While the peace talks continue, the jihad still rages. From SA, with thanks to Ali Dashti:
Abuja - Rebel accusations that fresh government air-raids killed 26 civilians in Sudan's troubled Darfur region have cast a pall over peace talks in Nigeria, where African Union mediators trying to end the conflict are making little headway.Mahgoup Hussain, a spokesperson for the rebel Sudan Liberation Army, said on Wednesday that the bombings occurred on Tuesday and Wednesday in the town of Allaiat, in eastern Darfur.
But Lieutenant General Mohammed Ismail, the deputy chief of staff of the Sudanese army, said there had been no fresh violence in the area.
"It is still continuing," Hussein said of the bombings, claiming the 26 dead included a pregnant woman. "Definitely this round (of negotiations) will not go well. It is not logical. You are coming here for peace, and you are bombing people over there."
'Not logical to be coming here for peace then bombing people over there' said the spokesman from the Sudan Liberation Army?
It is perfectly logical for deceitful people to say one thing and do the complete opposite. That's why they are deceitful in the first place, they have learned that they can get more by tricking people than by being upfront about their emnity.
This spokesman has an Islamic name, so presuming that he can read, why doesn't he look up all the racism against black people in the hadith and the sira?
Then he might begin to understand what this genocide in Darfur is all about.
'It is perfectly logical for deceitful people to say one thing and do the complete opposite. That's why they are deceitful in the first place, they have learned that they can get more by tricking people than by being upfront about their emnity.'
You called it, Elephant. We hear a lot of that in the US also:
'They are going to suppress the black vote!'
'...reinstate the draft!'
'...starve children to death at school!'
'At least there won't be riots if We win.'
Good to know Edwards admits who the troublemakers will be. (Remember, Democrats ran the Southern states that hosed down black people who were trying to reach the polls in the 60s).
(And the Majority of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act. More than half of the dems did Not).
Darfur should be a place upon which Infidel attention should be focussed, and much made of the situation there, as it is so clear-cut. Two points can be made, and action -- by the United States, which seems fated to do the work for everyone -- could help after another few months of false rescue by the Muslim troops in Nigeria.
To wit:
Let Darfur be used to hammer in two propositions:
1) Islam not as a universalist religion, but as a vehicle for Arab imperialism. This has been noted by Ibn Warraq, Anwar Shaikh, and many Muslims -- among the Berbers, the Malays, and others. The requirement that one learn Arabic to read the Qur'an, or at least to memorize the Qur'an in Arabic (as so many Urdu-speaking Pakistanis do in the madrasas), the adoption of Arabic names (including those "Sayeeds" in Pakistan -- the name indicates descent from the Prophet), the Sunna (the ways, the customs, of Muhammad and his Companions) which inflicts on non-Arab peoples the ways of the Arabs, and from the 7th century, the history of Arab aggression against non-Arab Muslims (Kurds, Berbers, blacks) can be emphasized. Darfur is now well-publicized as a place of organized massacre of Arabs against non-Arab Muslims -- let that become as much a focus of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim propaganda as possible.
2) Use Darfur to make black Africa less inclined to succumb to Islam, and even to help those who have accepted Islam to jettison it for Christianity. Darfur may be taken to stand for the whole history of Arab exploitation of black Africa. The Arab slave trade, of which Zanzibar became the eastern entrepot, began centuries earlier, ended later (actually, has not even ended, because once the Europeans left Mali, Mauritania, the Sudan, the Arab enslavement of black Africans was renewed), and was much more devastating -- especially because many slaves were castrated before they were shipped thousands of miles, and the mortality rate was very high.
The Biafran War, a war as Colonel Ojukwu said (in the Ohiara Declaration in 1969) was a fight by the Christian Ibo against "jihad" (Ojukwu's word) ended because the entire Western world ignored the war of the Muslims in the north to retain control of Nigeria, and the oil that existed in the Christian south. Only two states -- Ghana and Israel -- recognized Biafra. But just as Muslims in northern Nigeria have used the oil wealth to pay for their military regime that allows the northern Muslims to dominate the much more industrious and entrepreneurial south, and to use southern oil to prop up northern, Muslim supremacy, the Arabs in the north of the Sudan intend to use the oil wealth that lies under the southern, black, non-Muslim part of the Sudan, to continue to massacre all blacks including those who are not regarded as Arabs.
In Mali and Mauritania blacks are still enslaved by Arabs. Indeed, the slave trade continues still -- that is, blacks are still shipped to the Arabian peninsula, and though slavery was formally abolished in 1962 in Saudi Arabia, the fact that the Qur'an sanctions slavery means that in the Muslim world, as Saudi clerics have recently emphasized, slavery must continue, for it is sanctioned by God, the God of Islam, the only God that counts.
And let the Darfur folly and U.N. fiasco lead to action by American troops:
3) No need to repeat here what has been posted many times. Right now the "Nigerian contingent" of Muslim-officered troops, and almost entirely Muslims, are likely to follow whatever secret understandings were arrived at by Nigeria, Egypt, Libya, and the Sudan in meetings in the last month, all designed to create a facade of action, that will be inaction, while the massacres and displacements continue, in order to head off what is really feared, and what should take place - an American intervention. Smiling black faces replacing scowling Iraqi ones, the declaration that American troops will stay to protect the people from genocide, and that they will leave when a referendum on independence can be arranged in the southern Sudan and in Darfur -- well, what can the Arab League, the U.N., the E.U. say about that, when the black Africans will so obviously welcome American troops? Will they denounce us for not permitting the 20-year-old genocidal campaign in the southern Sudan to continue? Or to allow it to be enlarged in Darfur? Might be just a bit embarrassing. And in this country, would the Democrats wish to bewail such a move -- earning the fury of the Black Caucus and others whose support they need?
Iraq, at this point, is a misallocation of resources. But the Sudan -- well, the Sudan would require far less (a few thousand troops). And as for those famous bases America wants to have somewhere in the region, since it foolishly pressured Israel to give up the Sinai,the perfect place for such bases, on a long-term lease? Well, the southern and western Sudan are within range, as the F-16s fly, of both North Africa and the Middle East.
Perhaps there is something wrong with this idea. Perhaps one has missed something, and just doesn't understand.
Well, what could that be? Might it be hat it makes too much obvious sense?
Man-o-man....is it just me or can you folks all hear a massive sigh from the dhimmi-liberal mainstream media silently wishing
"If only these bloody, inconvenient black Sudanese refugees would simply die and go away..... Imean, they ain't Palestinians now, so what's the fuss about anyway?"
Duh!