TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Darfur
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

The unfortunate thing is, most people just don't care. It's not whites who are being massecred. I still think race is one of the largest subliminal factors in how people react to world news.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton The unfortunate thing is, most people just don't care. It's not whites who are being massecred. I still think race is one of the largest subliminal factors in how people react to world news.

See, people say that all the time, but they still don't do anything or even take it upon themselves to investigate what's going on.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov See, people say that all the time, but they still don't do anything or even take it upon themselves to investigate what's going on.

But when Milosevic was killing fellow Europeans, NATO shit a storm..

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov The conflict in Darfur has withdrawn from the public eye somewhat, but it rages on. With the increase in factionalization of the conflict there doesn't seem to be any real hope of a feasible agreement these days. Talks broke down in Libya recently, largely a part of their not incorporating all the sides in the discussion. What began as a conflict between the Justice and Equality Movement for Darfur (JEM) and Sudanese Liberation Army (SLA) allied against the government quickly became muddied by the involvement of Arab tribes on behalf of the government... however, even within the Janjaweed militias there is some fragmentation. There are rumors of a schism on both sides that has brought the Baghara Arabs together with elements of the SLA in opposition to the government - the Baghara is one of the largest groups composing the Janjaweed, and is positioned in closest proximity to the oil fields in south Kordofan. However... they're also notorious slave traders, so it remains unclear what's going on at the moment. But there has been fighting between the SLA and other black African groups, as well as between Arabs. The government seems to be losing control, but it's unclear what their objectives are anyhow. Chaos could be precisely what they hoped to create. In addition, reports of Janjaweed militias moving south of Darfur toward the Dinka and Nuer villages of the south are starting to become more frequent as the 2009 deadline for a vote on secession looms. A lot of people are worried that the government will seek to expand the conflict in Darfur to incorporate parts of the South in an effort to undermine the Comprehensive Peace Agreement that was brokered in 2004 and basically promised independence to the South. In any case, I stumbled upon this article today and thought it was a good read that highlighted the complexity of the situation as opposed to the understanding that most Americans seem to have of it. http://www.democracynow.org/2007/6/...ur_the_politics As you can imagine, since this interview was nearly a year ago, things have only become more complicated on the ground. The more time that goes by, the less the likelihood that a political solution will be reached. And the more people that will die.

Democracy now is fantastic

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis Democracy now is fantastic

I agree - there are a number of sites that have done a remarkable job reporting on Darfur and other conflict sites around the world, and it's a damn shame that the majority of PDD residents would rather watch the latest talking head regurgitation of Iran policy.

Well, Lebezniatnikov, I think the reason why there's no real debate in this thread is because everyone pretty much agrees here. The situation is awful, but as long as China and Russia plays along it's really hard to do something.

The ICC is a really interesting question though. I'm still not sure at all if this is the right decision or not. But, I think it's the right thing to do. Obviously if the ICC is gonna be any use at all, it has to do this, otherwise it would just not do its job. And really, it sends a good signal that not everything is allowed, even if you are a prime minister/president. And also it could be used to negotiate with, like to withdraw the accusations if the Sudanese government cooperate or someting similar. My thoughts aren't clear, but somehow you must in some way be able to prosecute people comitting genocide while they are committing genocide. Otherwise this argument could be made in pretty much all situations, that it would "endanger the peace process".

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew Well, Lebezniatnikov, I think the reason why there's no real debate in this thread is because everyone pretty much agrees here. The situation is awful, but as long as China and Russia plays along it's really hard to do something. The ICC is a really interesting question though. I'm still not sure at all if this is the right decision or not. But, I think it's the right thing to do. Obviously if the ICC is gonna be any use at all, it has to do this, otherwise it would just not do its job. And really, it sends a good signal that not everything is allowed, even if you are a prime minister/president. And also it could be used to negotiate with, like to withdraw the accusations if the Sudanese government cooperate or someting similar. My thoughts aren't clear, but somehow you must in some way be able to prosecute people comitting genocide while they are committing genocide. Otherwise this argument could be made in pretty much all situations, that it would "endanger the peace process".

I agree with you, but it's important to recognize that as the ICC stands right now, indictments can't be followed through on, and I think that is the fundamental failing of the international system. As such, the accusation of genocide is steeped in some fairly significant connotation. Remember, Bashir is now the first person in world history accused of genocide in the moment - the Sudanese reaction will likely have a significant impact on the role the international community takes in future conflicts. To bring down an indictment was undoubtedly the "right" thing to do - I just worry that the negative consequences of the move will outweigh the moral significance of a. using the word "genocide" in regards to Darfur for the very first time in an international forum and b. issuing a warning to would-be genocidaires worldwide that their actions do have consequences. I just hope and pray that those consequences don't prove to be toothless. A precedent that is meaningless isn't really a precedent, and I'm worried that the ICC went all-in on a busted hand.

I think there's a great deal to debate on the issue of Darfur. Everybody seems to agree that something needs to be done, but nobody has any ideas. Educated opinions are the stuff debate is made of - for those that don't have an opinion, the de Waal/Prendergast debate that I posted some time ago is a very good place to start.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I agree with you, but it's important to recognize that as the ICC stands right now, indictments can't be followed through on, and I think that is the fundamental failing of the international system. As such, the accusation of genocide is steeped in some fairly significant connotation. Remember, Bashir is now the first person in world history accused of genocide in the moment - the Sudanese reaction will likely have a significant impact on the role the international community takes in future conflicts. To bring down an indictment was undoubtedly the "right" thing to do - I just worry that the negative consequences of the move will outweigh the moral significance of a. using the word "genocide" in regards to Darfur for the very first time in an international forum and b. issuing a warning to would-be genocidaires worldwide that their actions do have consequences. I just hope and pray that those consequences don't prove to be toothless. A precedent that is meaningless isn't really a precedent, and I'm worried that the ICC went all-in on a busted hand.

I definitely see your point, and as I said I'm largely unsure of whether this is good or not. But to not do it would be contra productive I think, kinda like that in the short term I'm sure that Guantanamo will keep some bad guys out, but in the long term that is absolutely not the way to go. Justice must always be fought for, even though some bad political consequences might come out of it.

But also, some European politicans who still denies that there's a genocide going on might wake up which will bring some positive energy, maybe.

Darfur is the only recognized genocide, there are countless others. Every single US president post WW2, if the Nuremberg Laws are applied, would be hanged. There's a genocide going on right this moment, in Iraq. There was a genocide following the first Gulf war, via the use of depleted uranium. Biological warfare = genocide. Economic sanctions = genocide. The state of Israel is responsible for genocide, one example that is completely undebatable btw is the Sabra Shatila massacre. Chechnya, Bosnia, Tibet, Cambodia, Rwanda, Armenia, El Salvador... the list goes on. The 20th century is replete with examples of genocide. The ones perpetrated by Western States, the US in particular, are obviously not recognized in contemporary political discourse. Darfur is by no means unique, just because the demographic is black, it's has a different impact on the Western guilt ridden conscience (slavery, the Holocaust, and the genocide of the Native Americans). It's good that you're bringing it up and posting useful material here, no one is denying that. But if you going to use words like genocide (which is the case here btw), let's not ignore plenty of other genocides, some of them which are ongoing. Aggression and state sponsored terrorism usually result in genocide too, but those are perpetrated by US and out allies, so they're not recognized.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z

I think you're infusing genocide with the concept of morality. Just because something is wrong or is a crime against humanity doesn't make it genocide. The majority of the examples you cite are horrible, you are correct in that. And many go against the grain of international law. However, there are very few ongoing genocides (using international law as the framework for defining) - the systematic destruction of an entire group of people is thankfully a plateau rarely reached. I don't mean to detract from your point, which is a valid one - there are plenty of other situations in the world that warrant our attention. But it's hard to deny that the killing of 400,000 individuals and the expulsion of a million more is on the same level as the shameful use of depleted uranium shells in a war started by the Iraqis in 1991.

In any case, aggression in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing, and as studies show calculated aggressive intervention is often the most effective tactic in ending genocide or ethnic cleansing.

quote:

Study shows some types of military interventions can slow or stop genocide A study published in the latest issue of International Studies Quarterly is the first to examine the effectiveness of military action on the severity of ongoing instances of genocide and polititcide. The study reveals that only overt military interventions that explicitly challenge the perpetrator appear to be effective in reducing the severity of the brutal policies. Military support for targets, or in opposition to the perpetrators, alters the almost complete vulnerability of unarmed civilian targets. And these interventions that directly target the perpetrators were not, on the whole, found to make matters worse for those being attacked. "If actors wish to slow or stop the killing in an ongoing instance of state-sponsored mass murder, they are more likely to be effective if they oppose the perpetrators of the brutal policy," author Matthew Krain states. He finds that even military intervention against the perpetrator by a single country or international organization has a measurable effect in the "typical" case. When a single international actor challenges the aggressor, the probability that the killings will escalate drops while the probability that the killings will decrease jumps. Each additional intervention by another international actor raises the chance of saving lives. Krain's study examines factors affecting all ongoing instances of state-sponsored mass murder from 1955 to 1997 and simulates the effects of interventions on two cases, including the current case of mass murder in Darfur, Sudan. His results also confirm that attempts to intervene as impartial parties seem ineffective. "By finding that increasing the number of interventions against perpetrators of genocide or politicide reduces severity this study confirms that international interventions against perpetrators do save lives," Krain concludes.

This is pretty sick. As in ugly and sick. Sudanese government is such an evil one, I've always ranked them among the worst ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7921311.stm

Confessions of a Sudanese deserter

quote:

"We were ordered to kill all the women" The International Criminal Court is set to announce whether or not it is to issue a warrant for the arrest of the President of Sudan President al-Bashir, for alleged war crimes in Darfur. The Sudanese government has always said the accusations are political but now one of the country's former soldiers, who served in Darfur, has been telling his story to the BBC's Mike Thomson. Khalid (not his real name), a polite and softly spoken man from Darfur, seems reluctant to talk about his past. It is soon clear why. "The orders given to us were to burn the villages completely," he says. "We even had to poison the water wells. We were also given orders to kill all the woman and rape girls under 13 and 14." Khalid, who is of black African origin, says he was forcibly recruited into President Omar al-Bashir's Sudanese army in late 2002. Many couldn't take their all their children. If you saw them you had to shoot and kill "Khalid" He and several other men where he lived were taken to the headquarters of his regiment which was based near the north-western Darfur town of Fasher. He admits to having taken part in seven different attacks on Darfur villages with the help of Janjaweed militia. The first one was in the Korma area in December 2002 several months before the conflict in Darfur officially began. He claims to have been extremely reluctant to carry out the savage orders he was given. "When they asked me to rape the girl, I went and stood in front of her," he said. "Tears came into my eyes. They said: 'You have to rape her. If you don't we will beat you.' I hesitated and they hit me with the butt of a rifle. "But when I went to the girl I couldn't do it. I took her into a corner and lay myself on top of her as if I was raping her for about 10 to 15 minutes. Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir waves his walking stick as he opens a hydro-electric dam north of Khartoum on 3 March 2009 President Omar al-Bashir denies backing Darfur militias "Then, I jumped up and came out. They said: 'Did you rape her?' I said: 'Yes, I did'." Khalid says that soon after this he and the other soldiers went back to base. When they got there he was told to join another patrol immediately. When he refused they beat and tortured him, inflicting severe burns on his legs and back. He spent five weeks in a military hospital recovering from his injuries. Before long, he said, he was ordered to join other brutal raids on Darfur villages. I asked him what he was told to do with unarmed civilians who did not resist in any way. "They told us, don't leave anybody, just kill everybody," he said. "Even the children, if left behind in the huts, we had to kill them," he said. "People would cry and run from their huts. "Many couldn't take their all their children. If they had more than two they had to leave them behind. If you saw them you had to shoot and kill." In cold blood Khalid insists that he always fired over the heads of civilians and didn't kill anyone himself despite the orders he was given. He says he could do this without his fellow soldiers noticing but he admits that there was no way he could avoid carrying out orders to torch peoples homes. Refugee from a Sudan government-backed forces attack The six-year conflict has spawned more than two million refugees "I did take part," he admitted. "They forced me. We had no choice. If you didn't they would kill you." Did anyone refuse? "Two of my colleagues refused and they were shot dead." I asked him how the Sudanese officers had justified killing unarmed civilians in cold blood. How they had explained the need to slaughter women, babies and children? He replied: "They said they are the ones who take food and water to the rebels. "They said that if we kill these people and burn their villages then the rebels will not have any supplies so they'll have to move out to the neighbouring country." Close to tears Khalid, who at times appeared close to tears, deserted from the army in 2003 and has now left the country. He says he may never be able to return now that he has spoken out. But, I asked him, if he does go back, will he ever be forgiven by his own people for taking part in these attacks, even if he was forcibly recruited? The aftermath of a Janjaweed attack The war in Darfur began in 2003 when rebel groups took up arms "Up until today they will never have known that it was me," he said. "They will only know that I became a soldier. They wouldn't know what part I took. Even my family don't know where I am." Over the last six years it is estimated that around 300,000 people have died as a result of the conflict in Darfur and a further 2.5 million have been forced to flee their homes. President Omar al-Bashir and the Sudanese government have always denied that the country's army committed atrocities in the region or commissioned Janjaweed militia to do this on their behalf. It is a claim they repeated firmly when the International Criminal Court's chief prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo announced last summer he was seeking an arrest warrant for the Sudanese president. But a nervous Khalid, who fears officials from the court might soon come looking for him, says he is in no doubt who bears full responsibility for the suffering in Darfur. "Omar al-Bashir is in the chair," he said. "He is the first person that is responsible for the genocide, of the killing of the children, of everything. He should never say that 'I did not kill and I don't know'. "If you are head of the country then you are responsible for any crimes done by your soldiers. It is Bashir doing all these things."

So, ICC and the international community finally got brave enough to issue a warrant for arrest of Sudan's president, Mr. Bashir. I didnt think this was going to happen. But judging by how Sudanese government has handled the concerns surrounding the massacre of many thousands of people in Darfur and South Sudan, this warrant should have been issued long ago.

Sudan continues to shield criminals from being prosecuted for killing and raping civilians in an ongoing genocidal campaign. But the problems dont end there, other that genocide there are still so many people out there who have been abducted from South Sudan and Darfur and work as slaves in central and northern parts of the country under Khartoum's control.

And China is the biggest culprit for arming, supporting and oiling up the Khartoum regime!


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7923102.stm

quote:

Warrant issued for Sudan's leader Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir on 3 March 2009 Omar al-Bashir says the charges reflect Western hostility towards Sudan The International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for Sudan's president on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur. But the ICC in The Hague stopped short of accusing Omar al-Bashir of genocide. He denies the charges and has dismissed any ruling by the court as worthless. Thousands of protesters took to the streets of the capital, Khartoum, after the announcement, amid fears of unrest. The UN estimates 300,000 people have died in Darfur's six-year conflict. Millions more have been displaced. Court spokeswoman Laurence Blairon announced the ruling by a panel of judges on the charges presented by ICC prosecutors. She said Mr Bashir was suspected of being criminally responsible for "intentionally directing attacks against an important part of the civilian population of Darfur, Sudan, murdering, exterminating, raping, torturing and forcibly transferring large numbers of civilians and pillaging their property". This decision is exactly what we have been expecting from the court, which was created to target Sudan Mustafa Othman Ismail Aide to Omar al-Bashir Profile: Sudan's Omar al-Bashir Should Omar al-Bashir be arrested? Q&A: International Criminal Court World reaction: Bashir warrant Ms Blairon said the violence in Darfur was the result of a common plan organised at the highest level of the Sudanese government, but there was no evidence of genocide. The court would transmit a request for Mr Bashir's arrest and surrender as soon as possible to the Sudanese government, she added. It is the first warrant issued by The Hague-based UN court against a sitting head of state. ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo made the request for the warrant in July 2008. 'Toothless' Reacting to the charges, an aide to Mr Bashir said the ICC judges were biased. "This decision is exactly what we have been expecting from the court, which was created to target Sudan and to be part of the new mechanism of neo-colonialism," Mustafa Othman Ismail told Sudanese TV. ICC's BASHIR CHARGE SHEET War crimes: Intentionally directing attacks against civilians Pillaging Crimes against humanity: Murder Extermination Forcible transfer Torture Rape Speaking on Tuesday ahead of the announcement, Mr Bashir said the Hague tribunal could "eat" the arrest warrant. He said it would "not be worth the ink it is written on" and then danced for thousands of cheering supporters who burned an effigy of the ICC chief prosecutor. Sudan expert Alex de Waal told the BBC the indictment is "pretty toothless" as the ICC does not have a police force. In Khartoum thousands of government supporters gathered, chanting "We love you President Bashir". Security was increased at many embassies, and some Westerners stayed home amid fears of retaliation. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon urged Sudan to "co-operate fully" with all United Nations entities. He said the UN would "continue to conduct its vital peacekeeping, humanitarian, human rights and development operations and activities in Sudan". African and Arab countries have warned that the court's action will only increase tension in Sudan. Egypt said it was "greatly disturbed" by the ICC's decision and called for a meeting of the UN Security Council to defer implementation of the warrant. Sudan's foreign ministry said President Bashir would ignore it and attend an Arab summit scheduled later this month in Qatar. Aid workers withdrawn Russia called the warrant a "dangerous precedent". Darfur's Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) rebel group hailed the decision as a "victory for international law" and called on Mr Bashir to turn himself in. Darfur refugee child's drawing In pictures: Art of war The US administration also welcomed it, as did international human-rights groups. "With this arrest warrant, the International Criminal Court has made Omar al-Bashir a wanted man," said Richard Dicker of the New York-based group Human Rights Watch. Amnesty International called on any country visited by President Bashir to detain him. Sudan expelled at least six foreign aid agencies hours after the arrest warrant was issued, aid officials said. No reasons were given for the move. Before the announcement, the charity Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) said it had withdrawn foreign staff from Darfur. The war crimes court has already issued two arrest warrants - in 2007 - for Sudanese Humanitarian Affairs Minister Ahmed Haroun and the Janjaweed militia leader Ali Abdul Rahman. Sudan has refused to hand them over.

That's nice. For some odd reason, they only indict war criminals from third world countries. We'v got one chill'n in Crawford, Texas as we speak...

I am extremely irritated and pissed off by this decadent Sudanese government. Like, seriously, claims like these are just piss pathetic:

quote:

hartoum reacted with anger at the 4 March ICC warrant for President Bashir, describing it as a "neo-colonialist" move to destabilise the country. Following the indictment, he expelled 13 aid agencies accusing them of taking "99% of the budget for humanitarian work themselves, and giving the people of Darfur 1%" - charges the groups deny.

WTF do aid agencies have to do with ICC warrant issue? The Hague has no relation to the volunteers. These people donate their time and life to help suffering people of Darfur, yet Bashir the idiot makes the most absurd claims and statements. He clearly doesnt want the people of Darfur to get help, he wants humanitarian agencies to be underfoot of Khartoum. These Islamic regimes are pissing me off ...

FULL ARTICLE:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7939223.stm

quote:

Sudan kidnappers 'demand ransom' Medecins Sans Frontieres refugees camp in Darfur More than two million refugees are receiving aid in Darfur The kidnappers of three foreign aid workers in Sudan's Darfur region have demanded a ransom, say officials. The Medecins Sans Frontieres staff were abducted on Wednesday along with two local staff who were later released. The kidnappings come after Sudan ordered the expulsion of 13 aid groups, including the French and Dutch chapters of MSF, earlier this month. They were told to leave after President Omar al-Bashir was indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC). He is accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur. The abducted staff were working for MSF's Belgian branch. Local media quoted North Darfur governor Osman Kebir as saying he had spoken to the kidnappers and the aid workers by telephone. "Negotiations with the abductors are progressing well and could result in the release of the victims soon," the Sudanese Media Centre quoted Mr Kebir as saying. "The kidnappers demanded a financial ransom and have promised that they are not interested in violence," he said. Sudan's government has condemned the kidnapping as "unacceptable" and an "act of lawlessness". MSF says it is now withdrawing all its sections' medical teams from Darfur, leaving only a skeleton team to follow the case of those abducted. "MSF is extremely worried both for our abducted colleagues and for the populations that MSF teams had been providing medical aid to," according to a statement from the medical charity. Notorious area The aid workers were taken at gunpoint from the MSF Belgium office at Saraf Umra, some 230km (143 miles) west of the North Darfur capital el-Fasher, on Wednesday evening. MSF said the abductees included a Canadian nurse, an Italian doctor and a French co-ordinator. Map Two Sudanese staff were also taken but have since been freed. MSF said it had no further information and would not make any more comments in order to safeguard the security of its staff. The area where the aid workers operated is notorious for banditry, the BBC's East Africa correspondent Karen Allen says. But the timing of the kidnapping will inevitably prompt questions about whether it was a political act, she adds. Khartoum reacted with anger at the 4 March ICC warrant for President Bashir, describing it as a "neo-colonialist" move to destabilise the country. Following the indictment, he expelled 13 aid agencies accusing them of taking "99% of the budget for humanitarian work themselves, and giving the people of Darfur 1%" - charges the groups deny. Mr Bashir also threatened to kick out more foreign workers if they did not obey Sudan's laws. The United Nations has said expelling the humanitarian groups puts more than one million lives at risk. African and Arab countries, along with China and Russia, have been pressing for the ICC warrant to be delayed, fearing it will damage peace efforts in Darfur. But the US, UK and France have said there is no reason to halt proceedings. The UN estimates that 300,000 people have died and 2.7 million been displaced, since black African rebels took up arms in 2003 against the Arab-dominated regime demanding a greater share of resources and power. Mr Bashir has always denied that his government helped mobilise the Janjaweed militias accused of the worst atrocities against civilians in Darfur.

Darfur is an absolute political quagmire right now, and I'm nervous for what happens if the expected 2009 election in the South actually happens because that would inevitably mean renewed calls for wealth-sharing and possible secession in the South, which would lead to a whole host of new problems all over the country. I'll try to scrape something more substantial together to comment on tomorrow.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Darfur is an absolute political quagmire right now, and I'm nervous for what happens if the expected 2009 election in the South actually happens because that would inevitably mean renewed calls for wealth-sharing and possible secession in the South, which would lead to a whole host of new problems all over the country. I'll try to scrape something more substantial together to comment on tomorrow.

Cant wait for the 2011 referendum vote in Southern Sudan to decide whether to secede from the rest of the country!

Darfur is the disgusting result of the shameful American imperialist involvement in Africa.

quote:

Originally posted by VictorJukov Darfur is the disgusting result of the shameful American imperialist involvement in Africa.

I'd like you to explain, if you could please. Thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I'd like you to explain, if you could please. Thanks.

Do you know that 'Darfur Crisis' was much supported by the USA? CIA agents were also performing the murders.

So you cannot downgrade the status of the Sudan government this simple.

And you cannot present your western vision of the events as the only available and true, because Sudanese also have own version.

Yankins have always claimed to be civilised, it would be wiser to solve the problem not referring to brutal force.

quote:

Originally posted by VictorJukov Do you know that 'Darfur Crisis' was much supported by the USA? CIA agents were also performing the murders. So you cannot downgrade the status of the Sudan government this simple. And you cannot present your western vision of the events as the only available and true, because Sudanese also have own version. Yankins have always claimed to be civilised, it would be wiser to solve the problem not referring to brutal force.

I haven't heard this before - where did you find evidence for this?

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I haven't heard this before - where did you find evidence for this?

Well, seems your only source is CNN and BBS, whereas I'm a postgraduate student in Political science.

I bet those journalists that tell me this is not some Yanka backed terrorists protesting that goverment procecutes them for planing attacks on Minsk unlike you.

quote:

Originally posted by VictorJukov Well, seems your only source is CNN and BBS, whereas I'm a postgraduate student in Political science.

Actually, no. First of all, the study of Political Science has absolutely no relevance to the situation in Darfur. Political Science examines practices of institutions and individuals in the political sphere. I am, however, a postgraduate student in International Affairs with a concentration on intrastate conflict in Africa. So I've never referred to CNN or "BBS" in relation to the conflict in Darfur - instead, I've read (and wrote) academic pieces and policy appraisals.


I asked you a simple question, and expected you to be able to back it up with information. As you put forward a pretty provocative (and odd) theory on the origin of the conflict, it isn't surprising that you might be expected to back it up with something more than a comment. Now, normally, since this is the area I study and I know you're full of shit, I wouldn't take the high road. But since you're new to the forum I thought I'd allow you a chance to flush out your belief before calling it for what it is: absolutely unintelligent. I was content to continue being polite until you decided to post your snark above. So I'm sorry to say, but your views on Darfur obviously carry absolutely no insight into the conflict at all and are simply the manifestation of your own anti-American biases - I imagine you'd blame America for about anything, right? Well, get over it. The Cold War's over.

quote:

I bet those journalists that tell me this is not some Yanka backed terrorists protesting that goverment procecutes them for planing attacks on Minsk unlike you.

I don't even know what the fuck this means (though I'm sure you think it's some sort of insult), so I won't respond.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I don't even know what the fuck this means (though I'm sure you think it's some sort of insult), so I won't respond.

Typical Yanka, just insult people without having own argument. If you knew who your parents were then they would be ashame of you.

quote:

Originally posted by VictorJukov Typical Yanka, just insult people without having own argument. If you knew who your parents were then they would be ashame of you.

Thanks for ignoring substantive criticism, champ.

If you're going to enter a discussion forum unwilling to back up your opinions, you obviously have the intellectual capacity of a dust mite. A true testament to the quality of education available in Russia.

Worst. Troll. Ever.

Bashir has done it again ... the despicable aspect of his most recent publicity stunt is that he is cutting ALL aid from Darfur. That includes local Sudanese aid work, too. Like we needed more proof of the genocide against people in Darfur ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7946306.stm

quote:

Sudan to 'expel all aid groups' President Bashir on top of a vehicle gestures to army soldiers during a military rally in Khartoum 16 March Mr Bashir had already ordered 13 large foreign aid agencies to stop work Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir says he wants all international aid groups out of the country within a year. Foreign organisations could drop relief supplies at airports and let Sudanese organisations take care of it, the president told a military rally. Sudan has already expelled 13 large foreign agencies, mostly from Darfur. Mr Bashir accuses them of spying for the International Criminal Court, which has issued an arrest warrant against him for alleged war crimes in Darfur. He also shut down three local aid groups, including one of the largest Sudanese groups operating in Darfur. If they want to bring relief, let them drop it at airports or seaports President Omar al-Bashir The United Nations said the expulsions had left millions at risk of a humanitarian crisis. Speaking to a rally of security forces in the capital, Khartoum, the president said all foreign relief groups should go. "We directed the Ministry of Humanitarian Affairs to Sudanise voluntary work," he told a crowd of thousands of supporters. "Within a year, we don't want to see any foreign aid group dealing with a Sudanese citizen. "If they want to bring relief, let them drop it at airports or seaports. Let the national organisations deal with our citizens," Mr Bashir said. The move could affect the work of more than 70 organisations operating in Darfur and other strife-torn areas. Later, State Minister for Humanitarian Affairs Ahmed Haroun said that the order would not affect UN agencies. Mr Bashir did not specify how the order would be carried out, or if it would affect aid programmes in the semi-autonomous south. The earlier expulsion of 13 aid agencies, including Oxfam, Save the Children and two branches of Medecins Sans Frontieres, only affected operations in the north. The Hague-based International Criminal Court seeking Mr Bashir's arrest accuses him of orchestrating atrocities against civilians in Darfur, where his Arab-led government has been battling black African rebels since 2003. Up to 300,000 people have been killed and 2.7 million have been driven from their homes. Sudan denies the charges and says the figures are exaggerated.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.