| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Osama bin Laden is now attacking the government in Khartoum, decrying the permission given by the fanatical Arab Muslims in Khartoum to the "infidels" -- i.e., allowing in some completely ineffective troops from the African Union to "keep the peace" in Darfur.
He needn't worry. Turabi is still Turabi, and the Muslims of Khartoum are just as fanatically vicious as they ever were. They are just willing to be a bit more mindful of Muhammad's "war is deception" as they attempt to diminish Western pressure on them. Hence that "peace treaty" with the Christians and animists in the southern Sudan, which "treaty" is, of course, merely a hudna or "truce" treaty and, for the past six months at least, has been grossly violated by the Sudanese government -- and with seeming indifference by the Western powers, which content themselves with the notion that there is now an agreement, a "peace agreement," in the southern Sudan, and they can all forget about that part of the Sudan.
In Darfur, the Sudanese government has made sure that the troops will only be from the African Union, and has repeatedly said that not a single Western soldier will be allowed in. In other words, there will be no force effective enough to smash the Janjaweed, and protect the black Africans being killed for the crime of being black African, rather than Arab, Muslims.
Osama Bin Laden and his Arabs famously treated the Afghani Muslims with indifference, or contempt. The Arabs, after all, are the "best of peoples" to whom the Qur'an was given, and -- so Muslims believe -- in Arabic. In his remarks on the Sudan, he reveals his indifference to, or rather his tacit approval of, the mass murdering of black Africans. That is not surprising. What is surprising is how this is overlooked by the entire Western world, including those -- such as Nicholas Kristof -- who write about the Sudan without any mention, much less understanding, of either Islam, or that aspect of Islam that makes it a vehicle for Arab cultural, linguistic, economic, and political imperialism. That subject is too difficult and too troubling for the heart-on-sleeves (and Pulitzers carefully pocketed) likes of Nicholas Kristof and others like him, who can report, who can be mere reporters, full of their easy anguish, but who cannot make sense, for themselves much less for others, of what it is they have been reporting on. They cannot explain the promptings, the attitudes, the atmospherics, that move the people who run the government in Khartoum. They cannot explain the Arab Muslim view of non-Arab Muslims. Don't expect someone on the mental level of Nicholas Kristof to conceivably be able to make a connection between the massacres of Kurds by Arabs in Iraq, and the cultural and linguistic imperialism of the Arabs directed at the Berbers in Algeria, and what is happening in Darfur, where he reports so much and understands so little.
No, Bin Laden doesn't have to worry about the Turabi government in Khartoum. They know exactly how to delay any day of reckoning.
But what of the American government? Does it realize what an opportunity it is missing by not sending a few thousand troops to seize all of the southern Sudan, with its oil, that would allow that region to pay for itself, and deny those oil revenues to the Arabs in the north? They could also send troops to Darfur, and hold both regions until a referendum on independence can be held. That would be a blow for "freedom" and "democracy" that, unlike in Iraq, might actually mean something. For the southern Sudanese are not Muslims, and those in Darfur are nominal Muslims who, having had a taste of the Arab Muslim attitudes, might be willing to listen to the message of Christianity. Already hundreds of refugees from Darfur have apparently, once out of the Sudan, converted to Christianity. Quite an opportunity presents itself for the American government to draw a line against further Arab (and Egyptian Arab) expansion further south. That expansion threatens Ethiopia and Kenya and the rest of the littoral, including Tanzania, which is where the old Arab slave trade had its entrepots, at Pemba and Zanzibar, to ship those black slaves to the Arab slave markets of Muscat, and beyond.
But Tarbaby Iraq gets in the way. It gets in the way of properly dealing with Iran's nuclear project. It gets in the way of domestic surveillance that is amply justified. It gets in the way of thinking clearly about the future of the Western countries now subject to demographic assault from within. It gets in the way of considering the Jihad as a worldwide phenomenon, one for which terrorism is the least effective of its weapons.
Bin Laden needn't worry about the Sudan. The government there knows exactly what it needs to do to protect the Arab Muslim position, and it has already violated the "peace agreement" with the south in ways that, if Bin Laden knew, would leave him well-satisfied. And they are doing much the same, or trying to, in Darfur.
Those who need to worry about the Sudan are the Infidels. Why has the American government not yet taken the step -- the "humanitarian" step -- of rescuing the black Africans of Darfur and the southern Sudan? Why has it not allowed its troops to be deployed effectively, instead of ineffectively -- to attain exactly the wrong goals -- in Iraq? Why has it not created a situation in which the Arab League would have to denounce the Americans (and other Western troops) for protecting those who would be obviously grateful to the Americans for ending the mass murder, by Arabs, of black Africans? (See those photographs of smiling black faces surrounding their saviors and protectors?) What better way to drive a wedge between Arabs and sub-Saharan Africa? What better way to bring to the attention of black Americans, one group long targeted for sinister campaigns of Da'wa, that the Arabs conducted a slave trade that lasted far longer (indeed lasts to this day, despite Western efforts to end it) and claimed far more victims (see "The Hideous Trade") than the Atlantic slave trade? The Qur'an permanently recognizes the institution of slavery (and Saudi clerics have restated that position repeatedly). The fury of the Arab League over the rescue of black Africans in Darfur or southern Sudan ought to tell us all a great deal about the real attitudes and intentions of the Arabs.
The Sudan presents a great opportunity to weaken the Camp of Islam and Jihad, through a very small deployment and application of force. Iraq, on the other hand, presents a great opportunity to weaken the Camp of Islam not through the bringing of "democracy" and keeping the country together, but by the removal of American troops, in order that the pre-existing fissures, sectarian and ethnic, may work themselves out, as they inevitably will.
There is no contradiction here between a policy of removal in Iraq and intervention in Sudan. Both measures would contribute to weakening the Jihad. And that is, or should be, the goal.
Posted by Hugh at October 28, 2007 8:25 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
It all sounds so simple. A couple of thousand Americans to do what several Million Africans seem unwilling to do.
Like Kristof won't turn on the Forces we send the minute they kill somebody.
Posted by: flowerknife_us![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 28, 2007 9:26 AM
The current wave of fighting in Darfur has claimed the lives of about 400,000 people, four times as many as were killed by the Asian Tsunami.
Which have the media given more attention to?
Another point:
An organisation like Amnesty International reports on what is happening in Darfur but never tells you why.
A major problem with something like AI.
at October 28, 2007 9:34 AM
"It all sounds so simple..."
-- from a posting above
"like Kristof won't turn on..."
The spectacle of American soldiers protecting black Africans from murderous Arabs -- how would Kristof attack that? On what basis, given the twenty years of mass murder of Christians and animists in the south, and now four or five years of uninterrupted killings by the government-sponsored Janjaweed in Darfur, and after many months in which troops from the African Union (a few thousand, not "millions") have proved incapable of providing such protection, would all the kristofs in the world be able to protest? What could Islam-appeasing bureaucrats at the E.U. do, without being laughed at? Or the U.N., in solemn conclave assembled, where Muslim Arabs would, in their attempts to make the Sudan, and East Africa, and All of Africa, Safe for Arab Islam, finally behave in such a manner that everyone, including the most advanced non-Arab Muslims, would begin to achieve a new understanding of Islam. And that understanding, which the fulminating Amr Moussa, foamaing at the mouth at a meeting of the Arab League, would not be able to prevent, would be this:
Islam, despite its universalist claims, arises out of the Arab need for a vehicle for Arab imperialism -- linguistic, culturual, economic, and political. Islam in fact is the most successful, and complete form of imperialism, one that causes those conquered to forget their own histories, their own identitites, languages, cultures, and as much as possible, to ape the manners and customs of seventh-century Arabs. It is the Arabs who are the "best of peoples" for Allah revealed the Qur'an to them, and in their language. Muslims everywhere must read (and memorize as much as possible) the Qur'an in Arabic; only in the last century did Ataturk break that tradition by commissioning a Turkish Qur'an, and still the "real" Qur'an is that which remains untranslated, in the Arabic (or Arabic with a substratum of Aramaic, if Christoph Luxenberg's arguments are to be accepted).
Along with support for the Kurds, and for Berbers in their attempts to obtain decent treatment from their Arab masters in North Africa, American suppoort should go to the non-Muslims and non-Arab Muslims of Sudan.
Who will object to using American power tro rescuing from death and destruction the black Africans of Darfur and the southern Sudan? Hillary Clinton? Barack Obama?
at October 28, 2007 9:58 AM
I must admit, Hugh, it sounds good. But. You ask: who will object to rescuing the black Africans of the southern Sudan? Probably the same people who objected to our "rescue" of the Iraqis from Saddam in the Bush I war, and had us withdraw before he was overthrown. And the same people who objected to our attempt to rescue the Indo-Chinese countries from conquest by the North Vietnamese, and had us withdraw and leave several hundred thousand South Vietnamese and over a million Cambodians to be murdered by the Communists. And the same people who, for over 40 years, opposed every American attempt, such as the neutron bomb or the ABM, to contain Soviet imperialism. There are plenty of people, largely on the Left, who hate America, and the West, and Christianity.
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying it's a bad idea. It's probably a better use for our troops than having them stay in Iraq. But there will be plenty of objectors.
at October 28, 2007 10:58 AM
I just hope the American public doesn't heed the drum beat to send our troops into Darfur.
It's all right to feel sorry for the suffering people in Darfur, to send them food and medical supplies, but we should know by now that our soldiers would be welcome as liberators for about one week, and after that, they'll be Infidels and crusaders soiling the sacred land of Islam.
Stay as far away from the Islamic world as possible.
Posted by: rational at October 28, 2007 11:54 AM
Krystof tops ebonystones list.
One would think "Black Africa" would have got the point already. Considering it has been going on for 20 years already. Where is the evidence that Africa as a whole has done more to defend themselfs?
Are we to expect that a couple of thousand US Troops are more willing to kill the enemy than the 20 thousand "peace keepers" of African Nationality? When Black Africa showes itself willing to defend itself from the threat it faces is when we should consider getting Militarly involved. Give them some weapons and lets see what they are willing to do. Then we can see if further involvement is warrented.
Posted by: flowerknife_us at October 28, 2007 12:00 PM
Yes, there is oil in southern Sudan, which has been a bone of contention between Khartoum and the south: the Islamofascist government has refused to equitably distribute the income from it to the south. We shouldn't hesitate to invade the south and make sure that the oil doesn't go to to the Islamic north, as well as ensure autonomy and protection for the southerners.
As for Iraq, we should pull back, but not from the oil regions; they are much too important to allow to fall to the Muslims.
at October 28, 2007 12:28 PM
"It's all right to feel sorry for the suffering people in Darfur, to send them food and medical supplies, but we should know by now that our soldiers would be welcome as liberators for about one week, and after that, they'll be Infidels and crusaders soiling the sacred land of Islam."
-- from a posting above
The poster has ignored two things.
First, the black African Muslims of Darfur have been on the receiving end of Arab Muslim supremacism, expressed in terms that would make David Duke blush, and murderous behavior that would make Johannes von Leer proud. They know they must identify themselves, think of themselves, as "Muslims" but beyond that, a number of Darfurian refugees in the West, in their willingness to listen to Christian missionaries, suggest that the commitment of black Africans in Darfur to Islam is not unwavering -- and why should it be, after what they have endured at the hands of Arab Muslims, or those who think of themselves as Arab Muslims? These black Africans are very different from the meretricious and grasping Sunni and Shi'a Arabs playing the Americans for all they are worth, and exhibiting not the slightest real or permanent gratitude.
Second, the humanitarian mission is not confined to Darfur but should also, and necessarily, for logistic reasons, must, include the southern Sudan, which also is peopled by black Africans who are, however, not Muslims but Christians and animists. And the two groups have more in common, or can be made to feel more in common, as the common recipients of murderous treatment at the hands of Muslim Arabs.
What could be better, what more intelligent a use of American power -- and not very much power -- than a mission that, no one save the Arab League can deny, has great and obvious humanitarian goals? And at the same time, such a mission will be geopolitically astute, for it will clearly signal the Amerian or even, possibly, the Western will to halt the steady advance of Islam down through East Africa. Egypt has only pretended to be serving as a brake on the behavior of the Sudanese government, just enough fakery to satisfy the ever-credulous American officials who cannot quite see Egypt as the malevolent force it is (it's much the same game with Egypt's supposed usefulness in putting pressure on the "Palestinians"). Egypt's Muslims, and other Arabs, are delighted that over the past half-century they have steadily islamized, largely through murder and deliberate starvation, so much of the Sudan, so that its demographic makeup has changed, and Egypt looks beyond Sudan to Ethiopia, the famous Christian kingdom, and its steady demographic changes in favor of local Muslims, and of course the coming Water Wars in East Africa, in which Egypt will try to prevent Ethiopia from diverting any of the headwaters of the Nile (a river to which Egypt lays virtual claim, from its debouchment at the delta in Alexandria, all the way back beyond the fifth, the sixth, the seventh cataracts, all the way to its source in the lakes, that old-fashioned African couple named Victoria and Albert Nyanza. Calling a halt to this, in such a way that cannot be convincingly opposed -- unless the Arabs claim a divine right to continue persecuting and murdering black Africans, which might be a little hard even for the BBC and The Guardian to swallow (though don't worry -- they'll do their unlevel best to make the Arab Muslim case) -- could be a significant measure.
It would drive Bin Laden, and Al-Qaradawi, and the Sheik al-Azhar, and all the Arabs mad. And it would rip the veil from Islam a little bit more, exposing it as merely a vehicle for Arab imperialism. And that will be useful among the Berbers in both North Africa and in France. It will be useful as far away as Indonesia. And in the Infidel lands, it can be a source of great discomfort among Muslim missionaries now carefully conducting their Da'wa, virtually unopposed, among black prisoners, and other minorities whom those Da'wa campaigners have targetted for their efforts.
Think of that "country Muslim from Norfolk, Virginia" Mahdi Bray. He'd have a little explaining to do, wouldn't he, if he chose to denounce an American effort to rescue black Africans from Arab Muslims in the Sudan?
Wouldn't he?
Posted by: Hugh at October 28, 2007 12:30 PM
...will the moronic "human shields" make an appearance in Darfur should the west decide to step in?.....will Michael Moore make a movie "Death in Darfur" should the west decide to step in....Will Osama Bin-laden release "a new vider" calling for the masses to rise up and attack what ever moves should the west decide to step in?....will John Murtah, Nancy Pelosi, Charles Rangel, Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid, John Dean, Charles Shumer, Teddy Kennedy, John Dean, Hilliary Clinton, Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, Dick Durbin, John Kerry, Al Gore, Diane Feinstein, Robert Byrd, Christopher Dodd, Patrick Leahey, Jim Webb or others who are declaring the fight on terrorism is a lost cause stand up for support for the poor embattled people in Darfur....time will tell..
...while scratching their butts, they should vote to ban Muslim Immigration...
Posted by: exsgtbrown at October 28, 2007 12:31 PM
If one kind of Muslim wants to kill another kind of Muslim it is certainly NOT a concern of non-Muslims. Cut off the oil, cut off the Jizya, let them drown in their own Muslim blood without any help from us.
If Israel rescues Sudanese Muslims as some bleeding hearts want to (in a country where holocaust survivors go hungry) the children of those Muslims will become a fifth column along with Israels Arabs in due time. Maybe not, but any bets?
Posted by: poetcomic1 at October 28, 2007 1:44 PM
Hugh,
Very thoughtful post, but I still feel that we should be very careful about anymore involvement -- especially military involvement -- in the Islamic world. Even if the persecuted people of Darfur were grateful to us for saving them from oppression, it's unlikely that the rest of the Muslim world would view us in the same light. To them, we would be Infidel invaders on sacred Islamic soil. It wouldn't be rational, but then, when dealing with Muslims, we should know by now that that thinking rationally is not one of their strong points.
Any thought that Muslims care about the plight of the people of Darfur is pure nonsense. They don't care about them anymore than they care about the Palestinians. It's all about Islam vs Infidels.
As for Arab persecution of Black Africans in Sudan, It doesn'r really exist. The so-called Arabs that are persecuting the Black people of Darfur, are as Black as the people they are persecuting. For some historical reason, which I can't explain, the Blacks of Northern Sudan took to calling themselves Arabs, when in fact, they're not Arabs at all. They are Black Africans killing other Black Africans.
I still feel that we should be very reluctant to get involved in Sudan are any other Muslim country. We're Infidels. They're Muslims. That's the way they see it.
Posted by: rational
at October 28, 2007 2:17 PM
Provide the Infidels of Africa the weapons necessary to defend themselfs. Providing they wish to defend themselfs. Africa needs to make that choise. Africa needs to make the effort. Africa needs to show the desire. Africa needs to go first with an effort worth our support.
If Oil revenue to the Muslims is a problem, then a few of our Cruse Missiles shot at the right infrastructure should cut their tap.
Get Congress and the Presidency to stop Aid to Muslim Countrys and transfer it to African Infidels.
I would think that among the Refugess we help feed, there should be enough individuals willing to bear arms against their transgressors. For some reason this simple solution seems to get lost in the BS. The UN Model of Peace Keepers unable to keep the peace while, insuring the continued destitution of the inflicted has got to stop.
Africa was willing to shed its own Blood to rid themselfs of Western Colonial Domination. So what reason is there for the Bums rush to save them from the consequences of past decisions. By what reason do we put impediments in their way preventing their own defence. To the point where US combat Forces need be deployed?
If the UN is preventing Infidel Africa from defending themselfs then one needs to remove the UN.
Ironic that the UN keeps a major portion of a Continent dependent upon itself. With the blessings of a large Muslim voting block insuring that nothing more than subsistant life is attainable. While they themselfs contribute nothing.
Arm the Infidel and get rid of the UN. See what happens.
It is not time for US Boots.
at October 28, 2007 4:02 PM
Thought provoking Hugh.
Thinking of Osi's last video - The one thing about Osi that strikes one is the extent to which he is a realist (after all his forte has been engineering) and he knows that with 50 Jihadis a day killed or captured by our side in Iraq spells defeat there for his sunni sepremicist boys. That is why his followers are pissed off at Al Jazeera (but not yet at him). He sees the writing on the wall.
Probably the main reason we haven't been attacked big time again by Al Qaida is because Osi would have to pull a more spectacular job than 9/11 - for the PR and for his rep. But now he sees he is losing in Iraq, will he get more desperate, and foregoing still withholding his hand until the Dems can for him hopefully win on the next US election, will he be tempted to try and pull off another biggie to turn the momentum going against him and his movement at present ?
If he moves now he further alienates the US and helps a Republican win. But if he is losing so badly that he feels he has to act, then we can expect an attempt at another biggie.
Posted by: dgene at October 28, 2007 4:10 PM
It is amazing how Arab racism ("the best peoples" who God gave the Quaran in Arabic) is so strong that many of the Sudanese mass murderers look like they also have some or a lot of Negro African ancestry. Yet they identify exclusively with Arabs, though they don't look like Semite-Caucasians (e.g. presently dead Areafat types).
The Arabs are a very racist people. They don't practice what they preach. They decieve on race, too. For example, they accuse Israel of being "apartheid" and yet there is real apartheid in Saudi-A-Totolitarian-Gas-Station and Arabs support mass murder of the Negro Africans in Darfur. I guess they think "Muslim Arabs only" should have gas.
One of the problems with intervention is that we must kiss the ass of the people at the family owned gas station. The Left would also chime in that any intervention in Sudan is about "oil". But we are throwing these poor misfortunates to the Arab wolves in not making the world safe for Infidels in Darfur.
Posted by: Frank at October 28, 2007 4:12 PM
"Get Congress and the Presidency to stop Aid to Muslim Countrys and transfer it to African Infidels".-Flower
More easily said than done. A barrel of oil may go well over $100 and that would hit our economy hard. In this sub-prime mortgage lending liquidity crisis the Central-Bank-Fed should be drastically cutting interest rates. They did cut it by 50 basis points recently and may do so again at the next meeting. But they are spooked by the inflationary pressures that could come from oil well over $100 bucks a barrel. That concern (and the concern with the dollar) is why Laura Bush was recently over at the Saudi-A-Totolitarian-Gas-Station. It wasn't about breast cancer.
We are paying a terrible price for not going to alternative energy (nuclear, etc.). I think this is the key to it all.
Posted by: Frank at October 28, 2007 4:33 PM
"What could be better, what more intelligent a use of American power -- and not very much power -- than a mission that, no one save the Arab League can deny, has great and obvious humanitarian goals"?-Hugh
You are right. But they will push oil to over $100 a barrell. This would be a no brain-er if it were only about humanitarian concern. The problem here is rooted with the family owned gas station. I have come to the conclusion that the relationship with them is the hinge holding up all the rotten doors. They are the home of the evil spirit that compromises American politicians, Armstrong style pets, CAIR, etc. and that evil smell coming from the evil spirit at the Saudi-A-Totolitarian-Gas-Station even reaches into Darfur to murder Negro Africans by ass-kissing Africans who think they are Arabs.
We must go to alternative energies.
Posted by: Frank at October 28, 2007 5:12 PM
The same loss of self-respect that causes people in India (Pakistan-up-my-real-ancestry-and-send it-to-Arabia) to use Arab names is the same reason why obviously part or wholly Negro Africans are killing other Negro Africans. I guess they all want to be Semite-Caucasians that look like Areafat. It's sad. Who the hell wants to look like Areafat (who is presently dead)?
Posted by: Frank at October 28, 2007 5:19 PM
The same process goes on with Robert E. Umar Lee (Who claims Spencer is a racist as Umar uses racial slurs on an black American police officer), Fibrahim Hooper, and other non-Arabs. You got to hand it to the Arabs: they are really good at making their racism look like a disinterested principal of "inclusion". It's an amazing hat trick.
Posted by: Frank at October 28, 2007 5:23 PM
Invading southern Sudan has much more going for it than Iraq or Afghanistan ever did. What puzzles me is why Bush doesn't go for it - I would think a lot of the Dems would like the idea, being pro-black. I guess the humanitarian appeal does not trump the lack of a clear security rationale. Of course, preventing Islamic expansion into Africa is a good excuse.
Posted by: jewdog at October 28, 2007 6:16 PM
Hmmmm, one thing I noticed of OBL & his lackeys hypocrisy (remember all the obsessions about "it's all about oil!" "Halliburton!" "Greed!" and all that rot)...
http://moneynews.newsmax.com/money/archives/articles/2006/11/17/094915.cfm
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=6478AC07-8985-413C-AC49-14F547D3C2ED
where's the islamicommie fanatical umbrage and mouth-foaming vitriol over THOSE "infidels raping the land and stealing oil"...hmmmmm?
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2005/04/evil_china_mone.html
Oh, yeah, forgot...they don't bite the hand that feeds them...weapons, that is.
I guess it depends on whose side you're on...
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2005/04/evil_china_mone.html
http://www.newsmaxstore.com/nms/showdetl.cfm?DID=6&Product_ID=889&CATID=13&GroupID=58&CFID=10912356&CFTOKEN=d2d98038702a0992-E8D1C30F-1372-63AB-A5E59B000F125DB5
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/1/31/84522.shtml
So much for bumper stickers...lol
Posted by: jcom972 at October 28, 2007 6:56 PM
Several posters above object to what they see as support for "humanitarian" intervention to save Muslims from other Muslims. They are missing the point. The Muslims being saved are, potentially, those who might be willing to abandon Islam, and the main reason for an Expeditionary Field Force (shades of Suakin) is to put a stop to the Muslim conquest of Sudan, south and west, and a further thrust southward. More Halford Mackinder than Mother Teresa, though in this case they may be considered to be usefully coupled. Geopolitics makes strange bedfellows.
Posted by: Hugh at October 28, 2007 8:47 PM
Sad to say, yes it does...
but the best part of it is OBL, ALQ & the entire islamist world showing hypocrisy of the nth degree like this...
a set of standards for china et al (like the SCO), and a set of standards to the west...
in direct conflict of their "no infidels on our lands" creed which was implied to be universal, now proven to be anything but...
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={7A7108AE-0ECF-4A65-BBC1-4FEC8C21C3B3}
...and more like "birds of a feather" instead...
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2005/08/china_russia_ir.html
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2005/04/evil_china_mone.html
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/003203.php
...and that's not the only one...
http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.109/pub_detail.asp
(though that's another thread/story)
taqqiyah by OBL...hypocrisy at its finest.
It doesn't get any better than that,
and it's coming home to roost for them, as
their own "empire" of evil is about to crimble,
just as the islamofascist house of cards is
amidst the IAW exposure.
Trying to make a liar out of Lincoln gets 'em every time.
Posted by: jcom972 at October 28, 2007 9:48 PM
An amazing hat trick you say? Not if you consider that Muslims are forgiven for lying if their lies protect Islam and further Islamic goals. There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim! They all read and have to obey the same Qur'an or be considered apostate! Only the courageous, like Hirsi Ali and Shoebat disobey.
Posted by: youngtimer at October 28, 2007 9:52 PM
Hugh,
You can't be serious. Keep the jingoism coming, and perhaps you'll find yourself a cushy job in Khartoum. They could use you there. Sudanese President 'Umar Bashir (architect of the genocide) has been trying for years to tie peacekeeping efforts to "anti-Islamofascism". So has Usama bin Laden. The two used to be good friends. I'm sure they would greatly enjoy your help in their lovely endeavor to butcher an entire population.
First of all, let's get this out of the way: Darfur includes Moslem on Moslem violence. I have not heard of one instance in which Janjaweed shouted Jihadi slogans as they pillaged their way through Blacks' homes.
I have heard many stories, however, of Janjaweed shouting "Kill the Black slaves!" or something similar. So there clearly is a racial element to this. As Darfur has become more and more fragmented, this narrative is also fading in importance. The model is no longer Rwanda 1994, but Congo 1996. There are at least six different rebel groups now, and their failure to coalesce has torpedoed a recent peace conference. Before the conference, Black rebels also attacked an AU outpost, while President Bashir declared a ceasefire.
Regarding the "rescue" of Black Sudanese Africans: President Bush has already done this. As word of the Darfur genocide was first spreading, U.S. ambassador John Danforth was in Khartoum putting the finishing touches on a North-South peace deal. This peace deal could have been better enforced on both sides, but so far, it has held. It would be best for everyone in Sudan to keep the peace.
But I gotta wonder, Hugh, are you an undercover Al Queda agent?! You seem to be endorsing all of Bin Laden's main talking points! He's been trying since 2004 to associate SaveDarfur with "Anti-Islamofascism", and he's been trying for even longer to open a global Jihadi front in the Horn of Africa. So far, he's failed, but you seem determined to have him succeed. Makes me wonder about where your loyalties REALLY lie...
Posted by: Shlomo_Michael at October 29, 2007 2:05 AM
http://www.darfurgenocide.org/
http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/sudan_genocide_genocide_in_sudan.php
http://www.lnsart.com/Sudan%20Slave%20Story.htm
Posted by: arjun.sevak at October 29, 2007 4:50 AM
"Witnessing Genocide In Sudan
Scott Pelley Reports On Refugee Crisis In Darfur Region
| Page 1 of 2
Aug. 28, 2005"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/08/60minutes/main648277.shtml
at October 29, 2007 4:54 AM
"CNN.com Probe into Sudan genocide claims"
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/africa/04/22/sudan.genocide/index.html
Posted by: arjun.sevak at October 29, 2007 4:57 AM
From Hugh:"There is no contradiction here between a policy of removal in Iraq and intervention in Sudan. Both measures would contribute to weakening the Jihad"
Yep. Good points. And it will cost the US next to nothing. Hell, the US won't even have to send in troops. The South Sudanese are a brave bunch who've fought off the Islamists despite being outgunned and outnumbered.
Send the Animists and Christians some surplus Uncle Sam gear. They'll put it to good use. Give the leadership as much spy satellite snaps etc too.
The cost? A fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the Iraq/Afghanistan chaos.
Everyone's a winner.
The Africans get their own state by force - I simply don't trust the Khartoum gov't to allow the south to have a vote on independence, I think the South Sudanese can only get freedom by using the gun - in the oil rich south and the West get to chalk up a big morale boosting victory against the crazies.
Posted by: ewha1 at October 29, 2007 6:08 AM
" I have not heard of one instance in which Janjaweed shouted Jihadi slogans as they pillaged their way through Blacks' homes...
Posted by: Shlomo_Michael "
“Today Islam is responsible for almost all of the human sufferings from war, persecution, and poverty, particularly in the country of Sudan.
“Since the 1983 start of the civil war in the southern Sudan more than 4 million people have been displaced, and an estimated over 2 million have been killed because Islam has declared the Holy War (Jihad) (Qur’an 9:5) against the non-Muslim black indigenous people. Islam is responsible for more than 100,000 children either killed or sold as slaves in Muslim homes. Islam is responsible for raping and kidnapping more than 50,000 women during the war (Qur’an 4:3). Islam is responsible for cutting hands and feet of hundreds of innocent people because Islamic laws were applied; bringing shame and infirmity to many families for the rest of their lives. Islam is responsible of abusing millions of women every day through beating, atrocious treatment and emotional deprivation because of the Islamic teaching (Qur’an 4:34).
“It is a shame for any African American to embrace Islam which makes them a participant in these disgraceful acts. It is a shame to embrace Islam to enforce the practice of slavery, abuse of women and children and to humiliate human kind through persecution, poverty and destruction. Unfortunately, Islam always has two faces. The Islamic missionaries always present the peaceful, respectful and the nice face of Islam. The fact is, there is a real violent face of Islam that Muslims in North America try to hide. It is a shame for anyone who embraces Islam without thinking, asking questions or reading about the true face of Islam. Islam is responsible today for the destruction of lives and cultures. Sudan is a vivid example. Why would you want to be a Muslim and participate in their wicked ways?”
"The Sudan is a government determined to use every opportunity, whether through peace negotiations or war, to expand its grip on local resources, impose Sharia law on non-Muslims, and to propagate a hateful racial and cultural ideology to maintain political hegemony over the diverse communities in Sudan"'
"The government of the Sudan is outsourcing its brand of Islam , including the barbarbic Sha'ria Law throught the guns of the Jinjaweed....While the Jinjaweed may or may not quote Islamic Slogans, they do accept Islamic money and they kill in the spirit of Islam..."
....and do not forget, the land where the Darurians lived contains OIL.....slimey, slick, money producing, power influencing OIL....yep...
at October 29, 2007 7:04 AM
"As word of the Darfur genocide was first spreading, U.S. ambassador John Danforth was in Khartoum putting the finishing touches on a North-South peace deal. This peace deal could have been better enforced on both sides, but so far, it has held. It would be best for everyone in Sudan to keep the peace."
-- from a poster above, who is horrified by the idea of a small American force quickly destroying Sudan's airforce and holding Darfur and the southern Sudan until a referendum on independence can be held
No, you are wrong. The "peace treaty" in the south has not, as you put it, "held." The Khartoum government never intended to honor it, and it has not. In the last six months that government has violated that agreement, and its many violations are known to members of Air Force intelligence monitoring the southern Sudan. That this has not been reported in The Times means nothing.
Your comment about the anti-black remarks of the Janjaweed shows you missed my point. For those comments do not show that Islam is irrelevant here; they show perfectly that Islam is a vehicle for Arab supremacism, and that Arab Muslims will, whenever they feel like it, seize the lands or otherwise oppress -- culturally, linguistically in the case of the Berbers of Algeria -- non-Arab Muslims. Who do you think killed the Kurds in Iraq? Who do you think punished the Berbers (until recently) even for speaking the Berber language? And shouldn't the behavior of the Arab government in Khartoum, and the Arab regimes that are openly or sectrely backing it, and Osama Bin Laden who attacks the Khartoum regime now, not for supporting the Janjaweed, but for appearing to yield, however cosmetic that yielding may be, to some outside pressure?
Finally, you make an idiotic remark about my being an agent of Osama bin Laden because he sees Sudan as a place where Islam and the Infidels are clashing, and so do I. And he also thinks that Islam teaches Muslims to remove all barriers to Islam, and to work for the spread of Islam, the rightful dominance of Islam and Muslims, everywhere. And if I -- or Robert Spencer, or Senor Fulano de Tal -- agree that Islam does indeed teach "Muslims to remove all barriers to Islam, and to work for the spread...and rightful dominance of Islam and Muslims," are we then "agents" of Bin Laden?
Posted by: Hugh
at October 29, 2007 8:34 AM
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying it's a bad idea. It's probably a better use for our troops than having them stay in Iraq. But there will be plenty of objectors.
Posted by: ebonystone
I'm positive Hugh is fully aware there will be objections. It's not probably a better use for troops in Iraq, it IS a better use.
Whoever objects, is setting themselves up...it only takes a few sentences to put such people in the dog house especially when dealing with a black african genocide and ethnic cleansing.
Hugh you are right on.
Posted by: Sneakyzionistcrusader at October 29, 2007 9:42 AM
Another problem that I can see is that our State Department would do its best to prevent the break-up of the Sudan into a Moslem north and a Christian south. For some reason, the State Dept has a horror of any change in the status quo.
The boundaries of almost every state in Africa and the Middle East were simply lines drawn on maps at conferences in European capitals in the 19th and early 20th centuries, with little regard to ethnic or historical realities. Yet now they are regarded as sacrosanct. Any attempt to change these boundaries has been met with resistance from the State Dept, as when Biafra tried to become independent of Nigeria in the mid-60's, or when Katanga tried to break away from the Congo (now Zaire) in the early 60's. Likewise in the early 90's they opposed the independence of the various republics of the Soviet Union.
at October 29, 2007 10:10 AM
"a small American force quickly destroying Sudan's airforce and holding Darfur and the southern Sudan until a referendum on independence can be held."
Yeah. And they'll also welcome us with flowers and confetti, right? Sudanese Christians will embrace their "liberators"--a slam dunk!
Clearly, you've learned nothing from the past four years. Umar Bashir is certainly an "evil dictator", the "Killer of Khartoum" to Saddam's "Butcher of Baghdad". But can you think of any reasons why a postcolonial African country would not welcome the return of Western military rule?
You also ignore the spillover effects that the ensuing chaos would have on Ethiopia, our Christian ally/thuggish dictator pal/fellow occupier. Militant Islamists (and whoever else doesn't like the current arrangement) will use S. Sudan as a military base to attack the already-shaky Ethiopian government. The Somali insurgent attacks against Ethiopian occupying troops would only intensify. On the whole, power would shift to Eritrea, which we are considering labeling a terrorist state.
I'm not horrified at the idea of Bashir losing power somehow, but it's not going to be the cupcakes and roses you think it is, with a "small" military force until referenda are held. You're right that there are plenty of kinks in the treaty, but these are better corrected with diplomacy than with another vicious civil war.
Your whole "Islam as vehicle for Arab supremecy" thesis makes no sense. You DO realize that in the Ottoman Empire, Arabs lives under non-Arab Turks for centuries, right? And that the Arab minority in the ISLAMIC Republic of Iran faces great oppression? If Islam is about Arab supremacy, how did this come about?
Finally, the main proof you offer is not really proof at all, but just a random listing of events. So Arabs oppressed Berbers, and killed Kurds, and killed Darfuris. OK. Before that happened, Europeans killed all of these people. So based on your logic, would you also say that Christianity is a vehicle for white supremecy? I'm very interested in your response.
Posted by: Shlomo_Michael at October 29, 2007 2:01 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)