Bush imposes new sanctions on Sudan

Are you claming now that in the first Jihad sanctioned by the Sudanes government over 2 million black Christians were not murdered?

This conflict is about Jihad. It is true that after the second Jihad, they are going after all blacks as i have already mentioned... but it is still a Jihad sanctioned by the Sudanese government...

Jihad in Sudan? What Jihad in Sudan?
Human Events, Aug 2, 2004 by Spencer, Robert
Just in time to mark the 10th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide that it largely ignored, the human rights community is beginning to take notice of the genocide in Sudan. As welcome as this is, and as refreshing as it is that the New York Times and Washington Post have done extensive reporting on Darfur in recent weeks, few have noted that the tragedy of Darfur is actually the second Sudanese genocide of our age. The first killed over two million African Christians and animists in southern Sudan.

findarticles.com...

But jihad's most ghastly present reality is in Sudan, where until recently the ruling party bore the slogan "Jihad, Victory and Martyrdom." For two decades, under government auspices, jihadists there have physically attacked non-Muslims, looted their belongings and killed their males.

Jihadists then enslaved tens of thousands of females and children, forced them to convert to Islam, sent them on forced marches, beat them and set them to hard labor. The women and older girls also suffered ritual gang-rape, genital mutilation and a life of sexual servitude.

Sudan's state-sponsored jihad has caused about 2 million deaths and the displacement of another 4 million - making it the greatest humanitarian catastrophe of our era.

Despite jihad's record as a leading source of conflict for 14 centuries, causing untold human suffering, academic and Islamic apologists claim it permits only defensive fighting, or even that it is entirely non-violent. Three American professors of Islamic studies colorfully make the latter point, explaining jihad as:

An "effort against evil in the self and every manifestation of evil in society" (Ibrahim Abu-Rabi, Hartford Seminary);
"Resisting apartheid or working for women's rights" (Farid Eseck, Auburn Seminary), and
"Being a better student, a better colleague, a better business partner. Above all, to control one's anger" (Bruce Lawrence, Duke University).
It would be wonderful were jihad to evolve into nothing more aggressive than controlling one's anger, but that will not happen simply by wishing away a gruesome reality. To the contrary, the pretense of a benign jihad obstructs serious efforts at self-criticism and reinterpretation.

The path away from terrorism, conquest and enslavement lies in Muslims forthrightly acknowledging jihad's historic role, followed by apologies to jihad's victims, developing an Islamic basis for nonviolent jihad and (the hardest part) actually ceasing to wage violent jihad.

Unfortunately, such a process of redemption is not now under way; violent jihad will probably continue until it is crushed by a superior military force (Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, please take note). Only when jihad is defeated will moderate Muslims finally find their voice and truly begin the hard work of modernizing Islam.

www.danielpipes.org...

Originally posted by marg6043
I don't make stories my friend I just do not fall under the party lines of lies, lets blame the entire world woes to the Islamic extremist so we can look clean as newborn baby.

Muaddib sometimes I wish you would not be so blind. . .

Pity.

Marg, i just wish you would stop making stories up and instead did some research.

This region has been plagued by Islamic Extremism for over 1,400 years, and it is still ongoing.

Originally posted by Muaddib


Marg, i just wish you would stop making stories up and instead did some research.

And research like you on propaganda site, yeah you are the man, love the links too.

What I am saying is this conflict that is going on as I type, the victims are NOT BEING MURDERED/TORTURED due to a holy war (jihad) They are being killed because of their race and control over land. Plain and simple.Some rebels attacked the government because they felt that the arabs were being oppressed in the the contry, the government retaliated and are allowing Arab rebels to attack African groups. Not because of any MUSLIM/JIHAD agenda. Not because they are doing this for allah or feel like they are in a holy war. The previous war may have been about that but the CURRENT conflict that has been ongoing for the past 4-5 years is not about that.When white supremicist kill a black person and say they are doing it for God..its not a religious thing but more so a racism being cloaked under the guise of religion. The same is going on here. Bin laden advocated the killing of African Muslims in Sudan not because they were doing anything wrong as far as Muslim law but because they are African. This is an ethnic cleansing.

The conflict began in February 2003, when rebel groups began attacking government targets. The government retaliated by launching a military and police campaign. The government has been accused of encouraging a group of Arab nomads called the Janjaweed to rape, murder and loot the African farmers[3]. Because of this, more than 3,500,000 people have fled their homes. Unlike the Second Sudanese Civil War, which was fought between the primarily Muslim north and Christian and Animist south, in Darfur most of the residents are Muslim, as are the Janjawee
Link

Either way this is a complex issue and I dont see why we are arguing over the reasoning or the cause. Weather this is about religion, race, land, oil, power, etc. neither cause makes it okay or justifies the fact that babies are dieing. The cause does not excuse the US as well as the international communities as a whole from not acting. Kofi Annon said when the conflict began that it would end in genocide. Did anyone listen..did anyone act. No one wanted to proactive and few have chosen to be reactive to this sitauation. They need military support.The victims at least need food while being held at refugee camps. I find it odd that we can manage to assasinate and capture all of these Al quada officer but we can get the main people who are causing this whole thing..the heads of these rebel groups and organizations.

Darfur Conflict In Depth

Someone metioned Somalia earlier it should be noted that in that situation we did (and continue to do) what Russia and China are doing in Darfur. Supplying warlords with weapons even though it was against international law.

Originally posted by wingman77
... the United States is the only country in the world declaring this a genocide.

Do you want to play semantics games? Call it "genocide" or call it "ethnic cleansing", "mass-murder", "human-rights violations" or "war crimes", it still amounts to the systematic rape, torture, displacement and murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children; fellow human beings, that have as much right to live in peace and safety as you or I. The UN has condemned the actions of Khartoum and, although not calling it genocide, make it clear that it is a clear violation of international human rights laws.

n this report, Human Rights Watch has documented a pattern of human rights violations in West Darfur that amount to a government policy of “ethnic cleansing” of certain ethnic groups, namely the Fur and the Masalit, from their areas of residence. Other credible sources, in particular the Emergency Relief Co-ordinator of the U.N. system and the former Resident Co-ordinator of the U.N. system in Sudan, Mukesh Kapila, have made similar claims.

Although “ethnic cleansing” is not formally defined under international law, a U.N. Commission of Experts has defined the term as a “purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas. . . . This purpose appears to be the occupation of territory to the exclusion of the purged group or groups.”

The coercive means used to remove the civilian population from the above-mentioned strategic areas include: mass murder, torture, rape and other forms of sexual assault; severe physical injury to civilians; mistreatment of civilian prisoners and prisoners of war; use of civilians as human shields; destruction of personal, public and cultural property; looting, theft and robbery of personal property; forced expropriation of real property; forceful displacement of civilian population. . . . Human Rights Watch

Emphasis mine.

The Sudanese government has succeeded in suppressing information by jailing and murdering witnesses starting in 2004 and tampering with evidence such as disturbing mass graves and by doing so eliminating their forensic value.[7][8][9] In addition, by obstructing and arresting journalists, the Sudanese government has been able to obscure much of what has gone on.[10][11][12][13] The mass media once described the conflict as both "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide," and now do so without hesitation. The United States government has described it as genocide,[14] although the UN has declined to do so. (See List of declarations of genocide in Darfur) In March 2007 the U.N. mission accused Sudan's government of orchestrating and taking part in "gross violations" in Darfur and called for urgent international action to protect civilians there.[15]

After fighting worsened in July and August 2006, on August 31, 2006, the United Nations Security Council approved Resolution 1706 which called for a new 17,300-troop UN peacekeeping force to supplant or supplement a poorly funded, ill-equipped 7,000-troop African Union Mission in Sudan peacekeeping force. Sudan strongly objected to the resolution and said that it would see the UN forces in the region as foreign invaders. The next day, the Sudanese military launched a major offensive in the region.Wikipedia

Amnesty International issued a report[92] accusing Russia and China of supplying arms, ammunition and related equipment to Sudan. This hardware has been transferred to Darfur for use by the government and the Janjaweed militias and thus violating a UN arms embargo against Sudan. In its report it showed a photo of Chinese-made Fantan fighters that have been seen at Nyala, Darfur and a Ukranian Antonov-26 aircraft (painted white). The report provided evidence, including eyewitness testimony that the Sudan Air Force has been conducting a pattern of indiscriminate aerial bombings of villages in Darfur and eastern Chad using ground attack jet fighters and Antonov planes. The report contained an image of a Russian made Mi-24 attack helicopter (reg. n° 928) at Nyala airport in Darfur in March of 2007. For several years the Sudan Air Force has used this type of attack helicopter for operations during Janjaweed attacks on villages in Al DarfurWikipedia

There is a need for this Commission and the AU to renew and strengthen
efforts to put an end to the grave and widespread human rights abuses that
continue to occur in Darfur; atrocities which the UN has identified as “no less
serious and heinous than genocide" and which the government of Sudan bears the preponderant responsibility for.

This Commission and the AU are urged to do everything in their power to
support and facilitate three key international initiatives designed to ensure
peace, justice and protection for the Darfurian people; including applying all
possible diplomatic, political and economic pressure on the Sudanese authorities
to accept and facilitate these initiatives- all of which have been consistently
resisted and/or hindered by the government of Sudan: Cairo Institute for Human Rights

I find it interesting that your lists of those supporting the use of the term genocide and those who do not have one very important thing in common: They all condemn what Khartoum is doing as a violation of human rights and mass murder; you can play word games all day long and it still won't change the fact that people are dying and being driven from their land in numbers that are too large to ignore. Anybody who hides behind political rhetoric while people are dying and uses that political rhetoric as an excuse not to do anything about it should be ashamed.

The government is being destabilized so the war can spread and 'terrorists' can be planted. The U.S. will then invade, supported by the population who has been brainwashed with this genocide propaganda. People are dying there and it is horrible, but it's civil war.

The terrorists have already been planted; they're called the Janjaweed and they are supported by the Sudanese government as well as China and Russia. The US will not invade Sudan, except as part of a UN peace-keeping force, and even that seems unlikely, given the UNs timidity when it comes to putting it's foot down. No, the mass murders and ethnic cleansing will go on and on because no one, not even the AU is willing to care enough to intervene. You can call it whatever you want, but as far as I am concerned, it still amounts to genocide and it almost makes me ashamed to be a human being.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Oh, grow up!!

Originally posted by SR
'Prime Minister Tony Blair, announcing a $900 million contract returning BP Plc to Libya after more than three decades, said British companies will reap ``huge'' new contracts there because leader Muammar Qaddafi has joined the fight against terrorism'.


What a totally fair and just world we live in

The difference is the UK used economic aid as a reason to move Libya away from terrorism and creating nuclear weapons.

I don't see the Chinese and Russian using their economic power to stop the genocide in Darfur, do you?

Originally posted by ImpliedChaos
What I am saying is this conflict that is going on as I type, the victims are NOT BEING MURDERED/TORTURED due to a holy war (jihad) They are being killed because of their race and control over land. Plain and simple.

They are being raped, starved to death and murdered by Islamic Arab Militias who have been given the go ahead by an Islamic government which has declared Jihad in two occassions.

The Southern Sudanese hopes' had been dashed and there worst fears rekindled; upon Omar's imposition, he abolished the constitution that protected the Southern populations, censured his opponents by outlawing opposition parties, and he revamped Khartoum's control of the controversial Shariya Law by imposing, additionally, a traditional Islamic Justice System which began dealing out death liberally. Omar then proceeded to declare Jihad, a holy war in the name of Mohammad, against the non-Muslim and democratic African-Muslim people of Sudan.

www.gopetition.com...

BTW impliedChaos, you do know that Islamic extremists do torture, and murder other Muslims who do not follow the extremist side of Islam don't you?

[edit on 31-5-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by ImpliedChaos
Weather this is about religion, race, land, oil, power, etc. neither cause makes it okay or justifies the fact that babies are dieing.

In this part i agree. Nomatter what nothing justifies what is happening in Sudan.

Originally posted by ImpliedChaos
The cause does not excuse the US as well as the international communities as a whole from not acting.

I presented several links which refute this claim.

Originally posted by ImpliedChaos
Kofi Annon said when the conflict began that it would end in genocide. Did anyone listen..did anyone act.

Kofi Annan has been one of those people claiming that what has been happening in Sudan is not genocide....for years he has been claiming this...

I am not sure about now, but for years the UN website did not have the words "Genocide Sudan" because they didn't want to call it a genocide.

U.N. report: Darfur not genocide
But perpetrators of violence should be prosecuted
Tuesday, February 1, 2005 Posted: 0307 GMT (1107 HKT)

UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- The government of Sudan and militias have acted together in committing widespread atrocities in Darfur that should be prosecuted by an international war crimes tribunal, but the violent acts do not amount to genocide, a U.N. commission has said.

edition.cnn.com...

That's from 2005, and despite the fact that since 1983 over 2.2 million people have been murdered with the consent of the Sudanese government by Arab militias...


[edit on 31-5-2007 by Muaddib]

Mauddib, your sources may be propaganda.

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch, a project of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, he is a fervent neocon.

David Horowitz is a first generation neocon with racist ideals. I wouldn't take Jihad Watch seriously, and certainly not when discussing Sudan.

Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), identified Horowitz's Center for the Study of Popular Culture as one of 17 "right-wing foundations and think tanks support[ing] efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable." Berlet accused Horowitz of blaming slavery on "'black Africans ... abetted by dark-skinned Arabs'" and of "attack[ing] minority 'demands for special treatment' as 'only necessary because some blacks can't seem to locate the ladder of opportunity within reach of others,' rejecting the idea that they could be the victims of lingering racism.

en.wikipedia.org...


Nobody is saying what is happening there isn't terrible. It's disturbing how the real truth doesn't filter down to the average person. I'm sure that none of us really know exactly what is really happening there. The reason why I am skeptical is because I have listened to both sides. Maybe we should fly over there and see what's happening with our own eyes.

Wait a second, so you are telling us that there is no Jihad in Sudan, and that since 1983 over 2 million people have not been murdered by the Arab militias with the blessings of the Sudanese government which have called for a Jihad in two occasions?...

You are making a claim because some of those links are apparently from some Republicans... I guess we can say goodbye to all the information on liberal media then?...

I guess the following is not true either and it is owned by an evil "neocon"...

Thursday, May 10, 2007
Darfur: "Jihad on Horseback"
A blog post by Mark Snelling on Reuters [The film mentioned can be streamed from the International Crisis Group's website]
So it comes, paradoxically, both as a relief and a shock when we get to witness these realities in an unmediated form. "Jihad on Horseback", a documentary on Darfur made by the Dubai-based Al-Arabiya satellite TV channel, affords one such opportunity.

The film contains direct testimonies from Darfur refugees languishing in camps in Chad and Sudan, as well as shocking footage of destroyed villages and Janjaweed militiamen. There is even a chilling clip of radio traffic between air force pilots and gunmen on the ground, coordinating attacks on villages.

coalitionfordarfur.blogspot.com...


[edit on 31-5-2007 by Muaddib]

I'm not a democrat, I vote independent. I vote for republicans, democrats, and various third parties. These people I wrote about in my previous post are neoconservatives. The neocons are ruining the republican party, read about Leo Strauss. Civil war has been an ongoing problem in Sudan, I believe there has been war for 50 years. The government went through a change in 2006 when the peace agreement was signed.

On May 5, 2006, the Sudanese government and Darfur's largest rebel group the SLM (Sudan Liberation Movement) signed the Darfur Peace Agreement, which aimed at ending the three-year long conflict.[9] The agreement specified the disarmament of the janjaweed and the disbandment of the rebel forces, and aimed at establishing a temporal government in which the rebels could take part.[10] The agreement, which was brokered by the African Union, however, was not signed by all of the rebel groups.[11]

All I'm trying to express is, the media and government has misled us many times. This conflict is not what it's being portrayed as. I want it to end, everyone wants it to end. What's the solution? Sanctions on the already suffering Sudanese people? Destroying the government? The same kind of violence we have in Iraq will erupt, possibly worse. What's your solution?

Originally posted by wingman77
I'm not a democrat, I vote independent. I vote for republicans, democrats, and various third parties. These people I wrote about in my previous post are neoconservatives. The neocons are ruining the republican party, read about

Apparently you have not read enough about it...

Others, such as Steven Smith, question the link between Strauss and neoconservative thought, arguing that Strauss was never personally active in politics, never endorsed imperialism, and questioned the utility of political philosophy for the practice of politics.[16][17] Those who do make such a link, Smith argues, misread Strauss's published writings.

Originally posted by wingman77
Civil war has been an ongoing problem in Sudan, I believe there has been war for 50 years.

Jihad/Islamic Extremism has been an ongoing problem in Sudan for over 14 centuries...and it is still ongoing...

Originally posted by wingman77
The government went through a change in 2006 when the peace agreement was signed.

Let me show you something about that "peace agreement".

TEXT- Darfur Peace Agreement: A just peace or peace at all costs?
Saturday 29 April 2006 21:07.

By John A. Akec*

April 38, 2006 (LONDON) — The government of Sudan and Darfur armed Movements have been given 48 hours ending Friday night to present opinion on a draft Darfur Peace Agreement proposed by African Union mediators after more than two years of grilling negotiations. If signed, it will put an end to a devastating war that broke out in January 2002 and which has claimed more than 300,000 lives and displaced 1.5 million people from their homes.

www.sudantribune.com...

These people were given a "48 hours" timeframe to respond to this peace agreement. You actually think that 48 hours is more than enough for all the rebel groups in Sudan to know that this was happening?... Do you think rebel groups in Sudan all have computers and internet service?...

This so called "peace agreement" was set up to fail from the beginning.

Originally posted by wingman77
All I'm trying to express is, the media and government has misled us many times. This conflict is not what it's being portrayed as.

Oh really?.. So you think the Sudanese government is in the right to starve their own people to death and to sanction Arab militias to exterminate blacks in Sudan?...

Originally posted by wingman77
I want it to end, everyone wants it to end. What's the solution? Sanctions on the already suffering Sudanese people? Destroying the government? The same kind of violence we have in Iraq will erupt, possibly worse. What's your solution?

....The government of Sudan is starving these people....foreign aid is not being allowed to reach these people... The sanctions which the United States have been trying to get other countries to accept include sanctions on weapons being sold to the Arab Militias by countries such as China and Russia.... The sanctions will affect the government of Sudan and the militias. The only way it will affect the people that are being murdered in Sudan is that the Arab militias and the sudanese government won't have as many guns, ammunition and money to keep waging their Jihad.

If you believe so much in that peace agreement you should be asking yourself why would anyone give a timeframe of only 48 hours on a peace agreement that took 2 years to make, and which affects people who don't have internet access, computers, or any quick way to find out this was going on. That's the one question you should be making. And BTW....no Republican or "neocon" had anything to do with it...

[edit on 31-5-2007 by Muaddib]

...how about Irving Kristol

It appears that the peace agreement was on the table for two years:

www.foxnews.com...
Salim Ahmed Salim said the talks would continue until midnight on Tuesday, pushing back a scheduled Sunday end to talks that have gone on for two years but so far failed to halt violence behind the deaths of 180,000 people.

Salim, a lead mediator for the 53-nation AU, said the bloc had bowed to requests from the United States and others to continue work on a proposed deal to end fighting.

"The African Union has extended the deadline of the peace talks by 48 hours as requested by the United States and other international partners to allow extensive consultations to go ahead," he told repoters at the talks' site in the Nigerian capital, Abuja.

So the rebels should be funded, the United States military should enter, and a new government should be formed? I'm just curious as to what solution you're aiming for. I'm not being adversarial here.

[edit on 31-5-2007 by wingman77]

[edit on 31-5-2007 by wingman77]

Originally posted by wingman77
..................
So the rebels should be funded, the United States military should enter, and a new government should be formed? I'm just curious as to what solution you're aiming for. I'm not being adversarial here.

Sanctions to stop weapons should be enforced, and sanctions on the government if it continues to allow Arab militias to murder Sudanese blacks or anyone else for that matter.

BTW, if the Sudanese government was really going to keep up any promise in that peace agreement, why would they even consider allowing and condoning the starvation, raping and murdering of other Sudanese blacks?

[edit on 1-6-2007 by Muaddib]

Bush imposes new sanctions on Sudan.

Aha, I suppose that strikes him or Sec Rice - out for a diplomatic visit in the effort to fix things?

Dallas

Sudan is nothing more than another casualty of the nations right now war for oil.

Regardless of the propaganda of war on terror, evil Islamic extremist factious groups killing their own are nothing more than the hidden agenda of who control the last world reserves of oil.

Pity that it seems that third world countries with brown people are the targets.

Sudan is nothing more than the new front for the new cold war over oil, the participants are China and allies vs. US and allies.

How can people be so blind that they can not even see the truth? Is call propaganda.

China is growing economically and in its demand for fuel, China has about 1.3 millions of American dollars to do as it wishes and their first target is into the petroleum business. because of necesity.

Africa is their focus because obviously US won Iraq after invasion, since US invaded Iraq China has been trying very hard to take hold of what is left to bargain with, Iran and the very volatile region in Africa.

Is not Genocide what is driving our government to act upon Sudan is OIL. The same way that the present administration has no regard with the genocide going on in Iraq right now because is about the OIL also.

The battler of powerful nations over a lot, lots of oil.

People China needs oil and lots of it and US wants control of ALL oil so they can control prices to nations with growing economies like China.

Why is so hard to understand this? Propaganda is the culprit.

China wants access to Nigeria and South Africa while US control the Middle East, China will get 175,000 of barrels a day from oil by 2008, a deal that will cost china 2.27 billion dollars and about 45% control of oil.

Washington wanted that oil, ExxonMobil, Shells and Chevron.

How China has won the hart and minds of governments in Africa? With no interest loans, while the world banks loan will perpetuate Africans slavery China is not.

But you don’t get to see this on the news is not good propaganda that while US tells people that China is giving money to Africa is only to buy weapons and kill the people.

www.tpmcafe.com...

Err....asking for sanctions against weapons deals from China and Russia which are arming the Arab extremists, the same weapons which are murdering the Sudaneseblacks, and asking for sanctions against the Sudanese government which allows and condones the mass rapes, and murder of the Sudanese blacks is not going to help the U.S. get any oil from Sudan....

I call everything you have said Marg, propaganda based on exagerations.

[edit on 1-6-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib

I call everything you have said Marg, propaganda based on exagerations.

[edit on 1-6-2007 by Muaddib]

I guess I am learning from the master my friend. . .you, occurs.

Everything you said is propaganda for me and what I said is propaganda for you.

But still can not fight against the fact that is a cold war about oil control.

No matter how pretty the pie is sliced is all about oil.

I find it to be a common occurrence here on ATS that people always seem to split in their conclusions. This often happens when debating a situation in which the government has made a stand. What it comes down to is your level of trust in the government and the media. I lost alot of trust in the government over the last few years. I started to ask questions, I asked 'who benefits'. When the government becomes a suspect, investigation is exceedingly difficult. The media follows the party line for the most part and you basically have to rely on your own ability to research. Then when you wish to discuss your findings with peers you are often pelted with status quo factoids, your position isn't even considered.

I whole heartedly agree that sanctions should be imposed on ALL weapons going into Sudan. It probably wouldn't hurt if the U.S. deployed special forces to establish communication between the government and the rebels, get everyone at the table. The Sudanese government wants peace according to their ambassador and if you think about it they have nothing to gain by continued fighting.

[edit on 1-6-2007 by wingman77]