, Oct. 27, 2004, points out: “All parties involved in the Darfur conflict—whether they are referred to as ‘Arab’ or as ‘African,’ are equally indigenous and equally Black. All are Muslim and all are local.” The whole population of Darfur speaks Arabic, along with many local dialects. All are Sunni Muslim.

The Brits separated the two on the basis of probable clashes between them, as I recall. Thank Allah that that has never come to pass now they've been reunited. :rolleyes: But maybe it was a British plot? That they would separate the two, who would then recombine and that bloodshed would ensue? And yet they took pains to separate them. Was it a deliberate plan? Could the war against and oppression of southerners been averted, say, by a choice on the part of the Northerners to help out themselves and their countrymen instead of bombing and enslaving them? Why do you condemn American occupation, but not Sudanese, nor Iranian, nor Iraqi?



Well, it's just the absolute lack of any (as they say in the business) "evidence" to support the picture of eeevil British and eeeevil American complicity in creating the conflict between northern and southern Sudan that forces me to "swallow" (:rolleyes:) the "popular media pictures" and their equally evil "reporting" and so forth.

But aside from all that, I'm right on side with you on this one Sam. Right on side.

Geoff
Eeevil Lizardoid, 2nd Class

BS. Everyone knows how altruistic (http://www.againstbombing.org/chemical.htm) the British were.

More futile rubbish, the conflict was religious in appearance only because the country was divided like that by the British. It was economic rebellion against a policy of discrimination, divide and rule.

Which was then manifested by the Northern political movement "Kill all Infidel Southerner Swine"?

"KISS" has more than the one meaning, to some people. Maybe the northerners thought they were being oppressed by the peaceful, weaponless southerners? Say no more: fog of war.

:rolleyes:

BS.

Not at all. I got a promotion. My eeevilness on the internet has been paying me dividends.

Those evil Black Christians and Animists have been a threat to conquer all of North Africa for decades, a real threat to Muslim Theocracies.

Well, I must anon. I have jousted too much with the good Lady Sam; and there is evil aplenty to be done elsewhere.

Good day.

You may want to continue with your fantasies, but the economic disparity between north and south was not a result of religion, but deliberate policy, the Americans have simply taken over where the British left off.

And not everyone swallows the popular media pictures, as you seem so prone to do, notwithstanding your unbiased outlook.



Islam came to Egypt in the 640s, and pressed southward; around 651 the governor of Egypt raided as far south as Dongola. The Muslims or the Arabs met with stiff resistance and found little wealth worth capturing. They thus ceased their offensive and a treaty known as the baqt was signed between the Arabs and Makuria. This treaty held for some seven hundred years. The area between the Nile and the Red Sea was a source of gold and emeralds, and Arab miners gradually moved in. Around the 970s an Arabic envoy Ibn Sulaym went to Dongola and wrote an account afterwards; it is now our most important source for this period. Despite the baqt northern Sudan became steadily Islamicized and Arabized; Makuria collapsed in the fourteenth century with Alodia disappearing somewhat later.

Far less is known about the history of southern Sudan. It seems as though it was home to a variety of semi-nomadic tribes. In the 16th century one of these tribes, known as the Funj, moved north and united Nubia forming the Kingdom of Sennar. The Funj sultans quickly converted to Islam and that religion steadily became more entrenched. At the same time, the Darfur Sultanate arose in the west. Between them, the Taqali established a state in the Nuba Hills.

The economy of Sudan was feudally based, with a large number of slaves supporting the ruling Jellaba class. The Jellaba were Arab merchants who had come to Sudan with Islam. They traded across the region, but did not build up much industrial or productive capability in Sudan. [4] Through the centuries millions of slaves were captured and sold in Sudan, many being exported to the Middle East. The slave trade made southern blacks hostile toward Islam, preventing its spread in those areas.
From wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sudan)

Good day.

Have fun in real life.

From wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sudan)

There was a Sudan in 640?

edit:

This is interesting

The United States began selling Sudan a great deal of equipments around 1976, hoping to counteract Soviet support of Marxist Ethiopians and Libyans. Military sales peaked in 1982 at US$101 million. After the start of the second civil war, American assistance dropped, and was eventually all but cancelled in 1987.

Start the infection then watch the gangrene grow. Guess who replaced the "communists".

In 1989, it appeared the war would end, but a coup brought a military junta into power which was not interested in compromise. Since that time the war raged across Sudan.

Wow, another coincidence.

There was a Sudan in 640?

Looks like you have some editing to do ;)

You got it.

http://www.workers.org/2006/world/darfur-0608/

yeah but i dont think its the US, i think its the sudani people doing it to themselves, after all they are the ones who are doing the killing. they cant get the money like civilized men, so they kill and murder.

Oh and

From 1968 to 1972, the Soviet Union and eastern bloc nations sold large numbers of weapons and provided technical assistance and training to Sudan. At this time the army grew from a strength of 18,000 to roughly 50,000 men. Large numbers of tanks, aircraft, and artillery were acquired at this time, and they dominated the army until the late 1980s.

Egypt was the most important military partner in the 1970s, providing missiles, personnel carriers, and other military hardware. At the same time military cooperation between the two countries was important.



From same

yeah but i dont think its the US, i think its the sudani people doing it to themselves, after all they are the ones who are doing the killing. they cant get the money like civilized men, so they kill and murder.

Oh don't worry they get the money alright.

Oh and



From same

see edit.;)

And combine that info with the link I provided earlier and you have your answers.

Let them kill each other, in their useless war.

Sam, since Islamic Theocracy is a major goal of Islam, which nations are next to submit to the siren song of Allah?

Let them kill each other, in their useless war.

Unofrtunately the victims are innocent children and civilians, who are raped and tortured by militia.:bawl:

see edit.;)

And combine that info with the link I provided earlier and you have your answers.

Ahh I see US interest dropped in 1987 and war broke out in Sudan in 89..thanks.

Oh don't worry they get the money alright.

whos getting its money? there is a war going on by uncivilized people. if the US got anything to do with it it is to get funds and using the situation, not starting it.

Unofrtunately the victims are innocent children and civilians, who are raped and tortured by militia.:bawl:

as long as the buy the ammunition. They don't have to use it.

as long as the buy the ammunition. They don't have to use it.

true. many countries buy ammo and dont start killing each other.

is the car manufacturer is responsible when a thief is using hes car to commit a crime?

Ahh I see US interest dropped in 1987 and war broke out in Sudan in 89..thanks.

You mean officially, after all they are still sending money there. :rolleyes:

true. many countries buy ammo and dont start killing each other.

is the car manufacturer is responsible when a thief is using hes car to commit a crime?

Is that like Iran or Syria selling ammo to freedom fighters in Palestine?

as long as the buy the ammunition. They don't have to use it.

The militia? Thats their whole purpose. How else can they maintain power?

geese you people take me seriously, go on with your muslim/Israel/military/war/death stuff. yawn.

Sam, what role does the Islamic mandate for Islamic Theocracy play in all this?

Is that like Iran or Syria selling ammo to freedom fighters in Palestine?

so they are freedom fighters? :D

they dont get much from the deal except to destabilize the area and israel, and to get a strategic edge over israel. after all nasrallah takes hes order from iran and syria.

Ghost,

first i want to say thank you for not posting hateful or sarcastic crap. re: your points, i agree that the Ganja:m:weed are probably more racist than they are Islamist. as for your quote about Muhammad, i think it's either wordplay or the author is ignoring that [other] Islamists do believe in slavery, and in fact justifying it with Islamic verses / hadith (thereby continuing to twist your religion).
or maybe the guy who wrote the article you quoted is twisting Islam... but in a good way, making it more modern. slaves were common back in the day, so i wouldn't be surprised if Muslims / Christians or whoever did have slaves.

They are the words of Muhammad. The final sermon (farewell sermon) of Muhammad is well-known and practising Muslims are very familiar with it.

but responding to the ganjaweed actions with "the Prophet said all humans are equal" is like responding to suicide bombing with "Islam is the religion of peace". such a rsponse is complete bullshit. nobody has asked you if Islam is this or that. people asked you about the act which was justified with "that's how we do in Islam."

You misunderstand my post. I am not responding to the actions of the Janjaweed militia. I’m responding to those that see their actions as ‘Islamic’. That opinion is complete bullshit, only held by the ignorant.

OK, Islam doesn't allow this or that, and it's a religion of peace. but then, what about the guy with the beard and turban saying that Islam is something else?

You should read up on Islamic beliefs, familiarise yourself with its teachings, talk to everyday Muslims, talk to those that practise Islam, develop an understanding of the Muslim World, understand the differences of opinion, the various movements etc. Seriously, America has this war on terror raging in the Muslim World, at least learn something about your ‘enemy’ (don’t tell me, you’re not American, lol). The least you can do is develop critical thinking.

i guess what people really want to hear is Muslims say "these fuckers are bad and i don't like them"... not go into a debate about whether Islam is a "good" or "bad" set of beliefs.

World’s Muslims: “Oh, no they’re not!”

otheadp: "Oh, yes they are!"

World’s Muslims: “OH, NO THEY’RE NOT!” :D rotfl

Sorry. Yeh, those fuckers are bad and I don’t like them.

7-1

:bravo:

Just couldn't stop myself. Carry on.

I’m a Liverpool fan. I hate Man Utd. :grumble:
I hate Chelsea ever more.

However I think we have a better chance of beating Chelsea than Valencia. So it’s all good I think… * crosses fingers*

There was a Sudan in 640?

Yes, incredibly so! For the dispute, naturally, started with the religions, not with the late-to-the-party British mandate, which was designed to keep them separate, as I believe we've already discussed.

Note the post here? Funnily enough, islamic expansion follows the exact model the Americans presumably are following in Iraq: the pursuit of wealth :eek: :

Islam came to Egypt in the 640s, and pressed southward; around 651 the governor of Egypt raided as far south as Dongola. The Muslims or the Arabs met with stiff resistance and found little wealth worth capturing. They thus ceased their offensive and a treaty known as the baqt was signed between the Arabs and Makuria. This treaty held for some seven hundred years.

So to sum up: no money = peace.

Of course, it didn't stay that way. Money to be had = war.

The area between the Nile and the Red Sea was a source of gold and emeralds, and Arab miners gradually moved in. Around the 970s an Arabic envoy Ibn Sulaym went to Dongola and wrote an account afterwards; it is now our most important source for this period. Despite the baqt northern Sudan became steadily Islamicized and Arabized; Makuria collapsed in the fourteenth century with Alodia disappearing somewhat later.

...

The economy of Sudan was feudally based, with a large number of slaves supporting the ruling Jellaba class. The Jellaba were Arab merchants who had come to Sudan with Islam. They traded across the region, but did not build up much industrial or productive capability in Sudan. [4] Through the centuries millions of slaves were captured and sold in Sudan, many being exported to the Middle East. The slave trade made southern blacks hostile toward Islam, preventing its spread in those areas.

And of course the prevention of the spread of islam on basis that it generates war and slavery must be met with war and slavery. And the southerners objected, may Allah burn their miserable hides!

As you put it so aptly: Wow, another coincidence.

Draw no conclusions. Make no syntheses. All exclusions, exclusions to the rule: the rule of one and none.

The militia? Thats their whole purpose. How else can they maintain power?

...free elections, fairness and voter popularity?

Nah. Never mind.

...free elections, fairness and voter popularity?

Nah. Never mind.

Hullo? Extremists?

BS. Everyone knows how altruistic (http://www.againstbombing.org/chemical.htm) the British were.

Ah. You revised your post post-facto. I will now respond:

Utter straw man. You have no evidence the British divided that nation for that purpose (and such would be unlikely, frankly, given that Britain gave up its colonial management there); your example, moreover, is from a different conflict not grounded in any "theory of Britishness" and is dubious in the extreme.

Hullo? Extremists?

Well you seem to be arguing that they should use the ammo to keep order. But no one is forcing them to; it is their choice.

Well you seem to be arguing that they should use the ammo to keep order. But no one is forcing them to; it is their choice.

Not even the fact that no one would allow them to be in power without the ammo?:rolleyes:

Considering that they have to kill so many civilians to maintain it?

Ah. You revised your post post-facto. I will now respond:

Utter straw man. You have no evidence the British divided that nation for that purpose (and such would be unlikely, frankly, given that Britain gave up its colonial management there); your example, moreover, is from a different conflict not grounded in any "theory of Britishness" and is dubious in the extreme.

Oh please, look at the HISTORY of British colonialism in Asia and Africa.

Hey Sam, what's with the ring through the nose and the lip?

Not even the fact that no one would allow them to be in power without the ammo?:rolleyes:

Considering that they have to kill so many civilians to maintain it?

What the HELL are you talking about? Why do the Chadian radicals, or the northern Sudanese radicals, or any other radicals, need to be in power? You are not honestly arguing that they earn this right on the basis of bodies?

For fuck's sake.

Oh please, look at the HISTORY of British colonialism in Asia and Africa.

I look at the history of Britain and do not find that even if they had separated the peoples of the Sudan for the purposes of economic exploitation, that there is any reason that the northerners should now commit aggression against the south. Your defense of this is pitiful, and beneath contempt.

Grow up, for someone's sake. Maybe your own, for starters.

That's the Islamic way.

I look at the history of Britain and do not find that even if they had separated the peoples of the Sudan for the purposes of economic exploitation, that there is any reason that the northerners should now commit aggression against the south. Your defense of this is pitiful, and beneath contempt.

Grow up, for someone's sake. Maybe your own, for starters.

Then you fail to see the significance of the US arming of Sudan from the 70s through the 80s, to remove the Marxists/Leninists? Or the fact that this civil war started after a coup in 1989 when a military dictator took over?

Grow up yourself and learn to see through the propaganda.

What the HELL are you talking about? Why do the Chadian radicals, or the northern Sudanese radicals, or any other radicals, need to be in power? You are not honestly arguing that they earn this right on the basis of bodies?

For fuck's sake.

No I'm asking you where the rebels got the wherewithal and training to take over and what has enabled them to maintain this conflict for so many years.

So if you own a car you're automatically a practitioner of vehicular homicide?

Then you fail to see the significance of the US arming of Sudan from the 70s through the 80s, to remove the Marxists/Leninists? Or the fact that this civil war started after a coup in 1989 when a military dictator took over?

No, what I see is an ongoing war of islamists against all others who dare to draw breath. No American told them to use their bloody weapons on the filthy kufr, and frankly they'd been doing it long before anyone came by to check on their governmental system. If you want to blame the US, go ahead: and blame the Soviets, too, for selling them the gear. And, while you're doing that, go ahead and make the (for you) lightyear leap to accepting that this wonderful, infinitely great, no-holds-barred religion of yours allowed them - even encouraged them - to murder and rape a bunch of defenseless villagers. Of course, you won't, and you can't.

Grow up yourself and learn to see through the propaganda.

I have, which is what you don't like. Tough.

No, what I see is an ongoing war of islamists against all others who dare to draw breath.

Bias.

No I'm asking you where the rebels got the wherewithal and training to take over and what has enabled them to maintain this conflict for so many years.

What, the ideological training? Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran.

Read it sometime, and figure out what has the rest of the world so concerned about a witless 7th-century ideologue.

Bias.

Yours, not mine. Or quit defending your religion's excesses.

Ridiculous.

"Bias," I like that. The new catch all, "bias," way to go Sam, you've out obfuscated yourself.

Or quit defending your religion's excesses.



Bias

What, the ideological training? Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran.

Read it sometime, and figure out what has the rest of the world so concerned about a witless 7th-century ideologue.

Bias

If you complain when a Muslim sets fire to your house then it's "bias," right Sam?

Call it bias, or BS: your arguments are one and the same, and spring from the same source. Does Sam see me endorsing Stalin's purges, or Mao's? Marx's anti-semitism? No.

Won. Moral. Logical. Done.

BiasWhy do you tolerate these hateful racists every day? You don't deserve to be treated like that because you are a Muslim. Engaging the Troll Patrol encourages them.

Why do you tolerate these hateful racists every day? You don't deserve to be treated like that because you are a Muslim. Engaging the Troll Patrol encourages them.

Because contrary to popular opinion, ignorance is not bliss. Plus I'm not the one who gets all hot and bothered, I've a hide like a rhino.:D ;)

I believe in Stand and Fight for your convictions. Muslims are stubborn die hards, doncha know?

Because contrary to popular opinion, ignorance is not bliss. Plus I'm not the one who gets all hot and bothered, I've a hide like a rhino.:D ;)

I believe in Stand and Fight for your convictions. Muslims are stubborn die hards, doncha know?You must! I agree with your last sentence too but I limit it to people that are worthy of debate and argument. Racists and redneck trash don't deserve my attention let alone any dialogue. Each to his or her own though! :shrug:

You must! I agree with your last sentence too but I limit it to people that are worthy of debate and argument. Racists and redneck trash don't deserve my attention let alone any dialogue. Each to his or her own though! :shrug:

The world is full of people with preconceived notions, it takes effort to get through the comfort zone.

The world is full of people with preconceived notions, it takes effort to get through the comfort zone.Recruiting to a political movement is one thing though. To engage racists on a free discussion board brings what? Nothing but more of them. I recruited at dozens of college campuses and industrial job sites across the country to the revolutionary party. (SWP/USA) So I have been out of any comfort zones for a long time.
I just don't see what gain there is battling people that hate your faith. Would I waste my time trying to convince GW supporters to join the communist movement? Hell No!
I'll step away from this subject though. It's just repulsive how many reactionaries we have here, many waving bibles. Taking them seriously gives them far too much credit.

"Muslims are stubborn" until they subdue the World, right Sam?

Hey Genji, what "race" is Islam?

Why do you tolerate these hateful racists every day? You don't deserve to be treated like that because you are a Muslim. Engaging the Troll Patrol encourages them.

Explain what race muslims are, Genji. I think we've debated this issue previously.

The world is full of people with preconceived notions, it takes effort to get through the comfort zone.

I couldn't agree more; some of them will entrench and adhere to any bias, any ignorance, if only to support their theistic agenda.

Then, they'll play the martyr with admirers. What a funny mirror that must be to gaze into, darkly.

Explain what race muslims are, Genji. I think we've debated this issue previously.Overwhelmingly Arab, Geoff. Lots and lots of Arab haters here. I know when I criticize Jews or Judaism I am declared a racist holocaust denier or anti semite.

Overwhelmingly Arab, Geoff. Lots and lots of Arab haters here. I know when I criticize Jews or Judaism I am declared a racist holocaust denier or anti semite.

yeah, but the real hardcore muslims, who actually were at the rise of the glorious days of islam, before they persecuted jews, was non arabs muslims. as a matter of fact, it hasnt change much. too bad for iran.

Overwhelmingly Arab, Geoff.

LMAO - Arabs constitute about 15% of all muslims, Genji.

Lots and lots of Arab haters here.

Who? Name them, and differentiate me from them.

I know when I criticize Jews or Judaism I am declared a racist holocaust denier or anti semite.

As I've told you before, my issue is with political islam and my concern with the strong basis it has in islamic literal interpretation. Don't bother trying to play tu tuoque with the issue of Zionism vis-a-vis Judaism: you knew perfectly well that mountainhare was a Holocaust denier when you sided with him. Mountainhare was the Holocaust denier: I merely pointed out to you who you'd decided to jump in bed with; at no point, to use your own argument from the PM, did I call you one.

Frankly, it's not my fault that you chose not to distance yourself from him, but I wonder now though. Someone who stoops to common slander probably doesn't stick at much.

Ridiculous.

LMAO - Arabs constitute about 15% of all muslims, Genji.



Who? Name them, and differentiate me from them.



As I've told you before, my issue is with political islam and my concern with the strong basis it has in islamic literal interpretation. Don't bother trying to play tu tuoque with the issue of Zionism vis-a-vis Judaism: you knew perfectly well that mountainhare was a Holocaust denier when you sided with him. Mountainhare was the Holocaust denier: I merely pointed out to you who you'd decided to jump in bed with; at no point, to use your own argument from the PM, did I call you one.

Frankly, it's not my fault that you chose not to distance yourself from him, but I wonder now though. Someone who stoops to common slander probably doesn't stick at much.

Ridiculous.Arabs are the target here. Dozens of Arab countries are targeted by the West. Arab bashing is a sport here. Indonesia bashing too. (Most populous Muslim country) AGAIN: Bash Israel, you are a racist neo Nazi. Bash Arabs and Muslims and it's a big joke.

Arabs are the target here. Dozens of Arab countries are targeted by the West.

This thread is about radical islamic violence in Chad. I'm sorry if that confuses you. I expect it is no confusion to the Chadians.

Arab bashing is a sport here. Indonesia bashing too. (Most populous Muslim country)

And not an Arab one! And, experiencing an increase in radical islamic violence. Gee. No reason to get upset about that I guess. Beheaded schoolgirls, so what?

AGAIN: Bash Israel, you are a racist neo Nazi.

Nope. Deny the Holocaust, and you're a Holocaust Denier; unless you can show me in which thread I attacked people critical of Israel as being thereby Nazis? Go on, you've got six weeks almost. That should be enough time.

Fail to ignore the excesses of the core failure of separation of mosque and state (and the transgressions of human rights therein), and you're an islamophobe, or an Arabophobe. Even if you come from there, or were muslim once. Sure. That makes sense.