Remember when killing 30,000 people was genocide?

[Guest Cerebus]

When we topple a brutal dictator its worse than the German invasion of Poland and France. But when the Sudenese butcher, rape, and displace, millions of dark colored people its well...we're not sure what to call it:

 

Sudan massacres are not genocide, says EU

 

Rory Carroll, Africa correspondent

Tuesday August 10, 2004

The Guardian

 

The EU said yesterday there was widespread violence in the Darfur region of Sudan but the killings were not genocidal, a potentially crucial distinction which underlined its reluctance to intervene.

"We are not in the situation of genocide there," Pieter Feith, an adviser to the EU's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, said in Brussels after returning from a fact-finding visit to Sudan.

 

"But it is clear there is widespread, silent and slow killing and village burning of a fairly large scale. There are considerable doubts as to the willingness of Sudan's government to assume its duty to protect its civilian population against attacks."

 

He said in the absence of willingness to send a significant military force, the EU and others had little choice but to cooperate with Khartoum.

 

The announcement is bound to anger those impatient for stronger international pressure on Sudan.

 

Last month the US House of Representatives voted by 422 votes to nil to describe Khartoum's actions as genocide, a conclusion shared by several analysts who say there is no other term for the systematic slaughter, rape and expulsions.

 

But the White House, the African Union and groups such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have so far avoided using the g-word. At least 30,000 people are thought to have died and 1 million displaced in what the UN has called the world's worst humanitarian crisis.

 

Genocide is defined as a calculated effort to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, but the debate over its meaning is political, not semantic.

 

The genocide convention, adopted by the UN in 1948, calls on signatories to "prevent" and "punish" genocide. If governments accept events in Darfur amount to genocide they would be obliged to intervene.

 

Given the risk of such a logistical and military challenge, that is something few governments are willing to contemplate.

 

Instead of sending troops the EU and US have called for support from the African Union, a pan-African body which Khartoum could not so easily brand imperialist.

 

Documents from the Clinton administration show that soon after Rwanda's slaughter started in 1994, officials were privately calling it genocide but refrained from doing so publicly lest pressure grow for a US deployment which the administration did not want.

 

In a separate development yesterday, Mustafa Osman Ismail, Sudan's foreign minister, said his government would take part in peace talks in Nigeria this month.

 

"We open the door wide to reach an agreement on the agenda and issues," he said.

 

"We don't have conditions and we won't accept prior conditions."

 

Sudan expected to meet a UN deadline to improve security and human rights by the end of the month, the minister added.

 

As the current chairman of the African Union, Nigeria's president, Olusegun Obasanjo, has invited Sudan and rebel negotiators to meet for talks on August 23.

 

Fighting flared in Darfur last year after local people rebelled against Khartoum, claiming discrimination and repression. Both sides are Muslim but they are ethnically divided.

 

Yes appeal to the AU even though Sudan has pledged to reject any AU troops. Absolutely sick. At least the House knows what's what, too bad I can't say the same for Europe, Bush, or "Human Rights" groups.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Did the NY Times call it "Civil Disobediance" like they did with the riots in Cincy a few years back?...

[Guest Paul H.]

I honestly don't know how Bush even got 6% of the black vote last time.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

He got the Alan Keyes types.

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

Cerebus, don't you know there are more important things to worry about? Like, making sure my ass gets re-elected? (note: I'm not bashing him for campaigning like he should be...but don't you think he should be, you know, working on a solution?)

 

It is quite possibly the most sickening thing going on in the world today, and yet we're standing on the sidelines, twiddling our thumbs. Way to show that compassionate side of America.

 

--Ryan

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

He got the Alan Keyes types.

 

Yeah, he's got THOSE PEOPLE...

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Oh, you mean the ones that aren't really BLACK...

 

I wonder if the anti-war will approve of giving the finger to the UN, EU, etc, in THIS case?

[Highland 0]

Of course if Sudan was in the Balkans we'd be there right now......

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Actually, I meant the insane ones. No racism or Uncle Tom-ism was implied.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

I'm just shocked the EU doesn't care about Sudan. I guess Europe won't get off its ass unless their pot or pornography is in jeopardy.

[Guest MikeSC]

I'm just shocked the EU doesn't care about Sudan. I guess Europe won't get off its ass unless their pot or pornography is in jeopardy.

Why are you shocked? They didn't care about the Balkans. They didn't care about Rwanda. If they DID care, I'd be stunned.

-=Mike

[Guest Paul H.]

Well,French troops ..lol..are involved in a number of conflicts in Africa right now.Probably retreating or surrendering as we speak.

[Guest MikeSC]

BTW, just to clarify the original post here: The US had to DROP a demand for sanctions to even get the UN to pass a resolution demanding the Sudanese gov't disarm the Arab militias.

 

So, it's not like Bush doesn't know precisely what this is. He's simply trying to avoid "unilateral action" --- and the results are as successful as usual when you expect the UN to do a damned thing.

-=Mike

[Guest SP-1]

--- and the results are as successful as usual when you expect the UN to do a damned thing.

-=Mike

Well that's problem number one.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

There's not a whole lot that can be done about this situation. U.S can't do much because we have problems of our own and not enough people. The EU lives in Fantasy Land as always. The UN is all about talk and never any action. The only real solution is a combination of international pressure and the oppressed Sudanesse (sadly) fighting for themselves.

 

Or........put pressure on CHINA to send troops. In fact, make Godless China send troops to Iraq and Afghanistan too. They should have an interest in quelling the threats posed by the RELIGIOUS intolerance that is radical Islam.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

In fact, make Godless China send troops to Iraq and Afghanistan too.

In an age where our liberties are threatened by thocratic regimes that think we ought to follow their religious practices and cultures because cutting off people's hands and killing homsexuals is just peachy, I'm floored to see someone use "Goddless (country name here)" as an insult.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

In fact, make Godless China send troops to Iraq and Afghanistan too.

In an age where our liberties are threatened by thocratic regimes that think we ought to follow their religious practices and cultures because cutting off people's hands and killing homsexuals is just peachy, I'm floored to see someone use "Goddless (country name here)" as an insult.

Uh......you got "floored" for nothing as it wasn't meant to be an insult. It was a statement about what the country of China believes in. Do you REALLY think that a nation like China (which believes that the state, not a diety is supreme) would be "peachy" with radical Islam gaining a greater foothold on the Asian or world stage? You can reply in full after you're done being floored.

[Guest MikeSC]

In fact, make Godless China send troops to Iraq and Afghanistan too.

In an age where our liberties are threatened by thocratic regimes that think we ought to follow their religious practices and cultures because cutting off people's hands and killing homsexuals is just peachy, I'm floored to see someone use "Goddless (country name here)" as an insult.

Because, God knows, China's anti-religion state is a bastion and haven for human rights.

-=Mike

[Vyce 0]

In fact, make Godless China send troops to Iraq and Afghanistan too.

In an age where our liberties are threatened by thocratic regimes that think we ought to follow their religious practices and cultures because cutting off people's hands and killing homsexuals is just peachy, I'm floored to see someone use "Goddless (country name here)" as an insult.

Because, God knows, China's anti-religion state is a bastion and haven for human rights.

-=Mike

You've just floored me, Mike.

 

*points down*

 

See that floor? I'm on it, baby.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Uh......you got "floored" for nothing as it wasn't meant to be an insult.

Ah, makes sense. It's been used as such in the past, so that's what I thought was going on.

 

Because, God knows, China's anti-religion state is a bastion and haven for human rights.

            -=Mike

That's not what I implied, but they're pretty far from perfect either.

[Guest MikeSC]

Uh......you got "floored" for nothing as it wasn't meant to be an insult.

Ah, makes sense. It's been used as such in the past, so that's what I thought was going on.

 

Because, God knows, China's anti-religion state is a bastion and haven for human rights.

            -=Mike

That's not what I implied, but they're pretty far from perfect either.

Fine, Jobber, name an atheist state that has EVER had a good human rights record.

 

Just one.

-=Mike

[jesse_ewiak 0]

Yup, and religious theocracy's have such a great record. Do the words Iran or Saudi Arabia mean anything to you? Yes, they're filthy Muslims, but it's not like Christians haven't done worse in the last few centuries. Too much religion...bad. Banning religion...bad. Free expression of religion without it being involved in government...good. Is that so complicated?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Fine, Jobber, name an atheist state that has EVER had a good human rights record.

 

Just one.

-=Mike

Just because one hasn't happened doesn't mean it's impossible. However, I wasn't demanding "an athiest state", as atheism is itself a religion. I mean an official "all religions allowed, none prefered" state like what we strive to be.

 

But if you insist on answer, since we're practically whittling ourselves down to Communist countries, I guess Tito's Yugoslavia had the best human rights record.

[EricMM 0]

Oh God Mike, i can't believe you actually tried to convince someone that atheism is any worse than theism.

 

Clearly China has a horrendous human rights record. But so does the average third world theocracy. Face it, China is China, America is America, and Iran is Iran. Each country has a different story, and whether or not a country is theist has little to do with whether it will oppress its own or others, as far as I know.

[Guest MikeSC]

Yup, and religious theocracy's have such a great record. Do the words Iran or Saudi Arabia mean anything to you? Yes, they're filthy Muslims, but it's not like Christians haven't done worse in the last few centuries. Too much religion...bad. Banning religion...bad. Free expression of religion without it being involved in government...good. Is that so complicated?

So, atheism is as bad as religious fundamentalism?

 

Got it. I believe the same thing.

Just because one hasn't happened doesn't mean it's impossible. However, I wasn't demanding "an athiest state", as atheism is itself a religion. I mean an official "all religions allowed, none prefered" state like what we strive to be.

 

But if you insist on answer, since we're practically whittling ourselves down to Communist countries, I guess Tito's Yugoslavia had the best human rights record.

Shit without nutty chunks in it is still shit.

Oh God Mike, i can't believe you actually tried to convince someone that atheism is any worse than theism.

 

Clearly China has a horrendous human rights record. But so does the average third world theocracy. Face it, China is China, America is America, and Iran is Iran. Each country has a different story, and whether or not a country is theist has little to do with whether it will oppress its own or others, as far as I know.

So, again, atheism produces governments as horrendous as theocracies.

 

Yup, atheism --- THAT'S the path to enlightenment.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

So, again, atheism produces governments as horrendous as theocracies.

 

Yup, atheism --- THAT'S the path to enlightenment.

-=Mike

Who said that? I prefer a government open to all religious beliefs, including atheism, equally.

 

You do realize that's different than an Atheist state? Right?

[Guest Olympic Slam]

You guys are missing an important point, its not that an atheist state itself leads to human right's nightmares, its that traditional religion is tossed out in favor of social religion where the STATE, NOT scripture or a God, is supreme. This is why USSR and China were and are nightmares. If you don't obey the will of the state and follow the state's mandated morality (social religion) then you're gonna be in a whole heap of trouble. I see no difference between an infidel getting killed in Iran and someone getting gunned down by the KGB.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Care to explain that a little more for those of us who don't follow?

[Guest Olympic Slam]

Care to explain that a little more for those of us who don't follow?

Sure...........once I get some much needed sleep.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

An example of what he's talking about would be Stalin placing himself as the supreme being to the Soviets. There's no religion, and no reason to strive for personal success, so all energy is supposed to be exerted towards the good of the State, effectively becoming a religion in itself. Communist China even had their own sort of bible, for another example.

 

The common factor is religious extremism, at one end of the spectrum or the other. Extremism to the point where people are killed over it, whether it's disobeying Allah somehow, or not loving Big Brother.