BF2S Forums The Devil Came On Horseback [Darfur]

ATG wrote:

I never had understood why people don't connect the dots here.

The genocide is being commited by Muslims against non-Muslims.

Cause that would make you a racist islamaphobe.

Last edited by usmarine2005 (2007-06-06 15:06:57)

The government of Sudan is responsible for a good portion of this tragedy. That is why they are doing everything they can to prevent outsiders from seeing what is happening. Issues like this are where I part from the isolationist. Something needs to be done, but it need not be done unilaterally. The simple fact is this will continue to happen until an outside force steps in.

I was very happy to see this movie getting out to the public. It's not going to pull Spiderman 3 numbers, but it will help to raise awareness. I was pleased to see Myspace had the movies page featured today.

ATG wrote:

I never had understood why people don't connect the dots here.

The genocide is being commited by Muslims against non-Muslims.

Sharia law being is applied literally. The disaster in Darfur is the result.

To have any credibility we need to stop this now by whatever means are required.

Because it is Arab Muslims killing African Muslims?

We're too busy with Iraq to do anything about this.

I know it sounds callous, but honestly, I don't see Darfur as our responsibility.  Then again, I don't see Iraq as it either.  I think maybe this is just another case of nature taking its course.  A certain amount of death and destruction has to occur to keep the human population manageable.

Actually it's more like Arab Muslims vs African Muslims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Sudan

In the west in the three Darfur states, a war between militias drawn from largely pastoralist, Arabized Muslim tribes (government-supported) and largely non-nomadic African Muslims, resulted in the ethnic cleansing and redistribution of African Muslim populations in the region. It is primarily an ethnic conflict, not a religious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sud … r#Outbreak

In March 1991, a new penal code, the Criminal Act of 1991, instituted harsh punishments nationwide, including amputations and stoning. Although the southern states are officially exempt from these Islamic prohibitions and penalties, the 1991 act provides for a possible future application of Islamic Law (Shari’a) in the south. In 1993, the government transferred all non-Muslim judges from the south to the north, replacing them with Muslim judges. The introduction of Public Order Police to enforce Shari’a law resulted in the arrest and treatment under Shari’a law of southerners and other non-Muslims living in the north.

This chronic state of insurgency against the central government was suspended in 1972 after the signing of the Addis Ababa Accords granting southern Sudan wide regional autonomy on internal matters. In 1983, as part of an Islamicization campaign President Nimeiry declared his intention to transform Sudan into a Muslim Arab state, divided the south into three regions and instituted Shari’a law. This was controversial even among Muslim groups. After questioning Nimeiry's credentials to Islamicize Sudan's society, Ansar leader Sadiq al-Mahdi was placed under house arrest.

On 6 April, senior military officers led by Gen. Abdul Rahman Suwar ad-Dahhab mounted a coup. Among the first acts of the new government was to suspend the 1983 constitution, rescind the decree declaring Sudan's intent to become an Islamic state, and disband Nimeiry's Sudan Socialist Union. However, the "September laws" instituting Shari’a law were not suspended. A 15-member transitional military council was named, chaired by Gen. Suwar ad-Dahhab. In consultation with an informal conference of political parties, unions, and professional organizations known as the "Gathering", the council appointed an interim civilian cabinet, headed by Prime Minister Dr. Al-Jazuli Daf'allah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudan#Foreign_relations
Sudan has had a troubled relationship with many of its neighbors and much of the international community due to what is viewed as its aggressively Islamic stance. For much of the 1990s, Uganda, Kenya and Ethiopia formed an ad-hoc alliance called the "Front Line States" with support from the United States to check the influence of the National Islamic Front government. The southern Sudanese rebels supported anti-Uganda rebel groups such as the Lord's Resistance Army. Beginning from the mid-1990s Sudan gradually began to moderate its positions as a result of increased US pressure following the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings and the new development of oil fields previously in rebel hands. Sudan also has a territorial dispute with Egypt over the Hala'ib Triangle. Since 2003, the foreign relations of Sudan have centered on the support for ending the Second Sudanese Civil War and condemnation of government support for militias in the Darfur conflict.

In 1989, a bloodless coup brought control of Khartoum to the hands of Omar al-Bashir and the National Islamic Front headed by Dr. Hassan al-Turabi. The new government was of Islamic orientation and later it formed the Popular Defense Forces (al Difaa al Shaabi) and began to use religious propaganda to recruit people, as the regular army was demoralised and under pressure from the SPLA rebels. This worsened the situation in the tribal south, as the fighting became more intense, causing casualties among the Christian and animist minority.

They are Muslims against Muslims.

Sharia law doesn't say that.

sergeriver wrote:

They are Muslims against Muslims.

Yes, the slaughter continues either way (African/Arab). Christians make up about 25 percent I think (Unsure the numbers could have changed).

Turquoise wrote:

I know it sounds callous, but honestly, I don't see Darfur as our responsibility.

If we have the capacity to end a genocide, we should.

Cerpin_Taxt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I know it sounds callous, but honestly, I don't see Darfur as our responsibility.

If we have the capacity to end a genocide, we should.

The U.N. has that capacity right now.  Have they chosen to do so?  No.  So why should we be expected to do anything about it with so much already on our plate?

If we stopped being so active, we could wean the world off of our interventionism, and then, these countries would clean up their own damn messes.

acEofspadEs6313 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Cerpin_Taxt wrote:

If we have the capacity to end a genocide, we should.

The U.N. has that capacity right now.  Have they chosen to do so?  No.  So why should we be expected to do anything about it with so much already on our plate?

If we stopped being so active, we could wean the world off of our interventionism, and then, these countries would clean up their own damn messes.

Well that's not going to happen for a while.

It would take some time, but it would be well worth it in the long run.

usmarine2005 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

We're too busy with Iraq to do anything about this.

There are other capable countries in the world who could do something........

Bingo...  People understandably bitch about our interventionism, but to then turn around and expect us to help out with this is just hypocritical.  I say we give them the isolationism they want from us, and THEY can do the dirty work from now on.