Of course, such stories are just a conspiracy of the West. From The Telegraph, with thanks to Nicolei:
A woman and teenage girl who were raped and abducted by soldiers in Western Darfur have claimed that the Sudanese army organised airlifts of sex slaves to serve as the "wives" of government soldiers in Khartoum. Their accounts appear to corroborate claims made privately by Sudanese and United Nations officials, and are the latest evidence that government forces are involved in activities which Khartoum blames on the Janjaweed militia."The army captured many children and women hiding in the bush outside burnt villages," said a senior politician in Khartoum who is familiar with the cases but asked not to be named.
"They were transported by plane to Khartoum at night, and divided up among soldiers as domestic workers and in some cases wives."...
Critics of the Sudanese government say that the cases of the two girls - both of whose names have been changed to protect them - are evidence of official wrongdoing.
"It takes a lot of co-ordination to kidnap 40 women from different parts of rural Darfur and fly them all secretly to Khartoum for forced marriage. This must have been agreed upon by senior politicians," said a dissenting parliamentarian.
"It is solid proof of collusion between the government and the army in rape, abduction and slavery of children and women."
The Sudanese government adamantly denied the women's claims, saying they were feeding anti-Arab propaganda.
"These things simply do not happen," one senior Sudanese diplomat said. "Such stories are a conspiracy of the West to discredit the government of Sudan.
But really, none of this is at all hard to believe, particularly in connection with an Islamic army. After all, the Prophet Muhammad himself behaved this way, as I discuss in Islam Unveiled, and as Serge Trifkovic reminds us in a piece on the Beslan atrocities in Chronicles (thanks to Jim):
The media in the United States have been oddly fastidious in failing to report one aspect of last week’s horror in Beslan: that several Russian girls were raped by Muslim terrorists in front of their parents and classmates. The failure to report rapes in the Russian school was at odds with the eagerness of American journalists, a decade ago, to report ad nauseam on the entirely fictitious "rape camps" supposedly run by Bosnian Serbs in which Muslim women were allegedly subjected to similar degradation.That Muslim propagandists and their Western abettors should have resorted to this particular whopper is especially galling in view of Islam’s encouragement of violence against women in general, and its explicit blessing of rape of captive non-Muslim women by Muslims in particular. The behavior of Chechen terrorists in Beslan, disgusting in every gory detail by the standards of civilized humanity, was justified by the tenets of Islam and by the personal example of the cult’s inventor, Muhammad.
Having established himself as the ruler of Medina, Muhammad attacked the Jewish tribe of Banu-‘l-Mustaliq in December of A.D. 626. His followers slaughtered many Jewish tribesmen and looted thousands of their camels and sheep. They also kidnapped 500 of their women. The night after the battle Muhammad and his brigands staged an orgy of rape. As one of the brigands, Abu Sa’id Khudri, later remembered, a legal problem needed to be resolved first: In order to obtain ransom from the surviving Jews for the captive women, Muslims had pledged not to violate them:
We were lusting after women and chastity had become too hard for us, but we wanted to get the ransom money for our prisoners. So we wanted to use the Azl [coitus interruptus]. We asked the Prophet about it and he said: "You are not under any obligation not to do it like that."
Having ethnically cleansed and robbed of property all but one of three Jewish clans in Medina, in A.D. 627 Muhammad decided to deal with the last, Banu Qurayzah. He offered the men conversion as an alternative to death. Upon their unsurprising refusal, some 900—exact numbers are unknown—were decapitated, one by one, in a ditch surrounding their encampment, in front of their women and children. Muhammad’s Einsatzgruppen worked hard: Torches had to be lit so that the slaughter could be accomplished in one day. The women, thus widowed or orphaned, were raped that same night. Muhammad chose as his concubine one Raihana bint Amr, whose father and husband were both slaughtered before her eyes only hours earlier. (Such treatment of the victims had been duly sanctioned by a prophetic revelation in the Kuran.)
Read it all.
Of all the things the prophet Mohammad did I think the mass rape of women a few hours after their males relatives were executed has to be by far the worse atrocity. If anything puts me of Islam it is the knowledge that the prophet Mohammad did such a thing. I can never beleive in a man who does such things. Psychologically I just can't do it.
Yes, the failure to report the eager & disgusting degradation of women by Islamic savages is astonishing. If I recall correctly, I don't believe I read anything about rapes of Beslan girls and women in any news report. Only online, from one or two sources. The only way the West can be truly prepared to defend itself against Islam is to be truly informed about it. The truth, no matter how disgusting. Yet, the media is so shy to report it. Beslan has all but disappeared off the radar. It's as if the media is relieved to not have to report Islamic atrocities. The second things cool down a bit, on they move to something else. We still hear about Abu Ghraib though. They're very eager to bring us the minutest, almost trivial details of that however. Of course that is supposed to enrage us, but shhhh! don't speak too loudly about the constant, sanctioned disgusting practise of Islam. Why are they sticking up for these savages??????
If Jesus had got up to the same revolting, putrid things as that disgusting creature, their "prophet" had got up to, I'm sure Jesus would have been put into the same category as Manson or Koresh by now and Christians would be made to feel ashamed of following such a creep. But no, not for Muslims. Their founder can be one of the most vile things to ever have infested this planet, and it's okay. Shhhh! Don't bring up the "Prophet"!
it seems that the media's position is tainted by the prevalence of the antiwar doctrine as the journalistic legacy of vietnam. perhaps this explains the john kerry phenomenon. one must consider that an appreciable majority of journalists are antiwar and view the war on terror as some sort of vietnam redux. therefore, their vindication comes with american humiliation and lionizing the enemy. but this sorry paradigm will go the same way as dan rather in the end. eventually, humans outgrow their foibles
What has gone on in Southern Sudan and Darfur is
GENOCIDE. Mass rapings, killings and enslavings have been reported for months yet bloody Kofi Annan is in a state of self denial or rather in cohorts with Perpetrators. What has happened to millions of peaceful Black Africans is a permanent
wound on the face of Humanity!
What are the UN waiting for , all the christians to be wiped out so we have another great 100% muslim country, in a world already riddled with them? Or just for the genocide of black sudanese, so that we have another Arabic state in africa to add to the "arabian-islamic empire"?
In '99 when Milosovics' serbs were carrying out ethnic cleansing against those piss-drinking ethnic-albanian scuzlims, they couldn't jump in quick enough, So where are they now???
It's a disgrace, more of a disgrace that the fucking irritating leftist robots, who have their liberal ranting soundtrack jammed on the same setting when it comes to the subject of Iraq: (you know the ones)"14,000 iraqi civilians have died since this war started, and it's all my/your/our fault!!!" (Hello wankers- it's the fucking insurgents who we're trying to stop who are killing the majority of them).
But these same people seem to have absolutely no opinion of the darfur slaughter.
Aid is useless, food is useless.
Whats the point in feeding , sheltering and giving medical help to the refugees, when the numbers of injured, homeless and starving refugees are doubling everyday, because NO-ONE IS STOPPING THE MURDERING MBASTARDS WHO ARE DOING IT!!!
It's another case of reeking arab pigs with a superiority complex slaughtering people of a different religion (and COLOUR for gods sake... all you leftist anti-racism activists!!!)and being allowed to get away with it.
The coalition are occupied in Iraq, UK and the US can't be expected to do everything so why don't China get up off their arses and do something?
Or Libya, doesn't Colenal Gadaffi want to proove his worth to the west?Why doesn't he travel a few hundred miles south east with his army and annihilate those jabbawood, dill-weeds whatever the smeg they're called?
The collective scum of islam strikes again.
Wipe this shit off the worlds ass!!!
If somebody’s known to speak, say, only Greek, wouldn’t it be a total waste of time to keep talking to them in, say, Vietnamese, or Lithuanian, or even in Malagasy? The answer is YES. In order to communicate, it’s essential to talk to them in their OWN TONGUE.
Likewise, when addressing Islamo-fascists/Jihadis, a language has to be harnessed which they’ll find comprehensible, properly understanding the Message, as it’s meant. Arabic’s very lush in nuanced expression, but for conveying what’s necessary today, to these cruel fanatics (in Love with Death), MORE than mere verbiage, however apt - in any idiom - would be required.
By the time that the UN’s Sub-Committee’s officially decided whether the killing and rapine in Darfur are a true case of Genocide or not, of course, the black, “mawali” victims of the Arab-supremacist, Islamist régime of Sudan there will all be dead, enslaved or in exile.
- At least the UN possesses an explicit DEFINITION for Genocide, solemnly laid down half a century ago by sober, eminent and learnèd judges, to go by in its protracted deliberations here. Nowadays - following the displacement of Bosnian Moslems, a decade back - additionally, the UN has a formal delineation of what constitutes Ethnic Cleansing.
But, to date, it’s got NO Definition whatsoever for TERRORISM. The formulation of one has been consistently THWARTED, at every possible turn, by the biggest single voting-bloc (and proportionate, corresponding corps of bureaucrats, functionaries, etc) inside the UN, the Arab League-dominated nexus of the Organization of Islamic Conferences and the Non Aligned Movement (and, till last year, the since-disbanded Organization of African States).
If the mass-murders and expulsions in Darfur are duly deemed, indeed, to be Genocide, then the UN’ll need to determine what to do about it - and then to do it. This is an extremely big deal to ask of the contemporary UN! This entity’s been consciously, cumulatively degraded by callous and sinister interests within it for the past thirty years: it’s been intentionally, comprehensively and fatally infiltrated, hood-winked, subverted, distorted, compromised, co-opted, corrupted, hijacked and perverted, with no resemblance remaining to the institution it was supposed to be.
Virtually paralyzed anyway, in its rank hypocrisy, its natural inclination is to do NOTHING (thereby drawing the least attention to its ineptitude) and hence it’d be most relieved to have the butchery of the “mawalis” in Sudan assessed NOT to qualify as Genocide.
The UN’ll therefore probably throw all that it can into seeing to it that the ongoing mayhem in the Sudan is - eventually - classed as just an “unfortunate” (although “culturally valid”) incident of simple, “traditional”, tribal frictions, compounded somewhat by the violence being plied by “secessionist rebels” - as Khartoum’s always insisted that it is, and as the Arab League’s been professing as well. Thus - in accordance with its strongest desire - the UN won’t be obliged to stir, but - as far as the “international community” goes - obscenely, it stands to GAIN in stature, via its “Wisdom” in averting any major confrontation over Darfur, maintaining “Peace”....
How to circumvent this grim process, which will inexorably drift into being, if left unattended? Which particular words to utter? How about: “THIS IS AN ULTIMATUM. Unless all measures are exerted by the Sudanese Government, to their maximum extent, to STOP the persecution in Darfur, in NO MORE THAN SEVEN DAYS, several cities of northern Sudan will be summarily NUKED”. This (soundly translated into Arabic) is a bald threat Khartoum ought not to mistake.
The key thing about voicing such menaces, though, is that the one who’s making them MUST be prepared to carry them through: or else his or her - vital - Credibility, from that point forward, into the future, promptly and inevitably becomes a JOKE. Avoiding this LETHAL result would stringently demand - springing from his or her basic fibre and rational conscience - beyond the Steel to endure, the sheer Moral Courage to forge on ahead, in a direction that, finally, is equally right and workable, in spite of the predictable opposition and the constant, carping flack.
"The only way the West can be truly prepared to defend itself against Islam is to be truly informed about it. The truth, no matter how disgusting. Yet, the media is so shy to report it. Beslan has all but disappeared off the radar. It's as if the media is relieved to not have to report Islamic atrocities."
They are scared shitless. The same thing happened in the 1930s, and went on in my lifetime regarding the Soviets. The elite media like the London Times, BBC, and NY Times all avoided any "inflammatory" articles that would "irritate Herr Hitler" i.e. they would not tell the truth because the media seemed to think it was their job to serve in some pseudo-diplomatic role.
During the Cold War they avoided same with the Soviet Union--how inconvenient Solzhenitzyn must have been--because after all it might lead to nuclear conflagration after all! So we got moral equivalence. Anyone who said the obvious was some sort of reactionary yahoo, just like we're all a bunch of anti-Muslim Christian Zionist fanatics, right? Then later it was like the antiwar demonstrator who said "well obviously, it goes without saying" that Saddam was bad, but still, why discommode ourselves to take him out.
That's the whole problem. The dhimmi Left KNOWS the truth--"it goes without saying!"--so they won't say it, so the great muddled middle doesn't really know what's going on and we never come to grips with it.