A courageous and clear-sighted editorial in the Dallas Morning News (thanks to LHK) skewers Muslim racism and hypocrisy over the killing of black Muslims by Arab Muslims in Darfur. Ultimately that killing is a manifestation of Arab supremacism, and the violent imperative from Khartoum to impose Wahhabism on the entire country.
Good for Osama bin Laden.You read that right. Good for him for revealing even more about the depth of al-Qaeda's depravity. In his latest audio dispatch, the terror mastermind declares that all good Muslims should defend the racist genocide that Arab Muslims in the government-backed Janjaweed militia are committing against the black African Muslims of Darfur. We hope this latest outrage will shake the confidence of Muslims who believe in al-Qaeda's cause.
Even better for the sake of moral clarity and action, Osama's Darfur declaration forces an issue that many of the world's Muslims have been avoiding. The al-Qaeda leader is exploiting a widely held view among Arab Muslims that the humanitarian crisis in Darfur is an invention of Jews and Christians who want to take over Muslim land.
Anyone who believes something that outrageous should talk to Salih Mahmoud Osman. He is a Darfurian Muslim and human rights lawyer who was in Dallas recently, sponsored by local Jewish groups, to talk about what is happening to his people. "Since this situation erupted, never once have we seen a single person from the Arab world or the Muslim community come and show sympathy for the survivors," Mr. Osman told us.
The vast majority of the world's Muslims are not Arabs, but rather Asians and Africans. Why are they acquiescing without protest to this Arab-led genocide against fellow Muslims? Does the silence from the Islamic world on Darfur mean that the world's Muslims agree with Osama bin Laden that it is more important to maintain a morally bankrupt unity against the so-called "crusader-Zionist" enemy than to stand up for defenseless people?
Read it all.
Begs the question, is Bin Laden in the Sudan and if so, how long has he been there?
In BBC World News one of the people involved in Darfur aid said that Arab Oil Countries had contributed nothing on aid to Darfur. This is not surprising really considering the ethnic makeup of Sudan with its arab domination.
“Osama bin Laden declares that the defense of Islam requires black Muslims to suffer and die under the Janjaweed jackboot. This is racism. This is genocide. There is much more that the West can and must do for the sake of the suffering Darfurians. But the question remains: Which side are the world's Muslims on?” (from the article)
The author questions why the world's large number of Asian and African Muslims don't say something about this ongoing genocide. I don't know enough about freedom of the press in those Muslim majority countries to pass judgement but I feel perfectly comfortable in asking that question closer to home, where the press is still free.
What are so-called “African”-Americans going to do about it? Where are their loud voices of protest? What did Christian African-Americans ever do when Christian black Africans were being exterminated by the Sudanese Muslims? What are Muslim African-Americans doing now about their black African Muslim brethren who are being slaughtered in Sudan? If so-called “African”-Americans couldn’t give a damn about what is happening to Africans then why do they even bother to put that “African” in front of American? What is the point? Are African-Americans going to forever base their identity on holding onto grievances against whites that are more or less history at this point while ignoring what is happening NOW to those with whom they claim identification? Is all this “African-Americanism” merely empty rhetoric?
Move the hell on and see what is happening NOW. As the author of this article states: “This is racism. This is genocide”. Have African-Americans been so completely and utterly brainwashed that they think that only the western white man has committed genocide historically and that only the western white man is capable of genocide today? That assumption would not only be historically incorrect but laughably racist as well. The proof is what is happening in Darfur today. History moves on. Time stops for no man, former victims included.
Now that George Clooney is running around talking about this Hollywood will pay more attention. When Clooney first came back from Sudan he was critical of America for not responding, but he seems to have been counceled and brought up to pace quickly. Clooney now points out that the U.N. is still debating (3 years now) the definition of the word "genocide". While Russia, China, and France are opposing America from doing something.
Comments coming from our "Syriana" producer even talked about "arabs" of course he has not used the word Islam or that the people dying are Christian. C.A.I.R. will be trying to stop Clooney before he makes those public statements. Hopefully, Clooney keeps a backbone and will progress with more disclosure.
Maybe Clooney can get the NAACP to join in, and while doing that call the Nation of Islam and the Black Panthers on the carpet and ask them why their religion is carrying out genocide. Genocide in accordance of the 1948 definition and the one we still use today. Clooney needs to remember as he calls for action in Sudan that Al-quida has stated they will bring the war to anyone coming into Sudan and the muslims insurgants too. So Clooney is "Out of the Box" with what he is messing with. So will he continue or will he back down?
Clooney - hah! He'll some how use Darfur to make America in general and GHW Bush in particular look bad. Everybody needs to remember that being handsome, well spoken, and charismatic does not necessarily mean that intelligence or good intentions are included in the personality mixture.
Word Perfect's spell checker gives looney as one of the suggested replacements for clooney.
"Since this situation erupted, never once have we seen a single person from the Arab world or the Muslim community come and show sympathy for the survivors,"
-- fro the article above, quoting a black African (Muslim) survivor of Arab massacres
And not a single syllable of protest came from the Arab League during the Anfal campaign in which 182,000 Kurds were killed by Arabs at the direction of Saddam Hussein. Nor from a single Arab, in or outside Iraq, save for Kanan Makiya (Samir Khalil)
And no one among all the so-called Arab intellectuals ever bothered to write about the treatment of the Berbers in Algeria, about the cultural and linguistic imperialism (including outlawing the public use of the Berber language, a law since repealed after great protests in Tizi-Ouzou and elsewhere). See the works of the Berber writer Kateb Yacine, who refused to write in Arabic and chose French -- his writings were, among other things, an expression of rage at the treatment meted out by the Arabs to the Berbers.
And no Arabs ever seemed to object to the way "the Arabs" treated the Afghanis as they lorded it over them in Afghanistan -- including Osama bin Laden.
And no Arabs seem to think it peculiar that non-Arab Muslims have been made to feel so inferior, as Muslims, that a great many of them, especially in Pakistan, claim false Arab lineages; why, every third Pakistani is a "Sayeed" and hence a supposed descendant of Muhammad.
These are all of a piece.
They all bespeak the most important aspect of Islam after its division of the world between Believer and Infidel. The second great division, within the camp of Islam itself, is between Arab Muslim and non-Arab Muslim. The contempt of the former for the latter is palpable: Kurds, Berbers, black African Muslims in Darfur have all been subject to discrimination, to persecution, all the way up to mass murder.
That should be one focus of a world-wide effort to weaken the camp of Islam: discussing how Islam is a vehicle for Arab supremacism. That effort is called Telling the Truth.
It isn't hard to do. And it will resonate in the minds of many non-Arab Muslims, whose resentments, if properly channeled, can be exploited in order to make life easier for Infidels.
If George Clooney is saying the things he is reported to be saying, and he means them, after his trip to Darfur, then every dig made here about that villa in Laglio, bought from Ferreira Heinz Kerry, and other outward and visible signs of salon Bolshevism, is hereby taken back.
If you US types want to catch Bin Laden maybe you should come to Australia and enlist the best shooter/marksman in the world. He is locked up in a Tasmanian jail.
His name is Martyn Bryant, and he rarely misses a head shot, and he is capable of taking out moving vehicles with 3 shots all less. He is also a mental retard, so he will be easy to manipulate (has the IQ of a 9 year old). According to our government he shoots better than anyone on Hollywood. In his Port Arthur massacre he shot 32 people (29 dead - all head shots) with 29 bullets.
Maybe you need to enlist him. He is better than any in our SAS....
Iv always though that Islam was nothing more than a trojan horse for Arab supremacy
thats why you get Somilians who think they are more "arab" than african
but then whats hapening now in Sudan probably happened in Somalia at one point
I agree, the silence of the African american population over this issue is deafening. I wish someone would just mention it, even briefly, to atract peoples attention
dont bet on that though, the same people who killed Malcolm X would probably kill them, too
Like with anything, the do-gooder, busybody, loud mouths are only interested when it's some white guy doing the bad stuff (oh, make that white, and Christian or Jewish). Non-whites and non-Christian/Jews can never be responsible for bad things.
If it's just so obvious you can't deny it or hide it anymore, then give it some vague label like "sectarian violence" or "rebel movements". Especially useful when Islam is involved. Never mention that it's Muslims doing it because of their Islamic beliefs, or that they're specifically targeting other religions.
But if it's some white guy, then bring up Christianity a lot. I know so many people who'll refer to McVeigh as a Christian. With Darfur, few know anything about the Muslim racist theme. The media doesn't really help matters by defining it as such. Most people think it's just those Africans again, a tribal thing, due to white colonialists messing up their peaceful, tranquil prior existence.
Gabriel came to Muhammad and said, "If a black man comes to you his heart is more gross than a donkey’s."
--- God's commandment in Koran 9:61
This week's latest episode of the long-running highly popular American medical drama, ER, in its scenes about the African-American Doctor Pratt going off to Darfur to join Dr. Carter who had run off to do his part helping victims of the refugee camps, showed two scenes that were surprisingly politically incorrect: one of a Janjaweed horseman imperiously kicking Dr. Pratt's black African guide in the face; the second of a mass beating to death of a man by a group of men who at least came across in their dress as Muslim or even Muslim clerics -- with the final death-blow dealt by a boy wielding a boulder to crush the victim's head. The Muslim context, of course, was only hinted at throughout the show: as Pratt is on the plane going there, there are Saudi-looking Muslims here and there among the seats; when he arrives at the main center in Darfur to meet his contact, she (a white American doctor) in trying to find him amid the usual tumult of arrivals and departures goes up to an official and addresses him with the characteristic Muslim greeting before requesting that her doctor friend be ushered through.
Considering the usual fare of American television dramas where nothing Muslim shows up unless it is to pedagogically instruct the American viewer condescendingly in the sins of discrimination (I've seen many such plot lines on major American TV dramas in the past 5 years), this week's ER was a mild, ephemeral breeze in the arid desert.
"... God's commandment in Koran 9:61.."
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at April 29, 2006 08:40 AM
There is no God in the Koran. Only Mohammed's fantasies and perverted claims. Leave God out of it....
Juan Cole argued, correctly for a change, that the Janjanweed are black-skinned too, like their victims. But Cole didn't deny the mass murder going on there, if I rightly remember his words.
Bin Laden or somebody called for Muslim insurgent activity against foreign troops in Sudan. Let's recall that the late 19th-century Revolt of the Mahdi in Sudan was a war to bring back the slave trade, to restore the Muslim right to raid non-Muslims for slaves, as a rightful part of jihad [the British had curtailed the slave trade in Sudan through political pressure on Egypt which controlled northern Sudan at that time]. Yet the Mahdi Revolt is admired by many of the Third-Worldist persuasion as an example of a Third-World revolt against Western colonialism. Indeed, the Mahdi revolt was in favor of Arab-Islamic colonialism and imperialism. And in favor of slavery of course.
So why didn't Juan Cole stop belaboring the obvious and lead his phalanxes against the mass murder in Dar Fur perpetrated by the Arab-Muslim govt of the country?
Anyone hear of this planned protest Tens of Thousands Expected for DC Demonstration Against Darfur Genocide Of course not because it wasn't reported by Mike Weiner Savage, Rush Limpballs or Bill (works for Prince Walid) Oreilly.
However, is being organized by (gasp, hold onto your seats) the antiwar, pro Democracy left.
Now let's see the appropriate reaction from the right, since the left is protesting the Sudan Genocide, then by all previous standards and measures conservatives (the right) should defend the Darfur genocide, that's the way it always works isn't it? If the left is against something then the right MUST be for it, and vice versa.
Hugh said "If George Clooney is saying the things he is reported to be saying, and he means them, after his trip to Darfur, then every dig made here . . . is hereby taken back."
That's one BIG IF.
Nariz: "Now let's see the appropriate reaction from the right, since the left is protesting the Sudan Genocide, then by all previous standards and measures conservatives (the right) should defend the Darfur genocide, that's the way it always works isn't it?"
Are you f**cking kidding me? You are aware, I suppose, that this Republican adminstration has tried to get this labeled "genocide", while the U.N. (that political body controlled by the Muslim -Arab block that the left adores) balked. You do get that - right?
What I am aware of is that our elected representatives declared it a genocide, but Bush balked at the word genocide. for good reason his friends at Exxon Mobil work the oil wells of Sudan.
That's what I know, and you can confirm that with google, if it pleases you.
Nariz: "but Bush balked at the word genocide."
No - the Bush administration did not balk at the word "genocide":
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3641820.stm
Still getting it wrong, eh, nariz/nose? Still hyperventilating over Christians in the shadows?
Still getting it wrong, eh, nariz/nose? Still hyperventilating over Christians in the shadows?
Typical of this thing to duplicate....
Sorry I dont support Nariz's leftist ideology but she is right. Bush has done nothing and as a result he has lost all credibility in fighting islamic terrorism. I think Powell floated the word genocide but I am sure it is not official. If Bush wants world support for an attack on Iran to prevent a possible genocide. Why not stop a genocide that is actually happening.
I have the seen the janjaweed identified as Arab on the msm, but I don't recall hearing Islam connected with it.
Another thing. The mass murder of Southern Sudanese has been going on --off and on-- since 1956. But the great powers didn't care. Let's see if they start to really do something.
Bush has had numerous opportunities in the past year alone to put our enemies on the psycho-moral defensive and has failed to do so. With the Mohammed cartoon controversy; with Abdul Rahman; with Iran's threats to exterminate Israel; and now with the Darfur genocide. Each time Bush could have seized on any of these, addressed the nation in prime-time, and given a ringing, powerful speech to show how our principles--Western democratic principles--are opposed to these things happening, and to demand of Muslims everywhere how they stand on these things and why. IOW, the equivalent of Reagan's "Tear down this wall!" speech.
But Bush has failed to do so, each time. Probably because to do so would be inconsistent with his theory that Islam is a Religion of Peace and only the terrorists have "hijacked" it. (That theory is clearly not going to work in the above cases.)
I used to think this was Bush's naive but well-intentioned attempt to flatter the majority of Muslims and lure them away from supporting the terrorists. But now I think Bush really does believe it. And that's disturbing.
Hello everyone,
My theory as to why Bush et. al. aren't doing anything about Darfur is because that's where the oil is and this conflict is about oil just like the conflict between Morocco and Spain over oil in the "Spanish" Shara.
And as far as I know Osama has been dead for years, everyone knows that the man had kidney failure and if he is alive he's chilling out with Elvis.
daddyphil,
as far as I know, the oil is in southern Sudan, not in Dar Fur which is in the Western Sudan. Furthermore, maybe oil is part of an explanation for all sorts of things. But just how do you connect oil to tolerance of the Dar Fur massacres? Is oil an independent actor with a mind of its own? Just what do you mean by "oil" being the reason for anything?