Sudan Disaster

[Dave_McEwan_Hill]

EMTL's response makes even less sense than Al Hamza's.
Because Americans are killing Iraqis it is all right for militants to kill women and children in Sudan? This is nonsense. What has the actions of America in Iraq got to do with innocent villagers in Darfur?
This is the morality of the madhouse.

I suggest also that AlHamza and EMTL read all my posts on the evil actions of America in Iraq, Afghanistan and many other places.

[lionger]

EMTL and Al Hamza, why are you two wailing about America on a thread about the Sudan crisis? Is it because there aren't enough threads about 'evil America' on this forum? Your stubborn determination in diverting the focus from Sudan to America betrays your hypocritical standpoint. You are no better than your 'enemies' if you choose to blind your eyes to evil.  Al hamza I believe I told you this already. Btw how bodi? Long time no see   :)

EMTL, please do not be so easily deceived like the rest of those 'evil americans' you so abhor. Over two million people have died in the Sudan and over 4 million displaced in two decades of fighting, not counting the Darfur casualties.  Is that at all compared to the Iraqi situation? Please, lets be true to ourselves.

[EMTL]

Assalamu alaikum,
Each time we make a contribution, expressing personal views Mr. Lionger and Dave will response with insults. I find this uncivilised attitude un-acceptable.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

[Dave_McEwan_Hill]

There is no insult in my post about EMTL's previous post. Perhaps he is trying to confuse because he can't answer the questions I posed. If someone on this forum makes stupid or immoral statements he should expect others to point out the stupidity. That is what a good forum is for.

The questions are :
What has the evil and stupid behaviour of America in Iraq got to do with the poor black villagers of West and South Sudan?
Why does EMTL think it is OK to see them being killed because America is killing Iraqis?
That is what his post says

[lionger]

EMTL what insults are you talking of? And what is uncivilized about responding to the subject, rather than resorting to diversionary tactics? Is this your model of civilized speech below?

AMERICA IS EVIL SO ALSO THE AMERICANS. DEATH TO AMREICANS AND OTHER SUNDRY ENEMIES OF PEACE (ISLAM).

EMTL, I asked you a simple question, yet again you refuse to answer. Why are you talking about America on this thread? Is it insulting for me to say that your expressed opinions are irrelevant to the subject? Or are you trying to tell us that Iraqi lives are much more important than Sudanese lives? If you scream and shout when a 'christian government' commits atrocities against Muslims, but seem not to know what to say when a 'muslim government' does the same thing, is that not hypocritism?

[mallamt]

I wrote this on the 28/9/04 in this same thread

Part of the problem with some people is that they are the exact copies of Bush yet they try to accuse Bush, Blair, America etc for everything that has gone wrong. These people have shown complete incapability to focus on an issue and thus go about grabing at things randomly. That is the exact tactics that Bush used for his war in Iraq, first we were told that it was Al Qaida and Osama, then it was WMD, then it was a preemtive strike, then it was operation free Iraq, then democratising middle east starting from Iraq etc, yet at no time were we made to focus on the issue, then which was 911. It was for that reason the war was seen as unjustified because the the world was being taken on a merry go round without us being allowed to focus on the issue which did not require a war. The same thing happens here were are taken on a tangent on issues so that we loose focus and the main issue ends up never attended to or discussed

This is exactly the problem a delibrate attempt to change focus of an issue.

[al_hamza]

EMTL, we can never be friends, The Qur'an says so... We cant deny that their hearts are sealed.
Its better we sit back, relax and enjoy seeing the people that have been categorised as our enemies, lets see the level of thier mentality. My brother just allow them to bark.

[lionger]

You are right, mallamt. Anyways to get this discussion back to the subect I hereby post this link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sudan

It gives a rough overview of Sudan's history. It's not perfect, but it certainly highlights the sources of Sudan's misery. And I think it might help serve as a good knowledge basis for further educated discussion on the subject.

Here is another on the Darfur conflict
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict

[Dave_McEwan_Hill]

Still no answers?

[_Waziri_]

Salaam all,

Let me intervene here to make some assertions based upon what I understand to be the truest position on this matter. First, for Al-Hamza, I do not think Mr. David has to in anyway justify the recent success of Bush at the polls. We take position on some valid postulations we see, but  that does not mean our predictions must come to pass by all means. Also when we consider the that fact that an average American in not more informed than an average African on issues relating to the policies of his country. A good rexample of this is in EMTL's post about American soldiers who are in Iraq without even a skewed knowledge of what took them their. The success of Bush really doesnt make the assertions by Mr. David invalid it only confirms them.

And again I do not like the positions taken by Al-Hamza in calling Christians our enemies without valid reasons to that. This has never been the ways of the Prophet of Islam whom we copy. In fact Qur'an mentioned to us that Christians are the most close to loving Muslims among other religious groups. We can also remember how the Prophet himself used to borrow money from some of his Christian neighbours in Medina and how he kept a Jew as his ward. All these point to the sweet working relationship he had with the Jews and Christians he lived with in Medina. So please we can understand that Mr. David or lionger can be right just as we too can be wrong.

I refused responding  to this topic earlier since I didn't  feel I had enough information about Dafur and what was happening there. I believe and have told many here on several occasions that it is desired that we respond to to those things we have enough information about only. Plus the fact that I do not deem it appropriate for anybody to compel the forumnites to respond to some particular post. Though the most reason is,  I suspect much what I hear from these Western media since the inception of this war on terror which is invariably war on Islam. As such I entertain caution on Darfur where Muslims are said to be killing Muslims on account of race not religion. This, to note, is not the same war that engulped Sudan over the years as Lionger would have us to believe with figures in millions. No, rather a new thing that demanded these Arabs to kill their Muslim brothers with a casualty that Mr. David appropriately quoted to be around 50,000.
While I do not  think EMTL and Al-Hamza are contesting the fact that this is not good. I understand their concern about the fact that the situatuation in Dafur is overblown, that is to say, given special attention  just for the simple reason that  Muslim Arabs are the ones commiting the crimes. It is a way of tainting the image of the religion of Islam as is the new task of the media houses of the West today. My argument find substance in the truth that more than 58,000 thousand people were consumed in Plateau crisis here in Nigeria, which of course is more than the figures provided by Mr. David but yet that one did not call the attention of media houses as the case in Dafur is calling. Amin had earlier, in this thread indicated a possiblity of American interest at play somewhere at the Sudan region in the hope of taking control of some oil reserve.

Whatever the case maybe, the situation is grave and it needs our kneetest attention. I have alot of cousins studying in Sudan. While many of them agreed that Janjaweed is a menace, they also share my thought that everything is deliberately being overblown.

[Dave_McEwan_Hill]

Thank you Waziri. It is a pleasure to read a reasonable response on this topic. The crux of this matter may be the racist elements of it rather than the religious element. I suspect the situation is much worse than we know however as the Sudan Government is going to a lot of trouble to prevent accurate information and figures from getting out.

[lionger]

Waziri,

Good writeup. However I must make clear one thing: firstly, that I never made out the war with south sudan to be part of the Darfur conflict (though i certainly think they are related in some way); I think all my posts on the subject certainly make a demarcation. If indeed the Darfur conflict is being overblown (and that is possible) then in a sense it is good, for its about time the world sat up to the reality of what I believe is an insidious and grossly irresponsible Sudanese government. That is why I say the Darfur conflict is somewhat tied with the rest of the south sudanese conflict. It was south sudan b4, today it is Darfur and tomorrow it will be someone else unless we step up.

[_Waziri_]

But Mr. David looking at how the issue dominated discourses in media houses we will realise  that the Sudan government cannot in anyway be able to prevent information from flowing out, afterall they do not control the news agencies carrying the information; the news agencies that are known for fabricating evidences to serve a particular interest.

Also for lionger, if the Dafur conflict is overblown with the intention of saving the innocent lives there we can easily conclude it to be good but when we have reasons to suspect that the conflict is overblown only to inflict further injury to the "Islamic" (as is being called) government of Sudan, then we conclude it is not fair.

Also the wars the Sudanese government waged over the years in southern part of the country find justification only in their claim of unifying the country, just as we claimed to have been unifying the Nigerian nation when we waged war or commited genocide against the Igbo people of the South - Eastern part of our country years back. But this one in Dafur is a case of some tribal groups seizing opportunities to kill the black population around them without a very direct involvement of Sudaness government. I really do not think Sudan government is irresponsible, for governance doesn't mean just getting things just the way government officials want them. This is the reason why I give Obasanjo benefit of doubt on some aspects of the failures of his government in Nigeria. Not everybody is a master of his circumstance.

[lionger]

Also for lionger, if the Dafur conflict is overblown with the intention of saving the innocent lives there we can easily conclude it to be good but when we have reasons to suspect that the conflict is overblown only to inflict further injury to the "Islamic" (as is being called) government of Sudan, then we conclude it is not fair.

I don't think there is much basis for for concerns that the conflict is being overblown only to slight Sudan's Arabic/Islamic image. In all its existence the Sudanese govt. has hardly ever been something that the Sudanese, Muslims, Arabs or you and I should ever have been proud of, in my humble opinion; a point I will subsequently try prove in response to the rest of your post.

Also the wars the Sudanese government waged over the years in southern part of the country find justification only in their claim of unifying the country, just as we claimed to have been unifying the Nigerian nation when we waged war or commited genocide against the Igbo people of the South - Eastern part of our country years back.

Good point, but in both cases such a claim was clearly unfounded. If the Sudan govt. was ever seriously interested in unification, then why did General Nimeiry issue a decree declaring the Sudan a Muslim Arab state in 1983, and institute Sharia law nationwide? That action was the chief catalyst for the resumption of the civil war, and it was never competely erased by subsequent governments. Yet the sort of folly some would want to see repeated in Nigeria.

But this one in Dafur is a case of some tribal groups seizing opportunities to kill the black population around them without a very direct involvement of Sudaness government. I really do not think Sudan government is irresponsible, for governance doesn't mean just getting things just the way government officials want them. This is the reason why I give Obasanjo benefit of doubt on some aspects of the failures of his government in Nigeria. Not everybody is a master of his circumstance.

Emphasis added.

I humbly beg to differ. Since this Darfur conflict's inception in February last year, the government of Sudan has used the janjaweed militias as its main ground force in Darfur against the SLA and the JEM rebel forces, as well as harassment and near-ethnic cleansing of the ethnicities from which these rebels came from,, such as the Fur, Massalit and Zaghawa peoples. The militia has been a very key part of the government's actions in Darur and sometimes have fought alongside government troops.  The violence there has not ceased despite the ceasefire agreement signed by both sides in April this year; the janjaweed continues its raids on civilians and even chases them all the way to the Chadian border. Funny that the government has always denied any connection with or control over the janjaweed militia; yet it stubbornly refused any international intervention until recently. They cannot by any means be absolved of responsibility for the Darfur crisis, even keeping in mind that the rebel forces are far from blameless.

[_Waziri_]

lionger,

Muslims or Islam or even those governments that claim being Islamic are not stigmatised because Arabs or the Muslim peasants or even you and I are proud of such governments. No. A government which delclare itself Islamic is only seen to mean a threat to the Western materialistic culture which aims at conquering the world and as such it is bound to be stigmatised. Afterall, if that is not the reason, and as well to assume the reason of geting the conflict overblown is only to save the innocent lives dying there why is it then the conflicts in other places are not overblown?

I really can understand your concern about the declaration of the state of Sudan to be Islamic which of course would make the non-muslims there feel a bit uncomfortable. But the truth remains that they shouldn't have been, since I believe Shari'a cannot be imposed on them just as it is not being imposed on non-muslim minorities in other Muslim countries. We can see that Malaysia is a Muslim country with 40% non-Muslim population but the philosophy of the country is Islamic and yet the non-muslim people there are not complaining. Though I always support the idea that the blacks in Sudan should be allowed to go it alone in their own country, but yet in this case I do not see reason in them  engaging the Arabs in civil war just for the simple reason that Shari'a is there. And the Arabs can claim justly that they want unity and that is why they fight.


Finally, I agree with you that the government once used the Janjaweed against the rebels just as it used the black Muslim population there against the rebels. But this time around they believe Janjaweed is out of control. And as it is natural with every country, a soveiregn nation, they would not allow anybody to come in into their domestic affairs unless if necessary. This is the way I understand the Sudan government. They didn't allow international community in only after it became obvious to them they could not handle it.