04e215f875e7…

thuja on October 8, 2007 at 9:18 PM

I don’t have to fantasize evil from you, you did it yourself. The point is that you basically said, “Who gives a fuck, they are Muslims anyway so let them die.”

“any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

This is a classic textbook case here, people…Arabic Sudanese Muslims killing off African Sudanese Muslims/Christians/Animists in the millions. The key if the fact that this is a racial AND religious cleansing (since this is also jihad to create their global caliphate).

How F*ING STOOPID is Cartah? Yet one more answer to that rhetorical question…

OhEssYouCowboys on October 8, 2007 at 4:47 PM

Similar story. A woman at work, in her 40s, recently told me that she votes based on what name goes best with hers. “Karen Clinton
or Karen Thompson or Karen Guiliani”. I told her to do us all a favor and leave important decisions to the grownups.

SouthernDem on October 8, 2007 at 7:07 PM

Thank you S.Dem for that!

I read part of the transcript of the interview of Carter, it sounds almost like he simply wants to disagree with the White House, downplay the genocide occuring in Darfur so he can bring more attention to his precious Palestinians and what’s being done to them. Good Lord, Carter makes me ill.

If the UN does not want to accept its own defintions as the basis for making declarations that fine. But do not be fooled by what are essential political declarations.

Genocide is what it is and if you look at the definition then Genocide is being committed by the Sudanese and their friends. Those supporting Sudan by trading with them are complicit.

Unquestionably, some very evil things happen in the world. And you are right, it has been my fate to come face to face with such things at certain points in my career. I think particularly of the genocide in Rwanda, and the massacre at Srebrenica, in Bosnia –- the climax of a brutal war, which brought the horrible euphemism “ethnic cleansing” into everyday speech.

Both those disasters happened when I was head of the United Nations peacekeeping department. In both cases we had peacekeeping troops on the ground at the very place and time where genocidal acts were being committed.

In both cases I had subsequently to examine my conscience, as did many others who were involved. All of us had to ask what more we might have done, and why we did not do more, to stop this horror in its tracks –- or, better still, before it started.

And one of the conclusions we came to, in the UN Secretariat, was that we had -– to quote my report to the General Assembly on the fall of Srebrenica –- “an institutional ideology of impartiality even when confronted with attempted genocide”.

In other words, we were reluctant to face up to evil when we saw it. As peacekeepers and peacemakers, we were trained to listen, to see both sides of the case, to look for common ground, to work for reconciliation. Our experience told us that in no conflict is one side entirely to blame, and that all parties, in every conflict, will sometimes violate the laws of war.

We were not immune to moral indignation. But we had learnt that, in peacekeeping and peacemaking, moral indignation is seldom a good guide to action. One often has to swallow one’s indignation, and talk very calmly to men of violence –- men who one knows, or strongly suspects, have committed horrible crimes.

http://tinyurl.com/33yznh

Carter and Annan and their ilk are reluctant to take a firm stand against mass-murdering thugs out of a misguided sense of neutrality. It simply can’t be the case for them that one side of a conflict is primarily to blame–unless, of course, we’re talking about Israel.

Al-Bashir and Deby Itno both benefit from the conflict in Darfur not to mention Jimmie Carter all great stuff except for the victims of genocide.

For American troops, getting involved would be a blood bath.

What is the international community missing in the Darfur crisis?

Written by Ramadji Doumnande, RAMADJI.com
Monday, 25 December 2006

as I pointed out during the briefing at the Brookings Institution a few weeks ago, if after three years the world has failed to solved the problem of Darfur by putting pressure on Al-Bashir alone and only focusing its attention on the Sudanese regime, it’s time to not only come up with a plan B but more importantly review the strategy and change course. How much longer will the world tolerate this fruitless strategy?

Three years have passed since the killing fields have been opened in Darfur and the world is merely watching and letting it happen again. Isn’t it a disgrace for Humanity? It is time for the world to stop being selfish, careless, and negligent. It is time to get tough on the various actors who are benefiting from the sufferings of the populations of the area.

In the case of the Darfur crisis, the world has solely focused its attention on the Sudanese regime, ignoring the other responsible party pulling ropes and benefiting from the conflict which has already brought death to 200,000 + people and displaced another 2 million + according to humanitarian sources. It’s Al-Bashir! It’s Sudan! It’s the Janjaweed! It’s the Arabs! Believe me, it’s not just Sudan.

General Idriss Deby Itno of Chad is part of problem not part of the solution

For three years, the world has been ignoring or refusing to confront some of the originators of the war in Darfur, namely General Idriss Deby Itno of Chad and part of his Zaghawa tribe. Everybody knows that he is behind the rebel groups fighting in Darfur. Everybody knows that he is funding them and providing all the material, military and logistical support to factions like the Justice and Equality Movement lead by Dr. Khalil Ibrahim or the Sudan Liberation Movement via his older brother Daoussa Deby Itno and General Mahamat Ali Abdallah Nassour. Why this silent complicity with the Chadian regime? Does it come down to oil again?

”General Idriss Deby Itno is arming some populations in Eastern Chad”. According to numerous viable sources close to the Chadian Army, last month, more than 3,000 AK47 have been dispatched to certain people close to the regime in Ndjamena and to some tribes, the Noarma, in the Eastern part of the country. The world will wake up later to find out what we all fear, another Rwanda. Already, more than 200,000 people have been murdered in the Darfur and the gruesome arithmetic keeps dragging on without any glimpse of a rapid solution.

As long as General Idriss Deby Itno of Chad will remain in power, there will be no peace neither in the Darfur nor in Chad.

http://www.ramadji.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=153&Itemid=2

It was the Billy beer talking. . . .Right Jimmy

I hate typing . And yes I’m a two finger hunt and peck
type. . .Does it show : )

I am with you Bro. He forgot about the Christians who are also targets. But hey, they are just Christians and do not count – right thuja?
On-my-soap-box on October 8, 2007 at 7:29 PM

Well, strangely enough, I observed one of the “humanitarians” so pumped up on Darfur intervention making this statement yesterday

There are no Christians in Darfur It’s 100% Muslim.

You can look it up at http://youtube.com/watch?v=BwrxPXvvaCs

And he is a knowledgeable, if not wise, source.
Maybe you should think before you fantasize evil of me.

I am with you Bro. He forgot about the Christians who are also targets. But hey, they are just Christians and do not count – right thuja?

So then there was the time that Jimmy Carter – when asked about a genocidal conflict that may be perpetuated by Muslims on non-Muslims – got all bashful and precise: “There is a legal definition of genocide and Darfur does……

thuja on October 8, 2007 at 6:09 PM

You’ve got to be kidding.
Um, because you’re not a callous monster. Far be it for me to suggest something along the lines of military intervention, but their are innocent people being savagely murdered and before they are murdered many of them are viciously tortured. This includes children.
What wonderful insight into your true character.

Scum. How did he ever get elected? I actually have more respect for Clinton.

Me too. It’s an interesting question.

(1) Ford, while an underrated President, was charisma-challenged, and highly identified with the President who appointed him. Many voted against him purely as punishment for his pardon of Nixon.

(2) After Nixon, trust was a huge issue. At no other time would Carter’s self-righteous sanctimony have seemed like a virtue to so many voters. People actually believed him when he said “I’ll never lie to you.”

(3) Carter’s great weaknesses, his incredibly poor judgment and his spinelessness, were successfully concealed on the campaign trail. He was notorious during the campaign for speaking in generalities and avoiding specifics.

(4) He got crazy after he left office. He was a weak president and a poor president, but not, generally, an insane one. Something happened later to make things much much worse, and I’m not sure what it was.

Does the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the U.N. General Assembly on 9 December 1948. Entry into force: 12 January 1951, meet Jimmy Carter’s legal definition of genocide? …