Africans vote to keep UN force out of Darfur

Africa the longterm source of Islamic slaves and the feeding ground for Muslim slavers for more than a millenium cuts its own throat in the usual national self interest decision which has helped to massacre millions since gneral African self rule.

Does anyone remember the African slaughter of Muslims in east Africa after independence(eg Zanzibar)? (remember the movie "Africa Addio"?)How money helps to change sides.

Do some of them get a cut from the Sudanese slavery markets? Certainly there has to be oil money at work here somewhere. Anyone know any fine detail?

again no more aid without strings attached..they will soon change their tunes.. but oh the media will blast all the suffering the tv news...most men's problems are caused by criminal government, ruling pwoers that are corrupt such as Zimbawe. money does alot for change when it is used with care.

That's the answer...send the UN in there, all the bloodhed and religious tensions will end shortly thereafter. We all know how good the UN is at solving problems....

Doesn't Mr. Fitzgerald support military intervention in Sudan? If so, why Sudan and not Iraq?

It's definitely more damning behavior on the part of the Sudanese gov't-- no genocide, nothing to see here, move along, people.

But if/when the UN gets into Darfur, which UN member nations go in will make a difference, as well. Seems like much of the OIC nations-- particularly ones nearby-- would have a quite a conflict of interest in "protecting" unbelievers and/or non-Arabs.

You notice Muslims never have much to say about Darfur,they are always playing the victim but make sure that there dirty work in the Sudan doesn,t get much attention.

"Doesn't Mr. Fitzgerald support military intervention in Sudan? If so, why Sudan and not Iraq?"

I am for any kind of intervention, or sometimes, a wise Kutuzov-like "retreat" that will cause the enemy to collapse on his own, that will ned with the camp of Islam being weakened.

It was not irrational to support the invasion of Iraq, so as to determine whether major weaponry (I am trying not to use the initials WMD) existed, to seize and destroy what was found and to disrupt weapons projects. Saddam Hussein was a supporter of terrorism even if wary of Al Qaeda; he had rediscovered Islam, no doubt for poltical purposes. It scarcely mattered. He was a menace, as would be any Muslim state -- Egypt, say, or Saudi Arabia -- that acquired such weaponry and none should be prevented from doing so. It is not only the behavior of whatever regime is now in power. It is the behavior of the regime that will overturn or follow it, and the one after that. It is the people not in the government, but possiby able to divert weaponry for their own uses, or to the use of Muslim terrorists outside the country.

Intervention in Iraq was rational, for a limited time. That time passed more than two years ago, and the irrationality of remaining, the misallocation of resources that continues -- of men, money, materiel, and attention -- and the failure to exploit, by leaving, the two most important matters that could divide and demoralize the camp of Islam, the camp of Jihad, that is sectarian and ethnic hostilites, maddens, and maddens more the more we hear civilian leaders and generals "deplore the specter of civil war." Are they crazy? Do they deplore the Iran-Iraq War? Do they wish it had never occurred? Do they deplore the proxy war in the 1960s between Egypt and Saudi Arabia, leftists and monarchists, in the Yemen? Do they deplore the Morocco-Algeria contretemps? Do they hope that somehow the Hezbollah in Lebanon will stay there and make peace everyone, or do they hope, rather, that the Hezbollah will be drawn in to a Shi'a-Sunni conflict within Iraq, and without?

As for the Sudan, that's a completely differnt matter. The Sudanese south consists of black Africans who, because they were not Muslims, were killed or deliberately starved to death for twenty years. The Sudanese west, Darfur, contains black Africans who, because they are not Arab Muslims, but merely black Africna Muslims, can be looted, raped, murdered at will, and then driven into Chad, and then even in Chad the government-approved and government-sponosred Janjaweed (that government being the Arab Muslims of Khartoum) are determined to continue looting, raping, killing, seizing cattle, burning down villages.

There are 140,000 American soldiers in Iraq now preventing, or trying to prevent, those sectarian and ethnic fissures that, in fact, would work in the favor of Infidels. Every act, every expenditure, of men or money or materiel, should be considered in one light: does it weaken Islam? Does it strengthen, even if only by buying time, Infidels in Western Europe and North America? Failure to exploit the situation in Iraq weakens us, drains us economically, lessens public support for a war that will go on, and must, without foreseeable end (just as it was impossible to foresee an end to the Cold War, but that did not mean it should not have been undertaken).

Pictures of black faces surrounding the 5,000, not 140,000, troops who have come to Darfur to rescue them. Pictures of American soldiers offloading aid from transport planes. Pictures of the Arabs of the Arab League insisting that the Americans get out because, obviously, they have no problem with the massacres in Darfur and want no Infidel intervention (save when it is completely useless, as now with the African troopos). And then remaining there, for the referendum -- in Darfur and while we are at it, the south that supposedly has come to an agreement that will, of course, be broken by the Arab Muslim government just as soon as it thinks it can get away with it.

Remaining in Iraq weakens us and fails to exploit a way to weaken the camp of Islam. Not intervening in Darfur and the Sudan fails to exploit a situation that is made for the televisison cameras. And the alarm among the Arabs, as parts of what they consider to be Dar al-Islam are broken off in bits, and their inability to justify continued massacre of black Africans, will be there for all to see.

What is Amr Moussa of the Arab League going to do? Will he insist that those blacks in Darfur go back to being killed, or the blacks in the southern Sudan not be polled in a referendum to see what they would like?

What would the U.N. do, even though it has been penetrated by the Islamintern International? And what the E.U., whose members are beginning to see the light about Islam?

Iraq and the Sudan are two completely different situations. One requires huge numbers of troops,and those troops are getting in the way of achieving what an intelligent policy, one not based on sentimentalism and ignorance of Islam and of Iraq, would try to achieve. The other requires far less, and would be a public relations victory, and help to split black Africa, or the Christian parts, even more from the Muslims. Nor should one ignore the possible effects, all to the good, as black residents who have been targetted for Da'wa in the United States, England, and France, are vividly reminded of how the Arab supremacist ideology within Islam has always caused blacks, even if Muslim, to be ill-treated, even murdered.

Not a bad outcome, for a few thousand troops in Sudan. And withdrawal from Iraq will lead to another good outcome -- good for Infidels, not for Muslims. Our interests differ. This is the thing that George Bush cannot quite comprehend.

Well if the Africans can not oppose genocide so as to accomodate Islam, then they will just be killed off. Untill the Africans care about Africans then there is not much we can do about Africa. This is true of aids, famine , political dictatorships you name it, all our efforts are undermined by the Africans themselves.

Remember Solmalia? How are they faring now that the " evil Americans " left after the Mogudhishu battle of Black Hawk Down infammy? Another famine eh? Maybe they should call on Osama Bin Ladden to help them now.

---Nossy

Bush's people are raising the Dafur murders with the UN, something that Clinton totally ignored with Ruwanda. l wished Bush would be more vocal to stop the killing. lhave hopes for the new guy for the US UN post John Bolton. NATO can also be more vocal. look the rest of the world is ignoring Dafur such as China.

Has anyone noticed that in virtually all the major conflicts in the world, muslims are involved? And some people claim that these people are peaceful, open your eyes already! Let's not get involved in muslim conflicts. They slaughter eachother and save us the nasty job of getting involved in their conflicts.

I expect the African nations were ably supported by their Arab/islamic friends so that they can continue their lucrative slave trade in Darfur.
Where is the outcry from the imams and mullahs and other adherants to the cult sorry religion of peace to the horror that is going on ,on their doorstep. Oh sorry tens of thousands of deaths are in no way as important or worrying as a few cartoons.
Come on world see and feel the evil and hypocrisy in islam.....lets get rid of these bastards. I apologise for the word.