user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Voted : Yes, this is genocide
I'd say this is a clear cut case of genocide
maybe the kids throw rocks at their vehicles.... Goose, meet Gander
Seriously, though, herzog.. the janjaweed is trying to force them out of Sudan.They have no plans to exterminate the Black race, therefore extinguishing a Genotype.A clear case could be made that it is "ethnic cleansing", but not genocide.
And, Classic Anthropology shows that the entire upper 3rd of Africa was originally peopled by Caucasoids. See the work of Jared Diamond).Nilo-Saharan blacks, including the so-called Nilotic negroes(who are the primary ethnic grouping of Sudan's blacks) invaded, setting the pastoral Berbers running.They remain nomads to this day. So I guess a case could be made that the "white" Africans are merely reclaiming their birth-right from the descendants of invaders. If this logic is good enough for the middle-east, then why not Africa? Riddle Me THAT, zog.
Also, is it possible that rebel group within the camps are using women and kids as "human shields"? Isn't this a good reason to recklessly slaughter them? Works in the case of Lebanon, right, zog?
hello, zog? You there? zoo-ooog? You there?
nothing ever changes... it about natural resources and displacing indigenous peoples to facilitate the removal and to control profits...
flag: they have killed over 400,000 men women and children. Clearly they aren't simply asking them politely to leave.
And genocide is defined as "the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group."
This certainly fits. No, they aren't trying to exterminate every black man on the planet, but they are trying to wipe out all the natives of this country who aren't arab/muslim. And they aren't doing too bad at it.
And the rest of your comments are nonsense so I'll ignore them.
Look, you're obviously an alias for either cranky or dung. So behave, because I'm not going to tolerate your shit for long.
yeah, america should not support killers of children.
ISRAEL killed Lebanese children by indiscriminately bombing them.
we should cut all ties to israel, force them to give up nukes, and behave like a human beings for a change.
by LCD on Fri Nov 03, 06 11:55am
[+]
LCD, what does Israel have to do with Sudan? Do you agree with the ballot question or not?
by aya on Fri Nov 03, 06 12:49pm
[+]
herzog. That's funny. I've been here a LONG time. I'm an alias for no-one. LCD will tell you that. And the paralells I drew make perfect sense. TOLERATE ME?!?! Tolerant is NOT a word I'd use to desribe you, that's for sure.
And you didn't answer my question/ re the Berbers? Whtsa matta, scared to tell the truth?
^^sudanese, isreali, what the heck is the difference?
I don't differentiate child killers based on ethenic bias now do YOU?
I say all child killers are child killers. Sudanese=Isreali.
so do you agree that US shouldn't support child killers? hmmm?
by LCD on Fri Nov 03, 06 2:06pm
[+]
LCD: the Israelis fired bombs in to areas held by terrorists, where they were recieving rocket, mortar and machine gun fire. They did not bomb "indiscriminately". That is a lie. That the terrorists chose to hide among their own women and children condemns them, not the Israelis.
Now, do you believe that these sudanese launched a war of aggression against the arabs, and the arabs are simply firing back in retaliation? The only reason sudanese women and children are dying is that their men are hiding among them when they launch rockets at the arab militias?
You can't honestly believe this. Either you are extremely delusional, or you don't believe your own analogy and are simply trying to defer blame on to the jews (how original).
flag: I don't care about your bizarre anthropology theories. Genocide can't be justified that way, even if it were true.
LCD: your analogy is about like saying the allies and the axis powers were equivalent, both killed civilians. So what if the US bombed cities that had actual military value and accidently hit civilians, while the germans were rounding jews up in to camps and murdering them by the millions. No difference, both ways civilians died. Right?
And flag, you are an alias, behave or you'll be banned just like I banned your other aliases.
Why don't you run your little alias theory by LCD, cathexis, or anybody else in the know, jerky? My IP originates from Canada, theirs from somewhere in the US. You are a tit to the umpteenth degree, and I VERY much doubt you have the influence to have anyone banned. Go play with your pogs, nincompoop.
As for the Berbers,what's so "bizarre " about this? It's widely accepted as fact by respected anthropologists and linguists. Must I compile a bibliography? Methinks thou art feared of that which is true...
BTRW, in your above post, you fail to mention target which had no "military value". Like Dresden. This was simple slaughter of civilians to " shock and awe" so to speak. In other words, Terrorism. This was just as evil as the German round up of jews.
flagrantviolator- I really do not believe it is important in the modern ear about which group was where first. I believe a person that is born and raised in a place has every right to remain there. I don't care about hisorical arguments of this group so-and-so and this other group so-and-so, and this other group migrated, etc. I think it is better if all groups today just learnt to live together peacefully as part of the country.
I believe it is a combination of forcing people from their homes as well as killing them. Both ethic cleansing and genocide.
* modern ERA
And I don't know what you're talking about when you say Arabs are taking back the upper third of Africa. They already dominate the upper third. What they are trying to do in Sudan is not reclaim dominance, they have long been dominating politically. What they are doing now is a policy of a complete wipe out in the form of ethnic cleansing and genocide.
It was a dig at ZOG. I don't believe this is an excuse either.
for anyone, this means Israel, too!
Socrates, he's a troll, ignore flag.
flagrantviolator- I believe there is a significant difference between Israel and Sudan.
Looking at the history of Israel/Palestine...
There had long been Jews that lived in that area and they had just as much claim to that land as the others. It is true that Jewish immigration increased in the 20th Century. However, immigration does not equate to invasion... well I don't personally believe it does. Next, the British were going to abandon this area and it had to be decided what would replace colonial British rule. I believe it would have been great if a one-state could have been implemented- where both Jews and Arabs could have lived together in one country. However, this became increasingly doubted as there were so many clashes between the two groups. Many Palestinians were particularly annoyed that the Jews would probably dominate the single state idea as many were immigrants from Europe who had supposedly better education and qualifications for the better jobs. It is also beleived that many Palestinian elite also felt that the immigrant Jews had no right to live there, as they believed immigration as somewhat comparable to an invasion? I don't know. Anyway, many clashes occured between the Palestinians and the Jews, and the international community began to doubt the feasiblity of a one state solution. It was clear that there were regional concentrations of the demographic groups- that in some areas there were majority Jews, and others majority Arabs. Therefore the international community suppported a two-state solution- A Palestinian state and an Israeli state. The UN then drafted a mandate for a two state solution. However, the Palestinian elite opposed this idea as well. The Palestinians and many neighbouring Arab states launched an attack on Israel in violation of the UN mandate of the two-state draft. This became known as the 6 Day War. Israel was attacked by an Arab alliance, it chose to defend itself with violence, and it ended up winning. It decided to occupy what was going to be the Palestinian territory temporarily- that is like Gaza Strip and West Bank. However, it also took some Syrian and Egyptian land, etc for the same reasons. Egypt has since made peace with Israel, and Israel has returned the occupied territory it had taken temporarily. Syria has not reconciled and Israeli occupation of Syrian territory has not yet been reconciled as Syria continues to be aggressive. The Palestinian territories? Obviously, not resolved either, and the occupation continues as the perceived security threat Israel initially felt continues. There is still talk today of a two state solution- but how can that be reached if the Palestinians continue to reject to recognise Israel's existence? They could always divert back to the one state solution in which Israelis and Palestinians would live together as one country- but the Palestinians would probably reject that as well, as the economically more successful Israel would dominate such a single state.
That seems to be how events unfolded, and it doesn't seem to have been genocide to me. Besides which, there are Israeli citizens who are indeed Arab Muslims and Christians. I don't know if there are any Jewish Palestinans citizens. It seems the Gaza Strip and West Bank are more ethnically pure than Israel (which actually has quite a significant integrated Arab minority). And recently, Israel has enforced a Gaza pull out- including that of settlers.
The Sudanese crisis on the other hand, involves a direct attempt to wipe an ethnic group out. It is not a case of an idea of temporary occupation, but one of genocide. It seems the Sudanese are much more brutal. It seemed the Israelis historically had tried discussed options of peaceful coexistence in the form of a sinlge state or a two state solution, where as the Sudanese militas just seem plain determined to wipe out an ethnic group. Don't get me wrong, Israel has done some wrong things- including some very disgusting collateral damage, the manner in which it sent settlers to occupied territories, and that wall they are building that cuts through Palestinian territory... however, not even that is as bad as the horrors the Sudanese are committing in Darfur. The Sudanese are attempting genocide. Israel has done some things wrong, but not genocide.
Some of what I wrote above was unclear as to what I was saying.
It was the war of 1948 in which a coalition of Arab states and Palestinians attacked Israel ignoring the UN two-state solution, and that is when Israel defended itself and won and took more land as buffer zones. The later 6 Day War I was referring to is when they took the temporary occupied territory of Gaza Strip, West Bank, as well as Sinai from Egypt (now returned due to Egyptian efforts at serious reconciliation), and Syrian land as well.
The way I wrote it above gave the impression that the 1948 War and the Six Day War unfolded as one event. However, that is not true, they were two separate incidents. In both separate cases it was the Arab states and the Palestinians that were launching the initial attacks. To add to this, there was a third time the Arabs initiated another war in 1973.
|
|
