The UN and Darfur: Watching, but still waiting

[Taliban]

Originally posted by Caano Geel:

you cant bring everything down to secularism.

Well, almost everything negative in the Muslim world has its root in secularism. Secularism in the Muslim world is a cancer that needs to be chemotherapized.

 

Look at theocratic, need we remind you of the behaviour of the people you have named u're self after [actually you probably think they were great don't you] ..

In the other topic, you claimed history shows that unconstrained/unquesioned power corrupts and a theocracy places all the power in the hands of a few, and I challenged you to cite a few examples from history, which you failed because there's no such history. I think you probably don't know what theocracy is about, and would find it impossible to believe if I say Israel is theocracy while Saudi Arabia isn't. Yeah, it's a fact. And while Iran is theocracy, it's also theo-democracy. I am not sure if the Taliban's rule could be classified as theocracy.

 

wrt the congo, oil is not everything. Resources such as copper, cobalt, coltan and uranium are immensely valuable, rare and widely sought

Like I said, those aren't energy resources. Without energy resources, civilization as we know today will grind to a halt.

 

wrt the sudan, why do you say its 'minor' when millions are in refugee camps, what does it take to become major?

I say it's minor because the number of people who have died in this local conflict is a fraction of the number circulated by the West. There might be millions in refugees camps, however, the refugee problem was created by the West's interference.

[Cara.]

Originally posted by Taliban:

I say it's minor because the number of people who have died in this local conflict is a fraction of the number circulated by the West. There might be millions in refugees camps, however, the refugee problem was created by the West's interference.

How many people do you think have been killed in this conflict, and where do you get that figure?

[Taliban]

Originally posted by Cara:

How many people do you think have been killed in this conflict, and where do you get that figure?

A fraction of the number alleged by the West. I get the figure from Sudanese sources. And I don't think it; I believe it. Why? Because the Sudanese government is telling the truth, just as Saddam Hussein's government was telling the truth about not possessing WMDs or having links with Al-Qaeda. No can trust the West.

[Cara.]

^But what is that number exactly? And how is the truthfullness of Saddam Hussein linked to that of Sudan? Why do you believe the Sudanese government is telling the truth? Would it be in their best interests to? Do they strike you as particularly honest or conscientious?

[Taliban]

Originally posted by Cara:

But what is that number exactly?

The exact number will not make any difference to you, since knowing it isn't your objective.

 

And how is the truthfullness of Saddam Hussein linked to that of Sudan?

The same players (US, EU, UN) who concocted lies against Saddam Hussein are concocting lies against Sudan.

 

Why do you believe the Sudanese government is telling the truth?

Because those who have concocted lies against the Sudanese government have a track record of lying, therefore the Sudanese government is telling the truth.

 

Would it be in their best interests to?

It wouldn't matter if the Sudanese government tells the truth, because the platform of telling the truth and concocting lies is controlled by the West.

 

Do they strike you as particularly honest or conscientious?

This isn't about what strikes me per se; it's about track records.

[Cara.]

Originally posted by Taliban:

The exact number will not make any difference to you, since knowing it isn't your objective.

It is actually. I want to know what you consider to be "minor problems" in terms of actual number of people dead. How many people would have to be willfully murdered by their own government before you think it's a crisis? So what is the number Taliban? It's ridiculous to make a claim and then to coyly withhold information relevant to that claim.

 

The same players (US, EU, UN) who concocted lies against Saddam Hussein are concocting lies against Sudan.

Actually, the figure for how many people were killed in Darfur (at minimum over two hundred thousand) comes from NGOs. The US estimates are a lot less, and the UN is simply quoting NGOs like Human Rights Watch. Incidentally, these are the same NGOs who challenged America on the presence of WMDs in Iraq, who say 1 million people were massacred in Rwanda, and who estimate that the Iraq war toll is at 600,000 civilians. You quoted them in each of these instances, but suddenly become suspicious when they say that hundreds of thousands of civilians in Darfur have been killed, and over 2 million have been displaced. Isn't that interesting?

 

Because those who have concocted lies against the Sudanese government have a track record of lying, therefore the Sudanese government is telling the truth.

I'm not even going to point out the logical fallacy of that statement there.

[Taliban]

Originally posted by Cara:

How many people would have to be willfully murdered by their own government before you think it's a crisis?

That's why I stated your objective isn't to learn the exact number, as it will not make any difference to you. Your objective is to state 40,000 killed is the same as 400,000 killed.

 

Actually, the figure for how many people were killed in Darfur (at minimum over two hundred thousand) comes from NGOs. The US estimates are a lot less, and the UN is simply quoting NGOs like Human Rights Watch. Incidentally, these are the same NGOs who challenged America on the presence of WMDs in Iraq, who say 1 million people were massacred in Rwanda, and who estimate that the Iraq war toll is at 600,000 civilians. You quoted them in each of these instances, but suddenly become suspicious when they say that hundreds of thousands of civilians in Darfur have been killed, and over 2 million have been displaced. Isn't that interesting?

Not interesting. Those NGOs like Human Rights Watch were founded by the West, their headquarters based in the West, financed by the West, dominated by Westerners-- therefore, biased. At best, they issue a few condemnations against some Western governments, with the objective of giving an independent or impartial status. Those NGOs are useless, because they can't stop invasions, occupations, holocausts, massacres and genocides committed by the West. Some harmless condemnations here and there, nothing more. But, when they are used as a tool by the West against weak Muslim countries, they make a difference.

 

I'm not even going to point out the logical fallacy of that statement there.

You're entitled to a fallacious point outing.

[Caano Geel]

Talib

you comments on numbers remind me of another ****** argument by a SOLer that the causalities of of the ethiopia campaign where also mere numbers - so please exactly what does it take to qualify minor or major. If nothing else just so we know how many people can be killed before it matters.

 

YOur comment on NGOs has no weight. When the floods were drowning residents of the JUba and Shebbelle valleys it was oxfam, unicef, christian aid and the red crescent that were collecting the cash, sending the doctors and the relief - It is they that feed the refugee cambs in kenya, ethiopia and yemen. There are many many problems with NGOs, but what you have listed is not it.

 

On the theoracy front, yes isreal is a theocracy so shouldn't you be cheering them, or do you want a muslim version of isreal, a corrupt blood thirsty, oppressive racist state. However, strictly speaking norway is also a theocracy and its population enjoys one the highest living standards in the world -- i wonder why!

 

Anyhow, the issue here is that in the Darfur its estimated somewhere between 1-2.5 million people have been displaced countless others killed - now you disagree with this because the figures come from NGOs that are corrupt because they are western. I'm curious had the west not 'interfered' would these people still be at home tending to their live stock? And exactly how does the interference that creates such mayhem work?

[Taliban]

Originally posted by Caano Geel:

If nothing else just so we know how many people can be killed before it matters.

Well, the US, the UK and its allies massacred more than 600,000 Iraqis; that wasn't holocaust, genocide, massacre, iwm-- and it matters not.

 

When the floods were drowning residents of the JUba and Shebbelle valleys it was oxfam, unicef, christian aid and the red crescent that were collecting the cash, sending the doctors and the relief - It is they that feed the refugee cambs in kenya, ethiopia and yemen.

Well, as they say, nothing is for free. Those NGOs (oxfam, unicef, christian aid and the red crescent) get profit in return for aiding Muslims. What they do is tax free, plus volunteers work as their staff or employees. They get free thousands Muslim orphans to be adopted and raised by Christians. And it doesn't cost them much; a Western dollar or pound isn't much in the West, but can make a difference in the Third World. That's why they can't help the millions of homeless and poor in the West who suffer from famine, lack of medical attention, lack of heating in winter, iwm. The other thing, Islamic NGOs have been barred from aiding those Muslims in need, 'cause the West indicted them of terrorism.

 

I'm curious had the west not 'interfered' would these people still be at home tending to their live stock? And exactly how does the interference that creates such mayhem work?

Had the West not interfered, the bulk (if not all) of those displaced would have been at their home tending to their livestock. With the interference, the West armed certain Darfurians, trained them, provided them logistics and intelligence, ordered them to destabilize the region, cause mayhem, iwm.

[Caano Geel]

Do you believe that

"the US, the UK and its allies massacred more than 600,000 Iraqis" ?

[Taliban]

Originally posted by Caano Geel:

Do you believe that

"the US, the UK and its allies massacred more than 600,000 Iraqis" ?

Of course. Without the US, the UK and its allies, more than 600,000 Iraqis wouldn't have been massacred. Directly or indirectly, the massacre was caused by the US, the UK and its allies. And before this massacre, 1 million Iraqi kids were massacred after the first Gulf war; courtesy of Western sanctions. You might find it difficult to comprehend, but the keyword is causal.

[Caano Geel]

Ok, but you dont belief the same people when they tell you that 70,000 have died in the Darfur. or is that not enough, its ok because supposed muslims have killed them?

[Taliban]

Originally posted by Caano Geel:

or is that not enough, its ok because supposed muslims have killed them?

No, it's not that. 4 millions in Congo and 1 million in Rwanda, most of them Christians, perish; each didn't get a fraction of the monumental worldwide attention and countless UN resolutions Sudan is getting. Now, it's that.

[Caano Geel]

No its not what?

 

What do congo and rwanda have to do with the current issue. Had you followed the news in the 'secular and idol worshipping' media you would know that there have been outcries on the tragedies you mention. Its because of the consequences of the lack of involvement that pushes the current interest in the Darfur.

 

Did you know that its the christian right that is the leading american campaign group pushing a government that in no way wants to be tied up in another *african* and worse *muslim* affair - to go and protect black muslim people on the other side of the world.

 

Did you also know that EU does not want to pay any more lip service to the crisis, it only because they fear the reaction of their populations to another 4 million dead that they even speak.

 

its obvious that you have no idea what your talking about. your contentment of blatant contradictions -unless they suite your point at hand- is simply disgraceful.

 

go and read, then i will consider talking with you.

[Taliban]

Originally posted by Caano Geel:

its obvious that you have no idea what your talking about. your contentment of blatant contradictions -unless they suite your point at hand- is simply disgraceful.

I think you have lost patience trying to convince me with your Westernized or secular arguments. Well, you tried your best.