COMMENTS:
I wish I knew what to do. I've read that the leader of the Sudan caught a few terrorists, and the US does nothing to stop what's happening there.
We learn nothing. Cambodia, Rwanda... etc 
More than 25,000 people die of starvation every day too.
Enjoy your midnight snack, y'all.
Sleep tight.
by Jyl on Sat Jan 13, 07 9:08pm
[+]
Voted : I supported the groups working to end the genocide
I supported the groups working to end the genocide, I wrote my congressional representative and the president, and I educated others.
I see we have one heartless idiot voting for the "mocked the ballot maker". Sleep well. It could be your children.
Voted : I wrote my congressional representative
Wept.
Just think, if the USA were to send troops, would any B&W users be screaming at the President ?
Voted : I supported the groups working to end the genocide
I did all that I could, short of going over with a gun.
(.. but the point is moot since there's no way in hell I'd bring my baby onto this planet, thus-no grandkids :)
by Jyl on Sun Jan 14, 07 11:29am
[+]
Voted : I did NOTHING
Someone post a history so we will know the background and injustice behind the situation?
Who are the targets and who are the executioners?
What is the motivation of the Leaders doing it?
Sorry for my ignorance but I live a rather reclusive life. Help me out here.
Darfuri (Christian, animist) blacks, have for 20 yrs. + supported a rebellion against legitimate government of Sudan. Bashir's government sanctioned reprisals by militias loyal to democratically elected government. Neo-con elements (anti-arab) in the West have used this conflict to further their anti-Arab-Muslim agenda in their "war on terror". Yet another proxy war against Muslims by Western jews and Fundie Christians.
^^ voted, nothing, paid my dues....
Darfur has been embroiled in a deadly conflict for over three years. At least 400,000 people have been killed; more than 2 million innocent civilians have been forced to flee their homes and now live in displaced-persons camps in Sudan or in refugee camps in neighboring Chad; and more than 3.5 million men, women, and children are completely reliant on international aid for survival. Not since the Rwandan genocide of 1994 has the world seen such a calculated campaign of displacement, starvation, rape, and mass slaughter.
Since early 2003, Sudanese armed forces and Sudanese government-backed militia known as “Janjaweed” have been fighting two rebel groups in Darfur, the Sudanese Liberation Army/Movement (SLA/SLM) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM). The stated political aim of the rebels has been to compel the government of Sudan to address underdevelopment and the political marginalization of the region. In response, the Sudanese government’s regular armed forces and the Janjaweed – largely composed of fighters of Arab nomadic background – have targeted civilian populations and ethnic group from which the rebels primarily draw their support – the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa.
The Bush Administration has recognized these atrocities – carried out against civilians primarily by the government of Sudan and its allied Janjaweed militias – as genocide. António Guterres, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, has described the situation in Sudan and Chad as “the largest and most complex humanitarian problem on the globe.” The Sudanese government and the Janjaweed militias are responsible for the burning and destruction of hundreds of rural villages, the killing of tens of thousands of people and rape and assault of thousands of women and girls.
With much international pressure, the Darfur Peace Agreement was brokered in May 2006 between the government of Sudan and one faction of Darfur rebels. However, deadlines have been ignored and the violence has escalated, with in-fighting among the various rebel groups and factions dramatically increasing and adding a new layer of complexity to the conflict. This violence has made it dangerous, if not impossible, for most of the millions of displaced persons to return to their homes. Humanitarian aid agencies face growing obstacles to bringing widespread relief. In August 2006, the UN's top humanitarian official Jan Egeland stated that the situation in Darfur is "going from real bad to catastrophic." Indeed, the violence in Darfur rages on with government-backed militias still attacking civilian populations with impunity.
On July 30, 2004, the UN Security Council adopted resolution 1556 demanding that the government of Sudan disarm the Janjaweed. This same demand is also an important part of the Darfur Peace Agreement signed in May of 2006. On August 31, 2006, the Security Council took the further step of authorizing a strong UN peacekeeping force for Darfur by passing resolution 1706. Despite these actions, the Janjaweed are still active and free to commit the same genocidal crimes against civilians in Darfur with the aid of the Sudanese government.
International experts agree that the United Nations Security Council must deploy a peacekeeping force with a mandate to protect civilians immediately. Until it arrives, the under-funded and overwhelmed African Union monitoring mission must be bolstered. And governments and international institutions must provide and ensure access to sufficient humanitarian aid for those in need.
from savedarfur dot org
I'm not sure where FV is getting his ridiculous claim. The UN, African Union, UNICEF and all other organizations recognize this as genocide independent of outside influences. The reasons for this conflict are very historical in nature.
Sudan is a victim of an artificial division of land in the colonial era. Half of the country is Arab and the other half in black African. Religion is a minor factor as almost all are Muslim. The black African sector has traditionally held very little influence in the government and has lived in poverty compared to the Arabs in the north. This of course has bred a great deal of resentment and certainly contributed to the problems today.
Apologies for the length of this post. This is from Human Rights Watch:
Q & A: Crisis in Darfur
What has happened in Darfur?
Since early 2003, Sudanese government forces and ethnic militia called “Janjaweed” have engaged in an armed conflict with rebel groups called the Sudanese Liberation Army/Movement (SLA/SLM) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM). As part of its operations against the rebels, government forces have waged a systematic campaign of “ethnic cleansing” against the civilian population who are members of the same ethnic groups as the rebels.
Sudanese government forces and the Janjaweed militias burned and destroyed hundreds of villages, killed and caused the deaths of possibly 200,000 people, and raped and assaulted thousands of women and girls. As of November 2006, approximately two million displaced people live in camps in Darfur and at least 218,000 people have fled to neighboring Chad, where they live in refugee camps. In addition to the people displaced by the conflict, at least 1.7 million other people need some form of food assistance because the conflict has destroyed the local economy, markets, and trade in Darfur.
Rebel allegiances have shifted and split since the conflict began, most notably in November 2005, when the SLA split into two factions. As of late 2006, there are more than a dozen splinter factions of the SLA and JEM. The rebel movements are broadly divided into those groups supporting the May 2006 Darfur Peace Agreement and others who have refused to sign the agreement, some of whom operate under an umbrella organization known as the National Redemption Front (NRF).
What is happening in Darfur now?
In early 2005, the number of government attacks on civilians decreased, partly because the majority of targeted villages were already destroyed and their inhabitants displaced from the rural areas. Since late 2005, however, the situation has dramatically worsened, particularly after the May 2006 Darfur Peace Agreement.
Since August 2006 fighting has increased between the government and rebel forces and among the rebel factions. There has been indiscriminate bombing by the Sudanese government in North Darfur and government-backed militias have also intensified their attacks on the civilian population in South Darfur, including on camps for internally displaced persons. Between July and August 2006, more than 21,000 people fled their homes in North Darfur as fighting between armed groups increased and brought direct attacks against villages, including from indiscriminate bombardment. An estimated 300,000 people were displaced in 2006 alone, many of them for the second or third time.
On August 28 the Sudanese government launched a military offensive against NRF positions in North Darfur following NRF attacks in June and July. Some civilians have been confirmed killed and wounded due to indiscriminate bombing of villages, and although there has been some local displacement, this has been difficult to quantify due to limited access to conflict areas.
The deterioration in security, combined with targeted attacks on aid workers, has severely limited humanitarian access, with travel to some displaced camps considered hazardous, and the camps themselves becoming unsafe. The death of a nurse in North Darfur on September 1 brought to 12 the total number of aid workers killed in Darfur since May 2006, more than in the previous three-plus years of conflict combined. Aid workers have also been victims of sexual violence and assault.
The spillover of the conflict into neighboring Chad has been escalating since late-2005 as Chadian rebels backed by the Sudanese government established bases in Darfur and began conducting attacks across the border. Sudanese Janjaweed have been attacking Chadians inside Chad. Some 50,000 Chadians were displaced between December 2005 and mid-2006, and 15,000 Chadians fled as refugees into West Darfur in early 2006.
After the failure of a Chadian rebel attack on N’Djamena on April 13, 2006 (launched from West Darfur and Central African Republic, C.A.R.), Chadian rebels in Darfur began to relocate to other bases in Chad and C.A.R. But the security of 218,000 Sudanese refugees in eastern Chad, who fled the ethnic violence of the Sudanese government forces in Darfur, remains precarious.
Has the Darfur Peace Agreement brought peace?
No. On May 5, 2006, the Sudanese government signed the Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA) in Abuja, Nigeria with a faction of SLA headed by Minni Minawi. However, two other rebel movements, JEM and the SLA faction lead by Abdulwahid Mohamed Nour, refused to sign, putting the DPA on uncertain footing from the start. Rebel leaders say they rejected the DPA because it failed to sufficiently address key issues including a victim’s compensation fund, power-sharing, rebel representation in government and disarmament of the Janjaweed militias.
Many internally displaced persons also oppose the DPA also because they claim that it does not provide them adequate protection from militia groups that have targeted civilians in the past. African Union (AU) peacekeepers would oversee the disarmament process, but displaced persons distrust the AU’s ability to protect them, and demand instead United Nations protection forces.
Since the DPA was signed, fighting in Darfur has increased, including a surge in fighting among rebel factions (largely in North Darfur). The rebels who refused to sign the DPA continue to fight the government, which has launched an offensive against them, coordinated with Janjaweed and backed by aircraft. Meanwhile the Janjaweed have not been disarmed, and continue their attacks.
Why has the situation in Darfur deteriorated?
One of the key problems is that over the past three years the Sudanese government has continued to follow a policy of supporting ethnic militias, organizing attacks on civilians and permitting serious violations of international law to go unpunished—including attacks on African Union forces and humanitarian aid workers and their convoys. The continuing conflict and fragmentation of the rebel groups has also contributed to increasing lawlessness in parts of Darfur. This in turn has allowed bandits to flourish and rebels to attack aid convoys and kill civilians. Thanks to the prevailing climate of impunity in Darfur, the ceasefire agreement reached in April 2004 was repeatedly violated by all sides to the conflict, and the DPA’s permanent ceasefire agreement seems to be suffering the same fate.
There is at present no force in Darfur capable of protecting civilians or deterring the violence.
What is the African Union doing in Darfur?
The African Union mediated the April 2004 ceasefire and in June of that year deployed a small ceasefire monitoring team consisting of representatives of the African Union, the parties (the government; two then three rebel groups) and partners such as the E.U., the UN and the U.S.
As violence against civilians continued, the African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) force’s mandate was expanded in October 2004 to protecting “civilians whom it encounters under imminent threat and in the immediate vicinity, within resources and capability.” AMIS troop levels were gradually increased up to the current complement of 6,171 soldiers and 1,560 police officers, with funding and equipment coming from the E.U., the U.S. and other donors.
AMIS has had limited success in stabilizing the region and preventing attacks on civilians, however, and has itself come under attack, most recently on August 19, 2006 when two AMIS soldiers were killed and three injured in an ambush by “unknown persons” in North Darfur. Insufficient troop levels, equipment, training and logistics contribute to AMIS’ inability to respond to attacks throughout Darfur. It has been handicapped in particular by lack of a consistent and predictable flow of funding, as the AU lacks a sufficient tax base to pay for this expanded venture. Non-African donors are financing the entire AMIS force, which, as of August 2006, cost approximately US$40 million a month.
What can be done to protect civilians?
Civilians continue to be attacked by all sides, including once they are displaced into camps. The most urgent need is for a much more powerful, well-equipped international force in Darfur, with a robust civilian protection mandate. Peacekeepers with the African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) have been deployed in Darfur since 2004, but a UNpeacekeeping force would be larger, better equipped and better prepared to protect civilians than AMIS. It is anticipated that many of the current AMIS forces could be absorbed into a UN force after retraining. The main obstacle to a stronger UN force remains the Sudanese government’s refusal to consent to the UN deployment. The international community must continue to pressure the Sudanese government to allow the UN to deploy in Darfur and to end its abusive policies in Darfur, including through the use of sanctions directed at senior Sudanese officials. Until a UN force comes into effect, the African Union must be bolstered with funds, equipment and other support.
What is the U.N. doing in Sudan?
The UN already has a peacekeeping mandate for southern Sudan, where the January 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) ended the twenty-one year civil war between the Sudanese government and southern-based rebels known as the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A). The UN Mission in Sudan (UNMIS) is authorized under Chapter VII to deploy 10,000 troops and 715 police to monitor and implement this north-south agreement. As of June 30, 2006, UNMIS deployed 10,224 uniformed personnel from more than sixty countries to Khartoum, southern Sudan and selected areas between.
Sudan’s President Omar El Bashir has continued to state that he would not permit an international force to be deployed in Darfur under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. First Vice President Salva Kiir Mayardit (head of the SPLM/A) supports a UN force in Darfur, as does Senior Assistant to the President Minni Minawi Arkau (head of the SLA/MM).
In his July 28, 2006 Report on the Situation in Darfur, Secretary General Kofi Annan proposed deployment of a UN peacekeeping mission in Darfur by January 2007, composed of from 15,000 to 19,000 troops with equipment adequate to protect civilians, and in the interim greatly enhanced UN support for AMIS (logistics, communications and staff). The UN force would not deploy without the consent of the Sudanese government, however.
On August 15 President Omar El Bashir stated that he would confront a UN force in Darfur “as Hezbollah beat Israeli forces.”
On August 31 the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1706 authorizing the deployment of UN peacekeeping forces to Darfur. The resolution called for AMIS-to-UN transition to begin October 1 with the deployment of command and control elements, and the bulk of UN troops due in place by January 2007. Sudan’s consent to the UN deployment, however, has not been forthcoming.
What are the views of the African Union on the proposed transfer to the UN?
AMIS began serious consideration of a transition to a UN force in early 2006 and on May 15, the AU Peace and Security Council called for the UN to take over its mission as soon as possible. In June, the AU Peace and Security Council extended the AU mission for three months, though September 30, pending negotiations with the Sudanese government on a UN transition.
For its part, Khartoum has ruled out AMIS to UN transition, and said that such transition would be grounds for AMIS to be ejected from the country. Khartoum offered the AU the alternative of receiving funding from the Arab League for its operations, which the AU has rejected. Instead, the AU announced on September 5 that it would withdraw its forces from Darfur by the end of the month unless the government of Sudan agreed to allow UNpeacekeepers to assume control of its duties.
On September 20, 2006, the AU Peace and Security Council extended the mandate of the AU force through December 31, 2006, and currently there are negotiations between the Sudanese government, the UN, and numerous individual governments to try to find a solution that will strengthen the AU deployment. One proposal is to create a hybrid UN-AU force with additional troops and technical capacity.
Why is the Sudanese government refusing to accept a UN force?
The Sudanese government claims that a UN force will violate its sovereignty and that the deployment of western troops will turn Sudan into “another Iraq.” It has accused the US and UK of having a “hidden agenda” and colonial aspirations. Yet Sudan has already agreed to a UN force of 10,000 troops to monitor the peace agreement ending the twenty-one year civil war in southern Sudan, and almost 7,000 troops from Africa are already present in Darfur, so its resistance to a UN force in Darfur is puzzling.
One reason for the Sudanese government’s reluctance may be that it fears that a UN presence with UN Security Council backing will play a much stronger role in protecting civilians and demanding accountability (including by arresting alleged war criminals) and thereby hamper its own policy of “ethnic cleansing” in Darfur. The government continues to say it prefers AU troops in Darfur, although it has placed many obstacles to smooth operations of AMIS.
Will the United States or the UK send troops to Darfur?
The US and UK have said they are not going to send troops to Darfur. There are no indications that any developed country is preparing or planning to send troops to Darfur, although there are some North American and European technical advisors and military observers already working with the AU. The consensus appears to be that the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations will seek troops from Muslim and/or African countries for the Darfur mission. Currently there are more than 6,000 African troops on the ground in Darfur, and Nigerian and Rwandan troops are the most numerous. If the UN takes over the AU mission, they would probably “re-hat” or absorb these African troops into a UN mission.
What is NATO doing in Darfur?
In April 2005, the African Union requested technical support from NATO, mainly in the form of airlift capacity. NATO provides logistical support to the African Union, such as airlift for transport of troops, and expert technical advisors who provide training or advice on logistics, communications and other matters. NATO does not have any troops on the ground in Darfur and has publicly stated that it does not have plans to send them. In April 2006 NATO said it was ready to increase its logistical support for the AU force as well as for a UN force that would replace it.
How does the Sudanese government explain the situation in Darfur?
In the first few years of the conflict, the Sudanese government regularly described the situation in Darfur as “tribal clashes” and consistently refused to acknowledge its responsibility for systematic attacks on civilians. Khartoum has accused international journalists and human rights groups of “fabricating” the Darfur situation, despite the overwhelming evidence of the Sudanese government’s responsibility for the crimes, and has tried to limit media access to Darfur. The government has consistently harassed journalists and restricted press freedom in an effort to stop the information flow from Darfur. In 2004 the government detained the Al Jazeera correspondent in Khartoum for several weeks after the news agency transmitted reports about Darfur, and more recently in August 2006, several western journalists were arrested in Darfur and turned over to Sudanese intelligence. Although these individuals were later released, in September the Sudanese government began cracking down on Sudanese media through pre-print censorship and arbitrary arrests, and imposing many bureaucratic restrictions on international journalists.
...Those problems include a 20+ year rebellion by Darfuris. A disproportion ate response by the North, to be sure, but Lincoln did the same. History judges him in a much kinder light. Why? Because he won the war. Once the US extends their "war on terror" to Sudan, Bashir will be overthrrown, and hence, executed. Just like Saddam, Milosevic (let's argue) and others who serve their countries at the expense of revolutionary insurgents. They started the war and can't finish it. Not my fault, or bashir's .
What is the Arab League doing about Darfur?
The Arab League has been largely silent on the atrocities in Darfur. Sudan is a member of the Arab League and currently serves as its president; the Sudanese government has historically close relations with Egypt as well as with other Arab League members. The Arab League sent a fact-finding mission to Darfur in May 2004, and although its report concluded that serious atrocities were taking place, the Arab League has yet to publicly condemn or criticize the massive human rights abuses that have taken place in Sudan. The Arab League summit of March 28-29, 2006 was held in Khartoum and not only failed to condemn the Sudanese government’s atrocities and ongoing policy of impunity in Darfur, but awarded Sudan the Arab League presidency. Publicly some Arab League members have backed Sudan’s rejection of a UN force for Darfur, despite earlier statements from the Arab League Secretary-General in support of UN deployment. Individual Arab governments, including Egypt and Libya, have important diplomatic ties with the Sudanese and could be a powerful source of pressure if they chose to exert it.
What is the UN Security Council doing about Darfur?
Despite passing a dozen resolutions demanding that the Sudanese government take certain steps, including disarming its militias and ceasing attacks on civilians, there has been little united effort by the UN Security Council to ensure these demands are implemented. The main reason is that the UN Security Council is divided on Sudan because different member states have divergent interests. Russia and China have often supported the Sudanese government because of ideological commitments (non-interference in internal affairs of member states) and both have economic interests in Sudan. China, for instance, imports between 4-7 percent of its oil from Sudan and the Sudan oil project is its most successful international oil development endeavor.
The Security Council took two important steps in 2005, however. One was the referral of the situation in Darfur to the International Criminal Court in The Hague because of crimes against humanity and war crimes in Darfur. The second step was establishing a sanctions committee and a panel of experts to investigate individuals who violate the arms embargo, commit abuses of human rights, or impede the peace process. A crucial third step was taken in 2006 with the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1706 deploying UN peacekeepers to Darfur. However, to date none of these actions has succeeded in ensuring that civilians in Darfur are protected from further abuses.
What kind of sanctions is the UN imposing on parties in the Darfur conflict?
In December 2005 a UN panel of experts recommended that seventeen people, including the Sudanese Minister of Defense, Major-General Abdel Rahim Mohammed Hussein, nine other government officials, two Janjaweed militia leaders and five Darfur rebel commanders, be sanctioned for their role in committing human rights violations and impeding the peace process. In April 2006 the UN Security Council voted for targeted sanctions on four Sudanese individuals: a former Sudanese military commander, a Janjaweed militia leader and two rebel commanders. These sanctions include travel bans and freezing foreign bank accounts and other assets. No active duty or serving Sudanese officials have been placed on the sanctions list.
The Panel of Experts submitted a new report to the UN sanctions committee in October 2006 which described blatant violations of the arms embargo by all the warring parties and specifically condemned the Sudanese government for continuing to support the militias and transferring troops and military materiel into Darfur in violation of the arms embargo. The report included a confidential annex of additional names of individuals recommended for targeted sanctions. However since the report was submitted it appears that there has been no action by the UN Security Council to even discuss extending sanctions on any of the senior figures responsible for the latest military offensive and continuing attacks on civilians. Other measures, including extending the Darfur arms embargo to all of Sudan, do not appear to be under serious discussion.
What is the International Criminal Court doing on Darfur?
The International Criminal Court (ICC) opened an investigation into the situation in Darfur in June 2005. The ICC has the mandate to investigate those individuals most responsible for crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide and other crimes committed since July 2002 in accordance with the Rome Statute. The Prosecutor is currently conducting investigations from outside Darfur although ICC officials have visited Khartoum. The Sudanese government has publicly indicated it will not cooperate with the ICC and insists that it will try criminals in Darfur itself, in a Special Criminal Court on the Events in Darfur.
What is the Sudanese government doing to prosecute war crimes?
There is no indication that the Sudanese justice system is seriously investigating or prosecuting any of the government officials, militia leaders or other individuals responsible for serious crimes in Darfur. It established the Special Criminal Court on the Events in Darfur in 2005 but has convicted very few persons and no leaders. For more information on the Special Criminal Court, please see the Human Rights Watch report, “Lack of Conviction: The Special Criminal Court on the Events in Darfur.”
What are the religious dimensions of the conflict in Darfur?
All of the people in Darfur are Muslim. The Sudanese government and its Janjaweed militias are also Muslim. There have been many incidents, however, of government forces and Janjaweed destroying mosques, looting the contents of mosques, killing imams and others seeking refuge inside mosques and desecrating the Koran while attacking civilian villages. For example, in just one small area of West Darfur, Human Rights Watch documented that at least 62 mosques were destroyed by Sudanese government forces and militia during attacks in late 2003 and early 2004.
What are the ethnic divisions in Darfur?
There are many different ethnic groups in Darfur with their own languages and customs. The rebel movements are drawn from three main ethnic groups: the Fur, Zaghawa and Masalit, all of which are non-Arab. The Janjaweed militias recruited, armed and trained by the Sudanese government are mainly drawn from several small Arab nomadic tribes who historically have no access to land, many of whom migrated into Darfur from Chad as a result of civil wars in Chad in the 1960s-1980s. Historically these groups coexisted peacefully and settled disputes through mediation of their leaders or the colonial government, with payment of damages for casualties and property damaged or stolen. There was intermarriage between ethnic groups, despite clashes over resources. There are also many larger Arab tribes in Darfur who have their own homelands or dars, and have not participated in the conflict, so it is an over simplification to describe Darfur as an African-Arab conflict.
How are people surviving in Darfur?
The majority of the displaced people in Darfur—more than 2 million—are now living in camps where they are almost entirely dependent on international humanitarian assistance. They cannot leave the camps because they continue to be attacked by the militias and women are frequently raped and assaulted when they try to collect firewood outside the camps. People cannot return to their homes due to the continuing presence of government-backed militias in the rural areas. Because of the war-caused widespread displacement of subsistence farmers and disruption of trade and nomadic migration routes, the economy of Darfur has been severely disrupted. The UN estimates that an additional 1.5 million people, not displaced, are in need of humanitarian assistance—a total of 3.5 million in Darfur, more than half its estimated population of 6 million.
Humanitarian access in Darfur is now at its lowest level since 2004, with an estimated 470,000 people in need beyond the reach of aid workers due to insecurity as well as interference from obstructive government officials, both civilian and military. Rebels increased their attacks on, and looting of, humanitarian convoys in early 2006, and have at times robbed civilians as well, usually those belonging to the same ethnic groups as their adversaries. Bandits—encouraged by arms proliferation and by widespread impunity—attack and threaten humanitarian convoys throughout Darfur.
Why would the Sudanese government organize the Janjaweed militias?
Many of the members of the Sudanese armed forces are from Darfur, so the government may have been reluctant to use those troops in a conflict in their own region. In addition, the government of Sudan has often used ethnic militias as proxy forces, including in southern Sudan and the Nuba Mountains. The use of militias provides the government with “deniability;” it claims that it cannot “control” the militias. There is no evidence, however, that it has actually attempted to do so and considerable evidence that militia continue to be paid, armed, organized and directed by army military intelligence and other officers, with assistance from civilian state and national officials. The militias allow the Sudanese government to have a large but inexpensive armed force at its disposal that will serve loyally as a counterinsurgency force, as the militias stand to benefit financially (loot and land) from their participation in the fighting.
Who assists the Sudanese government?
The Sudanese government buys and receives military supplies from several countries, including China, Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and others. Sudan’s government revenues have increased substantially since it began exporting oil in August 1999—government revenue is now estimated to have tripled from 1999 to 2004 and its oil revenue is estimated to be 3 billion dollars a year. As a result, Sudan has been able to purchase additional attack helicopters, MiG planes, artillery and other war materiel. At the end of the 21-year war in the south of Sudan, after a ceasefire was reached in October 2002, the government of Sudan was also able to shift many of its recently acquired arms to Darfur for use in counterinsurgency operations.
The Sudanese government throughout the war in southern Sudan and now Darfur has received high levels of international humanitarian assistance. The World Food Program, for instance, is providing assistance for 6 million people in Sudan, including in Darfur and the south.
As I am sure you are aware, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the International Criminal Court and other groups are under "Jewish and Fundie Christian control" 
fiddle, pls tell us how it started. The janjiweed did not just appear out of nowhere, Darfuris started this by fomenting revolution, and couldn't handle the shit-storm they themselves unleashed. As I said before, a dispropotionate response from Khartoum, but one of their own making. It is a cheap way out to ascribe it to flawed division of land in colonial times, as youy personally don't accept this argument in the case of Palestine. It's their problem, they started it, and they themselves must sort it out. This conflict is just a convenient cause for Islamophobes and zionazis who wish to discredit Arabs wherever they can.
If you would please read the information I posted you will see the reasons. It is not a simple racism issue. It is a complicated set of factors which have contributed to this situation.
Once again as practically all of the people living in Darfur are Muslim and those committing genocide against them are Muslim, it is hardly an Islamaphobe issue. There is no Jewish involvement in this other than taking in refugees and being one of the largest and most significant groups pushing for an end to the conflict and genocide. If you disbelieve this, then look at the march in Washington DC. There is something about being a victim of a massive genocide that makes you much more concerned and passionate about ending it.
I really wish you would look at this as a human tragedy rather than something that is being manipulated by other parties. This issue is one that Jews, Muslims, Christians, Democrats, Republicans, black, whites, and pretty much every group agrees on - an END to the genocide. ballot #92177 Christians, Jews, and Muslims will rally in Washington DC on April 30 to stop the GENOCIDE in Darfur, Sudan. Will you be there? Will you take action?
On that ballot I received karma across the board. Every group I listed. A good number messaged me for more info which I provided. I can send the same to you. With this info you can send letters to Congress and other leaders. I and others (especially Sudanese) would appreciate this action.
Wow.
Muslims are committing genocide against non-muslims and somehow the jews are to blame.
The depth of anti-semitic indoctrination some users display is just remarkable.
I wonder, was the holocaust the jews fault as well?
In some ways, Zog, yes they were. Like my mom told me when I was being picked on by teachers; "you must be doing something to piss them off, or why would so many be mad at you for nothing?" Same thing applies here. There must be a reason everyone has hated them throughout history. The fact that the talmud and mishna are very specifically racist against "goyim" certainly doesn't help their cause any, nor does their war-profiteering. So yes, it was partially their fault. Also, their love of all things judicial led their own leaders to turn over jew-lists, as it was the "law". Many capos killed many jews through collaboration. They were not (obviously) solely to blame for their own plight, but they must bear some responsibility. In short, YES. And that's your answer Zog.
Thank you flag, thank you for reminding me why I put you on my ignore list. Enjoy your anti-semitic rant. Good bye.
Voted : All I can do is expose the rats who misspend my tax dollars on wars based on lies
...and vote! But so far not many politicians seem to be giving this situation much thought.
by Kiki on Wed Jan 17, 07 9:56pm
[+]
|
