Friday, August 25, 2006

Meanwhile, in Darfur....

By the way, Mr. Secretary General Annan...speaking of human rights violations, you plan on getting the UN to do anything about Darfur anytime soon? Or are the rules different when it comes to your friends in Muslim regimes that have oil to sell?

Here's a picture of a Christian slave from Darfur who was purchased back from her Arab masters who'd love to hear your answer...



The murder, rape and enslavement of Black Christians by the Islamist government of Sudan goes on.

And no one but the US and perhaps Britain want to do a thing about it.

President Bush is sending U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Jendayi Frazer to the Sudan in an effort to convince the Sudanese government to allow UN peacekeepers in the region to protect the Black population from the Sudanese government sponsored `janjeweed' militias.





So far, the Islamist Sudanese government has flatly refused to allow them to enter to replace a token force of African Union (AU) troops now in Darfur, where the United Nations estimates as many as 200,000 civilians have been killed and more than 2 million people displaced and ethnically cleansed by the Arabs since violence first flared up in 2003. Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir has become increasingly vehement. He recently compared a potential U.N. deployment to Israel `invading' Lebanon. And seeing as they have oil to sell and buy arms from usual sources, nobody has been particularly anxious to do very much about it.

The U.S. and Britain last week introduced a U.N. Security Council resolution that would give an official UN mandate the new peacekeeping force. But the Arab states, China and Russia have refused to allow the resolution to go forward.

The Security Council invited Sudan's foreign minister to a meeting Monday in New York with the African Union, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Arab League to explain his nation's objections.

But the Sudanese government refused...and of course they're being backed up by the Russians, the oil-hungry Chinese and the Muslim bloc.

Speaking at a press conference, Frazer voiced frustration at the continued "foot-dragging" by both the Sudanese government and the United Nations.

Frazer told journalists at an August 24 Washington Foreign Press Center news conference that she was leaving the next day for Sudan, where she planned to meet with President Omar al-Bashir and top Sudanese government officials about Darfur.

"My primary mission is to consult further with the government of Sudan" in Khartoum about fulfilling its responsibility to protect the citizens of Darfur, who have been assailed over the years by renegade militias called Jinjaweed..."

"We cannot let violence and atrocities continue. We cannot allow future Rwandas to happen," Frazer said, adding, "We must act now" to get a U.N. force in place in Darfur and have President al-Bashir and his government accept it.

The assistant secretary also had a few things to say about the United Nations' slow response in deploying a peacekeeping force of up to 18,000 troops to relieve the beleaguered African Union (AU) force now in Darfur, saying: "We cannot delay. We cannot allow ... bureaucratic ... foot-dragging at the U.N."

An ill-equipped force of 7,000 African Union troops is in Darfur, assigned to monitor the May peace accord. But they been under siege — two of the Rwandan peacekeepers were killed this month. The AU's mandate and funding run out at the end of September, and they're leaving.

Frazer called the U.N. Department of Peacekeeping Operations' January 2007 target date for deployment is "intolerable."

Asked if the United Nations would deploy the peacekeeping force in Darfur over the objections of President al-Bashir, Frazer said: "This force is not going to fight its way in. We're not trying to deploy Western domination here [in Sudan]." The point, she said, is to protect Darfur's civilians and relieve the AU peacekeepers, who are "sitting ducks".

I place that remark right up there with French defence minister Michele
Alliot-Marie's llittle bon mot on Lebanon about "What we must absolutely avoid is giving the image of a Western world imposing peace on the Muslim world."

What both Madame Alliot- Marie and Assistant Secretary Frazer are essentially saying is that if the `Muslim world' is committing real genocide on non-Muslims, no one is supposed to make a peep lest they be seen as Evil Imperialist Westerners...as opposed to acknowledging the loud cries and indignation from the Muslim world at the phoney `genocide' Israel is supposedly committing against the Palestinians.

This is the same disgusting hypocrisy practiced by the Islamic world and their apologists with the constant screeds about `Islamophobia' in the west, while glossing over or ignoring the murders, discrimination, church burnings and persecution Christians face in the Muslim world.

Sorry, Madame Secretary , the UN isn't going to do anything, which is why they vaguely scheduled blue helmet peacekeepers for January of next year...no hurry, you know, maybe the problem will solve itself once the jihad is successful.

And the Islamist government of the Sudan is NOT going to allow anything to interfere with the jihad on Darfur...which is just a step towards the extension of the jihad and Islamization of Ethiopia and East Africa.

If we want to stop this genocide, the best thing we could do would be to airlift arms to the people in Darfur and the Black seperatist movement in the South Sudan so that they can defend themselves. And they just might be able to do so. As we've seen in places like the Warsaw Ghetto, the prospect of extermination and slavery can be a powerful fighting incentive...the Jews trapped in the Warsaw Ghetto and facing annihilation actually held out longer than the entire Polish Army.

Worst case scenario is that these people will be killed and enslaved, which is what awaits them anyway. But if they succeed in defending themselves, they stall the jihad in East Africa..and perhaps may even become an independent, non-Muslim oil producing friend of the US.

It amazes me that we will spend billions on people in Iraq and Lebanon who hate us in the name of `Arab democracy' while ignoring our friends in places like Darfur and Kurdistan.

Big, big mistake.

12 comments:

louielouie said...

this essay is why i keep coming to ff site.
this is one of those essays that i hope would somehow see the light of day in the general population of the US. there are others that ff have posted that should reach daylight as well.
this essay describes so many things on differenct levels, not the least of which is the absolute & total uselessness of the organization called the un.
thanks ff, job well done.

Rosey said...

You know, just this morning I was in the UN neighborhood...to get my teeth whitened...just thought I'd share...

nazar said...

As the world's only superpower, I believe America has the obligation to do its best to help the destitute, the misplaced, and the suffering all over the world. We can not look to the UN to solve the world's problems. America's failure to act while millions of these poor people are killed and driven out of their homes is a national shame. I'm not saying we should necessarily deploy soldiers, I'm sure there are diplomatic channels we could go through to stop this genocide.

You have to wonder, though, if those were Scandinavians dying instead of Blacks, would the UN and America act more decisevely? America didn't stop the violence in Rwanda, but we did stop violence in Bosnia, for example. Rwanda-black people, Bosnia-white people.

FF, I'm somewhat sceptical of this arms airlift you're proposing. It will just create more violence. I don't claim to be an expert on Sudanese politics, but if you look at most of Africa, you will find that it is divided by clans and tribes who have tensions with each other. I certainly wouldn't want the refugees to start fighting among themselves, or have them launch an invasion of neighboring nations, like Chad, or Ethiopia in order to obtain territory they could live on peacefully.

louielouie said...

nazar,
before you get/do any diplomatic work you may want to do something about the chinese army soldiers that are deployed to protect the oil pipelines. thereby freeing the sudanese army to commit the genocide. deploying US soldiers might start a fight...........as sudan would certainly..........object to foreign soldiers on it's soil. can't have any of them foreign soldiers on their soil nosireee.

nazar said...

And what exactly do you suggest we do bout the Chinese? Shoot them? That hardly seems like a viable option.

louielouie said...

i don't believe i suggested anything of the sort.
however, that would be the only way i know of to get them out. the chinese want cheap oil, and as their supplier saddam is no longer working the pumps, they turn their focus somewhere else. prop up the khartum gov't at all costs.
the only peaceful campaign i can/could think of would be an objective report on the actions of participating nations. like that is going to happen. by whom? certainly not george clooney or oprahaha.
we could embargo all exports from china..............yeah, like that's gonna happen.
i am as optimistic about the situation in sudan as you are about democracy in the M/E.
does that clear things up?

nazar said...

But louie, where is the outrage over this genocide in Darfur that was ever so present when the joooos tried to defend themselves from terrorists?

The answer is in the outrage.

Freedom Fighter said...

Hi y'all.

Nazar, the `violence' and genocide you speak of is already upon the Blacks in the Sudan.

The Islamic government of the Sudan is NOT going to allow anything to interfere with the jihad...which is a step towards the extension of the jihad to Ethiopia and East Africa.

Airlifting in arms will at least allow them to defend themselves. And as we've seen in places like the Warsaw Ghetto, the prospect of extermination can be a powerful fighting incentive...the Jews trapped in theGhetto and facing annihilation actually held out longer than the Polish Army.

Worst case scenario is that these people will be killed and enslaved, which is what awaits them anyway. But if they succeed in defending themselves, they stall the jihad in East Africa..and perhaps may even become an independent, non-Muslim oil producing friend of the US.

It amazes me that we will spend billions on people in Iraq and Lebanon who hate us in the name of `Arab democracy' while ignoring our friends in places like Darfur and Kurdistan.

Big, big mistake.

nazar said...

Interesting point about the Jews in Warsaw. However, that was one monolithic group, whereas the Africans are most likely divided into tribes that would turn on each other if they were given weapons.

But it's like you said, death or slavery awaits them anyway, so what the hell, give it a go while you can, eh?

Anonymous said...

'It amazes me that we will spend billions on people in Iraq and Lebanon who hate us in the name of `Arab democracy' while ignoring our friends in places like Darfur and Kurdistan.'

You don't spend millions 'on' Iraq, dork, you spend billions bombing them to death! Notice the subtle difference?

Freedom Fighter said...

Isn't it cute how they're always `anonymous'?

Another apologist for jihad.

And for Saddam, by the way. You have to be a real special type of so-called human being to shill for Saddam.

The simplest thing, `anonymous' would have been if we actually had merely carpet bombed Iraq and targeted all of the facilities we suspected of having WMD's and arms, targeted Saddam and his psychotic sons and done it without waiting fifteen months for the Left here and in Britain to have a collective temper tantrum.

Instead, we spent billions of dollars more than the initial military effort- and far too many lives - trying to establish a model `Arab democracy' there and rebuild the country from the looted ruin Saddam and his cronies left it as.

Some of the Iraqis appreciate that, even if YOU don't.

Amazing how that kind of wholesale looting and ruin happens with almost every Arab country, isn't it? And how, instead of facing up to the dysfunctions in their societies, the Arabs almost always look to blame it on the `other'.

Vigilante said...

GĂ©rard Prunier believes Darfur will choose its own destiny without the intervention of indecisive outsiders:

" . . .None of this will be easy or peaceful. . . . .Darfur will remain a particular case. Its citizens will have to choose whether they accept their common regional bonds or whether they prefer to follow the beat of a distant drummer on the banks of the Nile. Their future, their lives - or possibly their deaths - will depend not on short-term technical fixes but on themselves: on the choices they make and on the means put at their disposal to achieve them."

Darfur: The Ambiguous Genocide