Darfur crisis the result of years of US sponsored terrorism in Southern Sudan

[Truth Seeker]

You have still not proved that they did not rule by Islam and the people had not given the bayah.

[Truth Seeker]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1273982,00.html

 

The mask of altruism disguising a colonial war

 

Oil will be the driving factor for military intervention in Sudan

 

John Laughland

Monday August 2, 2004

The Guardian

 

If proof were needed that Tony Blair is off the hook over Iraq, it came not during the Commons debate on the Butler report on July 21, but rather at his monthly press conference the following morning. Asked about the crisis in Sudan, Mr Blair replied: "I believe we have a moral responsibility to deal with this and to deal with it by any means that we can." This last phrase means that troops might be sent - as General Sir Mike Jackson, the chief of the general staff, immediately confirmed - and yet the reaction from the usual anti-war campaigners was silence.

 

Mr Blair has invoked moral necessity for every one of the five wars he has fought in this, surely one of the most bellicose premierships in history. The bombing campaign against Iraq in December 1998, the 74-day bombardment of Yugoslavia in 1999, the intervention in Sierra Leone in the spring of 2000, the attack on Afghanistan in October 2001, and the Iraq war last March were all justified with the bright certainties which shone from the prime minister's eyes. Blair even defended Bill Clinton's attack on the al-Shifa pharmaceuticals factory in Sudan in August 1998, on the entirely bogus grounds that it was really manufacturing anthrax instead of aspirin.

 

Although in each case the pretext for war has been proved false or the war aims have been unfulfilled, a stubborn belief persists in the morality and the effectiveness of attacking other countries. The Milosevic trial has shown that genocide never occurred in Kosovo - although Blair told us that the events there were worse than anything that had happened since the second world war, even the political activists who staff the prosecutor's office at the international criminal tribunal in The Hague never included genocide in their Kosovo indictment. And two years of prosecution have failed to produce one single witness to testify that the former Yugoslav president ordered any attacks on Albanian civilians in the province. Indeed, army documents produced from Belgrade show the contrary.

 

Like the Kosovo genocide, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, as we now know, existed only in the fevered imaginings of spooks and politicians in London and Washington. But Downing Street was also recently forced to admit that even Blair's claims about mass graves in Iraq were false. The prime minister has repeatedly said that 300,000 or 400,000 bodies have been found there, but the truth is that almost no bodies have been exhumed in Iraq, and consequently the total number of such bodies, still less the cause of their deaths, is simply unknown.

 

In 2001, we attacked Afghanistan to capture Osama bin Laden and to prevent the Taliban from allegedly flooding the world with heroin. Yet Bin Laden remains free, while the heroin ban imposed by the Taliban has been replaced by its very opposite, a surge in opium production, fostered by the warlords who rule the country. As for Sierra Leone, the United Nations human development report for 2004, published on July 15, which measures overall living standards around the world, puts that beneficiary of western intervention in 177th place out of 177, an august position it has continued to occupy ever since our boys went in: Sierra Leone is literally the most miserable place on earth. So much for Blair's promise of a "new era for Africa".

 

The absence of anti-war scepticism about the prospect of sending troops into Sudan is especially odd in view of the fact that Darfur has oil. For two years, campaigners have chanted that there should be "no blood for oil" in Iraq, yet they seem not to have noticed that there are huge untapped reserves in both southern Sudan and southern Darfur. As oil pipelines continue to be blown up in Iraq, the west not only has a clear motive for establishing control over alternative sources of energy, it has also officially adopted the policy that our armies should be used to do precisely this. Oddly enough, the oil concession in southern Darfur is currently in the hands of the China National Petroleum Company. China is Sudan's biggest foreign investor.

 

We ought, therefore, to treat with scepticism the US Congress declaration of genocide in the region. No one, not even the government of Sudan, questions that there is a civil war in Darfur, or that it has caused an immense number of refugees. Even the government admits that nearly a million people have left for camps outside Darfur's main towns to escape marauding paramilitary groups. The country is awash with guns, thanks to the various wars going on in Sudan's neighbouring countries. Tensions have risen between nomads and herders, as the former are forced south in search of new pastures by the expansion of the Sahara desert. Paramilitary groups have practised widespread highway robbery, and each tribe has its own private army. That is why the government of Sudan imposed a state of emergency in 1999.

 

But our media have taken this complex picture and projected on to it a simple morality tale of ethnic cleansing and genocide. They gloss over the fact that the Janjaweed militia come from the same ethnic group and religion as the people they are allegedly persecuting - everyone in Darfur is black, African, Arabic-speaking and Muslim. Campaigners for intervention have accused the Sudanese government of supporting this group, without mentioning that the Sudanese defence minister condemned the Janjaweed as "bandits" in a speech to the country's parliament in March. On July 19, moreover, a court in Khartoum sentenced six Janjaweed soldiers to horrible punishments, including the amputation of their hands and legs. And why do we never hear about the rebel groups which the Janjaweed are fighting, or about any atrocities that they may have committed?

 

It is far from clear that the sudden media attention devoted to Sudan has been provoked by any real escalation of the crisis - a peace agreement was signed with the rebels in April, and it is holding. The pictures on our TV screens could have been shown last year. And we should treat with scepticism the claims made for the numbers of deaths - 30,000 or 50,000 are the figures being bandied about - when we know that similar statistics proved very wrong in Kosovo and Iraq. The Sudanese government says that the death toll in Darfur, since the beginning of the conflict in 2003, is not greater than 1,200 on all sides. And why is such attention devoted to Sudan when, in neighbouring Congo, the death rate from the war there is estimated to be some 2 or 3 million, a tragedy equalled only by the silence with which it is treated in our media?

 

We are shown starving babies now, but no TV station will show the limbless or the dead that we cause if we attack Sudan. Humanitarian aid should be what the Red Cross always said it must be - politically neutral. Anything else is just an old-fashioned colonial war - the reality of killing, and the escalation of violence, disguised with the hypocritical mask of altruism. If Iraq has not taught us that, then we are incapable of ever learning anything.

 

· John Laughland is an associate of Sanders Research Associates

[Bachelor]

Sudan had to be brought to submission for two reasons: one, oil; and second, the water of the Nile. Until now, U.S. firms were excluded from the lucrative oil deals available in Sudan. Total reserves are estimated at 2 billion barrels. The lead actors in Sudan's oil industry are the China National Petroleum Corporation, Petronas from Malaysia, Talisman Energy from Canada, Gulf Petroleum Corporation from Quatar, Ludin Oil from Sweden and the French Total Fina Elf. On July 25, a new investment package of $1.7 billion was signed for the exploration of new oilfields in the South and the construction of a new pipeline to the Red Sea. This time, British and Russian firms were also part of the deal. After the implementation of the Kenya peace treaty, those lucrative oil deals would also be open to U.S. firms.

Read more : http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2004/3131sudan.html

[Snow the informer]

would u guys for the love of warren g harding give it up?!

 

the sudanese goverment from 1956-1980 had long been currupted and i think this is another attemp by Somalis to claim to be arabs however i feel u Somalis are neither Aran nor African but that of a seperate race that needs to be isoladed.

 

The problem in Sudan is a race war and i expect whites to ignore it and Africans to deny it anyways. THATS RIGHTR IT IS A RACE WAR and nothing else! u somalis need to admit that u are (considored) Africans and then need to admit that foreign races can succesfully manhandle africans. The Arabs dont like africans and esides the ethiopians in their heyday were able to enslave all africans. in Mauritania the moors who browned spain fight the africans over whether its an arab country or a black country. The moors also enslave africans in mauritani and in sudan the arabs enslave the africans. the bottom line is that africans havent fared well in race wars and africans are being picked on for the very reason of being african. wake up already not every muslim listens to the quran and when they stop u all are victim #1

[NGONGE]

Snow the informer,

 

Define an African for me please, saaxib.

 

I would personally define an African as a citizen of a country that is geographically located in the continent called AFRICA. This is the simple and most obvious definition. Others would agree with this, but they’ll also add that an African is someone who’s a native of Africa and is most likely to have BLACK skin. Some would even insist on the black skin part and discard any Africans that don’t fulfil that requirement.

 

You seem to be different; you don’t seem to follow any of these definitions in your post above! You’re calling the Sudanese conflict a RACE WAR! Are Africans made of different races or different cultures? If they’re different races, does that mean the skin colour is not being taken into consideration here? Take Sudan for instance, the two warring sides are black. One part refers to itself as African while the other refers to itself as Arab. They both reside in Africa! What gives, saaxib?

[Gabbal]

Ngonge another misinformed individual. I don't know if Snow is a white person or a sub-Saharan African (mostly likely one of the two), but he is not Somali.

[NGONGE]

He's not? :eek:

What prompted him to join this site then?

I suppose he couldn’t resist our great Somali wit and matchless intelligence.

[Gabbal]

I guess he couldn't.

[Snow the informer]

Snow the informer,

 

Define an African for me please, saaxib.

 

I would personally define an African as a citizen of a country that is geographically located in the continent called AFRICA.

OKAY IF YOU WANT TO GET TECHNICAL IN THAT WAY ill get technical in this way. one could argue the Boars were in the right for pushing back Zulu, Swazi, and Xhosa-ian forces because some of them were born in Africa. There are Indians/Native Americans in North Americas along with Eskimoes/Inuits but they both cant be North Americans. An African is defined as a Negroid race occuping Africa and just because white and Arab invaders live there in no way means it is their homeland or that they arn't visitors for the long haul.

 

 

This is the simple and most obvious definition. Others would agree with this, but they’ll also add that an African is someone who’s a native of Africa and is most likely to have BLACK skin. Some would even insist on the black skin part and discard any Africans that don’t fulfil that requirement.

 

The Negroid African race is what it is regardless of skin tone. Is a Redheads any less white? Asuming the redhead isnt Faith Evens that is...

 

You seem to be different; you don’t seem to follow any of these definitions in your post above! You’re calling the Sudanese conflict a RACE WAR! Are Africans made of different races or different cultures? If they’re different races, does that mean the skin colour is not being taken into consideration here? Take Sudan for instance, the two warring sides are black. One part refers to itself as African while the other refers to itself as Arab. They both reside in Africa! What gives, saaxib?

 

So do the White south africans. Does that mean they are light skinned Botswanians now?! An Indian(N. America) and an Arab may have the same skin tone but will always be seperate races. Africa is made up of different cultures and occupied by different races. There is a huge difference in the latter. No the Arabs in Sudan are clearly racial Arabs or Moorish. I think Africans fear Arabs in Africa and i think a reason is Arabic-ists taking thingsd to high levels and the Oil. Even though Arabs scwounder there oil money like African leads do to the few revenues they have they could afford to by the propper things to face Africans head on in a full scale Race War and not run out of resources. The oil would keep them going strong is what im saying. The African crooks are just stilling from the core while the Arab crooks havent even reached the bottom of the pool yet. They claim Africans still have slavery today but those are uneducated whites jumping to conclusian who dont know the Arabs and Moors are on top of this. It is a clear Race War and the "Africans" as you called them arn't doing it because they are lighter but are in fact Arabs and any genologist or demograph reviewer will clear it up to u my Somali friend.

 

 

What prompted him to join this site then?

I suppose he couldn’t resist our great Somali wit and matchless intelligence.

Dont get to flattered bub. I joined this site to learn more about Somaliland. Somaliland

is on a list of other unrecognized countries im looking into. I have had success with Abkhazia but barely any with Bouganville, Kosovo, Checnya, South Ossetia, Ajaria, or Casamance and Cabinda but plenty with Somaliland. The level of refugees in modern countries probally laid heeth to sites like this.

[NGONGE]

Thanks for the reply. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.

 

Now, lets get serious. Your argument seems to be that a land belongs only to its original inhabitants and that any new additions to that land are nothing but long term “guestsâ€! There are so many loose strands in that argument I’m not sure which one to pick first.

 

Ok, lets talk about the matter of RACE. Is it genetic or cultural? In the case of the Sudanese, it can be argued that the two sides are of different “races†but since they’re both Muslim the cultural argument is instantly discarded. So, we’re left with the argument of genetics, right? This is a more complex argument, however, since most scientists agree that the Human Race originated in Africa, many Caucasians could use that argument to claim their African lineage. Incidentally, most scientists also agree that genetics plays a negligible part in determining race. The similarities in the DNA of White Europeans and Black Africans prove it!

 

You seem to argue that Arabs (or white Africans for that matter) have no right to live in Africa. Following your logic, Americans have no right to live in America and Australians don’t really belong to Australia. The whole idea of migration and looking for pastures new to settle in is totally overlooked. This idea, just in case it escaped your attention, is an intrinsic part of African life. To ignore it is to ignore Nomadic instincts of humans. The Darfur crisis is more a result of politics, greed and economic mismanagement than mere genetics and race.

 

Reading between the lines (and I’m not usually good at that game) I sense the disturbing argument being peddled by many African nationalists about this great Arab conspiracy to control and pillage Africa! Please tell me it isn’t so.

[Snow the informer]

Thanks for the reply. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.

 

Now, lets get serious. Your argument seems to be that a land belongs only to its original inhabitants and that any new additions to that land are nothing but long term “guestsâ€! There are so many loose strands in that argument I’m not sure which one to pick first.

 

Im saying that they have the rights to there countries but when they launch wars of aggresion against the native race of the continent exiling them to the Middle East would have merits.

 

Ok, lets talk about the matter of RACE. Is it genetic or cultural? In the case of the Sudanese, it can be argued that the two sides are of different “races†but since they’re both Muslim the cultural argument is instantly discarded. So, we’re left with the argument of genetics, right? This is a more complex argument, however, since most scientists agree that the Human Race originated in Africa, many Caucasians could use that argument to claim their African lineage. Incidentally, most scientists also agree that genetics plays a negligible part in determining race. The similarities in the DNA of White Europeans and Black Africans prove it!

Religion is not cultural although i know of the tradinonal bagade that comes with being a Muslim. Food rules and etc. Origins in Africa have no affect on the current race of a person. Native Americans are of Oriental ancestry but are NO LONGER in that race all though somewhat still of it. There is no way for them to revert back to being Chinese or Burman or etc. Yes but see it is like Nazism and Fascism. Nazism is a form of fascism although Fascism is not an offshoot of Nazism and condones a larger belief. So to put it in context retaining to Africa it could be argued that Whites orginate from Europe and Africa but blacks only orginate from Africa and nowhere else. I know races are all related but Whites have a dual racial homeland therefor it would only be right of them to chose Europe to avoid conflict.

 

 

You seem to argue that Arabs (or white Africans for that matter) have no right to live in Africa. Following your logic, Americans have no right to live in America and Australians don’t really belong to Australia. The whole idea of migration and looking for pastures new to settle in is totally overlooked. This idea, just in case it escaped your attention, is an intrinsic part of African life. To ignore it is to ignore Nomadic instincts of humans. The Darfur crisis is more a result of politics, greed and economic mismanagement than mere genetics and race.

 

My point was is that Arabs dont have the rights to launch wars based on race against natives. There is a deffierence between the U.S. fighting the Sioux Nation for the point of say a river to irigate farms and a war with them to replace them with white setlers for the sheer purpose of them being white and they Indians. You can have an ethnic homeland comprised of whites beside an ethnic homeland comprised of say Fijians but when the white have invades the fijian half of the land for racial reasons the fijians gain the moral right to completely exile the "invaders" sense a race war calls for their white countries ethnic rights to be noll and void. But indiginous peoples can not push other races out of their entire continental homeland. An example would be ¾ of Europe being lived on by Europeans but with a small part of Europe having a few Black Americans start small countries. Keep in mind that although the entirety of Europe is their homeland the part comprised of Black Americans never had any European recidents on it at all.

 

Reading between the lines (and I’m not usually good at that game) I sense the disturbing argument being peddled by many African nationalists about this great Arab conspiracy to control and pillage Africa! Please tell me it isn’t so.

 

Yes from your Somali perspective. From a Somali-Arab perspective things are different from an Arabs views and as a Somali-African your views are different from African view points. I do believe Somalis try to pass off as Arabs and link their religion to much with Arabs. They see it as one in the same there for making them Arabs however the Arabs could careless. Its becoming another fiascoe and i think Africans need to address the issue of Arab hostilitee and Arabs like Whites seeing you more of as a peace of game or a slave then a person. They have long heald hostilities and with Africa's humiliating defeat by the hands of (the defunct) Boer nations and Anglo-White South Africans they need to look at the Arabs and their huge numbers. Arabs have long discriminated against Africans and just because the prophet "didd`t" doesnt mean they'll listen. In fact the day they stop this Arab on African slavery in Mauritania and Sudan is the day Nick Berg's head roles back on to his shoulders and we see the revival of East Germany... I judge Somalis like Italians. As a seperate race then the two you are disputed between.

 

By the way i saw the Somalian team on TV at the Olimpic cerimony with all the other teams. I was surprised they'd show with all of Somalias troubles.

 

 

Oh by the way Nederland antilles and Puerto Rico are alowed teams so wat 'bout Puntland and SL?

:confused:

[AYOUB]

Originally posted by Snow the informer:

i feel u Somalis are neither Aran nor African but that of a seperate race that needs to be isoladed.

Can you please explain thatin detail, please?

[Snow the informer]

forget about being African or Arab and promote your selves as a seperate racial entity.

[Gabbal]

As a seperate race then the two you are disputed between.

and this too.

 

First of all Somalis do not considers themselves Arabs nor are they Arabs. People mistake Somalia's political membership in the Arab League and the race of its citizens. And yet, Somalis cannot be racially "African", as it's not a race, but a classification by continent. Theresa Heinz Kerry calls herself an African-American, because her country of birth, Mozambique, is in Africa.

 

 

Snow how come the Confederate States of America are not taking part in the Olympics? Like the CSA, "Puntland" and "Somaliland" aren't taking part and won't ever be taking part, because they do not and will not exist as a seperate entity from the Somali Republic. Besides if I say so myself that man carrying the Somali calan represented us honorably.

[Snow the informer]

the CSA isnt taking part because it hasnt been a country sense 1865! There is a huge difference between a micronation (unrecognized country) an inactive (defunct) country and an inactive micronation. Katanga was a micronation from 1960-63 but in 1964 became a defunct nation. Ajaria was a micronation that official became defunct on 2004. Puntland and Somaliland are active micronations that still exist without recognition. Biafra was a country with barely any recognition but ceased to exist in by 1971. If Antilles and Peurto Rico can compete Landers and punts should like wise.