Darfur crisis the result of years of US sponsored terrorism in Southern Sudan

[Truth Seeker]

The situation in the Darfur region of Sudan has become the new focus of the western world, with reports of an estimated one million people being displaced and ten thousand being killed. There has been pressure largely driven by the international community, and America in particular, to act in order to prevent a catastrophe. US House Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California recently stated, "We must act now to avoid more slaughter and avoid a repetition of the genocide in Rwanda 10 years ago. This is a crisis, an emergency. We have the legal obligation under international law to act.â€

 

Donald Payne, Democratic representative from New Jersey, told a press conference, "We urge the Secretary of State, Colin Powell to support an immediate intervention to stop the killing. If we fail to act a million people could die before the end of the year.â€

 

The Americans have laid the blame for the events in the Darfur squarely at the doorstep of the Sudanese government, whom it claims are sponsoring militias known as the ‘Janjaweed’ to rampage and kill people. President Bush recently stated,

 

"They [sudanese government] must stop Janjaweed violence, they must provide access to humanitarian relief for the people who suffer," he said in a speech in Washington.

 

Such an outcry from the US and western governments would seem to imply that the situation in Sudan was its own making and not through outside interference. However the situation is far from that, and the Americans have been actively stoking the flames for many years. A brief examination of Sudan shows that the South of the country has much of the natural resources and this is where the US has been trying to secure its influence, and has used a number of policies to achieve these aims.

 

The Americans have for many years actively funded a terrorist rebel militia, the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA), to fight against the Sudanese government and also to spread disenchantment in the South against the Northern government. This group has been committed untold atrocities throughout Sudan both against government troops as well as civilians, Muslim and Christian. It was under President Clinton that these terrorist militias were given the financial backing to rise up against the Sudanese governments and this policy has been maintained by the Bush administration.

 

In October 1999 Madeline Albright the then Secretary of State met with the terrorist leader of the SPLA, John Garang. When Madeline Albright met Garang she extended the hand of American friendship and committed to providing huge amounts of “humanitarian aidâ€. This charitable venture was a means to channel vast quantities of money towards the terrorist cause of the SPLA, which at that point had a flagging military fund.

 

The Economist magazine described the SPLA as “little more than an armed gang of Dinkas… killing, looting and raping. Its indifference, almost animosity, towards the people it was supposed to be ‘liberating’ was all too clear.†[The Economist, March 1998]

 

The Sunday Times revealed that the Clinton administration was supporting the terrorist SPLA in order to “… destabilize the government of Sudan... More than $20m of military equipment, including radios, uniforms and tents will be shipped to Eritrea, Ethiopia and Uganda in the next few weeks. Although the equipment is earmarked for the armed forces of those countries, much of it will be passed on to the SPLA, which is preparing an offensive against the government in Khartoum.†[The Sunday Times, 17th November 1996].

 

Such blatant support and funding by America for a terrorist movement was completely ignored by the western governments, even though it was being reported widely. The SPLA were freely waging tyranny by destroying mosques, tearing up of copies of the Qur’an as they did in Tawreet and targeting the centres for the memorization of the Noble Qur’an in Hamshkureeb. They organised the bombing of Muslims during Fajr prayer and chose the 27th Rajab, the day of Israa and Mi’raj, as the time of heightened aggression.

 

Yet amidst all this butchery and oppression, they constantly repeat the mantra that they are being oppressed due to the application of the laws of Islam, even though it is clear that such laws are not applied. They have declared that they will continue to fight until the Sudanese government abolishes the Islamic laws. All of this confirms the extent of their hidden hatred and their blatant hostility towards Islam and the Muslims. It also confirms these terrorist rebels are working in a crusader war against Islam, not only to kill Muslims but also to prevent the application of Islam.

 

The Americans have sponsored this terrorist movement in order to separate Sudan into two separate entities, the North and South, along ethnic and religious lines. This colonialist plan of divide and conquer has been a recurring style used by the western colonialists to facilitate their hegemony over the Muslim world. This policy has been used for many hundreds of years, and was a means to destroy the Islamic Khilafah through the funding and supporting of autonomous entities within the state, that were encouraged to rebel and separate. An example of this was the rebellion of ibn Saud with the help of the British, which led to the establishment of the Saudi regime in the land that was known as Hijaz – a wilayah of the Islamic Khilafah. More recent examples show the creation of Kashmir as a conflict zone, and the recent and ongoing attempts to carve up Iraq into three states; Sunni, Shia and Kurd. Such political manoeuvres have resulted in more than fifty ineffective entities in the Muslim world, where previously only one had existed.

 

The sponsorship of terrorists is actually quite a normal state of affairs for the American regime. They were able to hire a terrorist militia in the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, which were used to fight and remove the Taliban. This occurred despite the wide spread atrocities being committed by the Northern Alliance.

 

The Guardian backed up this analogy by comparing the events in Sudan with US actions in South America,

 

“Welcome to the 1980s. Long live Ronald Reagan. Remember the scenario - a rebel group being trained and armed by the CIA to topple a sovereign government, cross-border incursions from secluded camps, and the whole de-stabilization exercise backed by international sanctions and a massive propaganda campaign. It sounds like Nicaragua or Angola circa 1984. In fact it’s Sudan 1998.†[The Guardian, 1 May 1998]

 

However, the government in Sudan is not without blame, rather, they have been complicit in the plans of the Americans. They have taken political actions which have led to the SPLA being granted political weight and clout, and have also agreed plans that would see Sudan split into two. The Sudanese governments oppression in Darfur, which they continue even today, is giving licence and credibility for international intervention. With such international focus growing, it will only be a matter of time when foreign troops move in, and Sudan is formally split into two.

 

Such is the complicated and devious nature of the America’s political games. They stoke the fires of death and destruction, often when the enemy is no more than a puppet, in order to bring about a climate for political change, which they then fashion by their own hands under the guise of ‘humanitarian intervention’.

 

The time has come for the Muslims to realize the true aims of the western world and the puppet regimes that preside over the Muslims on behalf of the West. The Muslim world must act to prevent its lands from being split ever further into oblivion, to the point that it poses no threat or resistance to any force on earth. The Muslims must realise that the secular political institutions that have been forced upon the Muslim lands, work only to serve the western aims. It is by calling for the implementation of the Islamic political system, and through Islamic politics, that Muslims have a future that will lead to the undoing of the ‘divide and conquer’ policies of the West.

 

The Prophet Muhammed (saw) indicated the importance and obligation of maintaining political unity in the Islamic world,

 

 

مَنْ أتاكم وأمرÙÙƒÙÙ… جميعٌ على رجل واحد يريد أن يشقّ عصاكم،أو ÙŠÙÙرّق جماعتكم Ùاقتلوه

 

 

“Whoever comes to you, while your affairs are united under one man, and wishes to break your unity then kill him.â€

 

The Muslim world can only have a voice and a future by uniting under one Islamic political system, the Islamic Khilafah.

[AYOUB]

The Sudanese governments oppression in Darfur, which they continue even today, is giving licence and credibility for international intervention.

If thats the case, no-one but the Khartoum authorities are to blame for the crisis.

[Truth Seeker]

The Khartoum government and the American Government - but then we know which one controls which

[Jumatatu]

Originally posted by Truth Seeker:

The Khartoum government and the American Government - but then we know which one controls which

If the latter controls the former...then it should be allowed to do as it pleases in order to rectify its previous mistakes.

[Truth Seeker]

I dont think it looks to do what is right because that would contradict its own values that oblige it to support its own interests irrespective of the consequences it has to others. CAPITALISTIC nations follow this principle, hence you have problems in the first place.

[NGONGE]

The conspiracy theories are all good and well, saaxib. But, who exactly is killing whom? Are there any American soldiers fighting in Darfur?

 

The same applies to the Bin Saud and Attaturk analogies you made! Lawrence of Arabia did not go and plant the idea of Arab nationalism in the mind of the Sharif of Mecca. These ideas, differences and squabbles existed for years prior to the arrival of the Brits. The British only helped them along for political gain. Both sides were getting something back from each other. Similarly, in Turkey, Sudan, Egypt, Kuwait and Iraq, the leaders of these lands all had their own agendas and were happy to grovel to the west for help.

 

How long before someone somewhere starts blaming the tribal problems in Somalia on the West?

[Jumatatu]

Originally posted by NGONGE:

How long before someone somewhere starts blaming the tribal problems in Somalia on the West?

I thought they were responsible from offset and have been fuelling it ever since....how else would you explain when some off us claim to be the orphans of the Queen E II..... :confused: :confused:

[Truth Seeker]

This is not a cospiracy theory it is political analysis, yes it could be false, but you have to show where.

 

All analysis aims to be the most accurate and to prove it you must test it against the reality. So if you look at the various evidences used to support analysis we can see that this is typical colonial policy - divide, rule and exploit.

 

The SPLA are backed by America and they are against the Khartoum government, they were the reason for the Government to back its own militia the Janjaweed. Typical get others to do your dirty work.

 

The Muslims were untied until the British came and implnated the seeds of nationalism, they encouraged the Arabs to disassocite themselves from the Othmani (turk) Khilafah, they used a number of styles including there agents and NGO's.

 

As to the Somalian problem, im not really aware of its realtiy other than when it Africa was ruled by Islam it was known as the bread basket of the world, there was no such thing as famine. Yet as soon as the colonialists entered into the region they encouraged them to produce cash crops such as cotton rather than food and when the cotton market dried up so did the wealth of the nation and they were not produicing food themselves hence they were reliant on the west - allowing permanent subjugation.

[NGONGE]

The Muslims were untied until the British came and implnated the seeds of nationalism, they encouraged the Arabs to disassocite themselves from the Othmani (turk) Khilafah, they used a number of styles including there agents and NGO's.

I guess your using the word “united†in its loosest possible form!

 

The seeds were already there, saaxib. Arabs disliked Saldjuks without any help from any outside force. The division was already there, the Arabs only revolted when they knew there was a chance for them to declare their independence from the Turkish Ottomans. It’s sad but it’s true. The Ottoman Empire was in decline with lots of corruption and burecracy. The Arabs who felt they’re the “rightful†leaders of Muslims and Islam resented the Ottomans. The Sharrif of Mecca who was a Hashemite descendant wanted his sons to run Arab lands. One of his own descendants is the current king of Jordan (if I’m not mistaken). In most of the history of the Muslim empire these divisions have been apparent. When the Khalifa was strong they were kept under control but when the Khalifa was weak, as in the final days of the Abbasid, lots of little kingdoms sprung up and paid no heed to the Khalifa in Baghdad. So, if all these divisions were there more than 500 years before the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, what makes you think it’s the Brits that brought them about and made the Arabs hate the Ottomans all of a sudden?

 

The West uses us but they only do so because we allow them to. They’re no angels but we always knew that anyway. Shifting the blame and placing it all on their backs is nothing but a cheap way of rewriting history.

[Truth Seeker]

Read the book How the Khilafah was Destroyed by Abdul Qadeem Zaloum or Islamic State by Taqiudin an Nabhani.

[NGONGE]

Truth Seeker,

 

I will seek out those books you mentioned, insha Allah. But in my humble opinion, the Khilafa was destroyed the minute the Umayyad Empire started (with a brief break under the rule of Omer Bin Abdelaziz). Every Islamic Khilafa after that has been nothing but a dictatorship. Muslims ruled great parts of the world. We sent Islam far and wide but the Utopian concept of Khilafa that you speak of wasn’t really there. Many of those Khalifas ruled by force and set things up so that their children and their children’s children will rule after them. All the others not connected to the ruling Khalifa of the time resented that fact. When they had the chance to get rid of the Khalifa, they did and started their own dynasty.

 

Give King Fahad a bit of power and we might as well call him a Khalifa (unless you prefer Husni Mubarak of course).

[Truth Seeker]

You make a valid point that the Muslims have a big misconception about. The Khilafah ended in 1924.

 

The reason for this is that up until this point the Khaleefs were ruling with the Quran and Sunnah, yes they neglected some aspects but nothing other than Islam was used for ruling. This came to an end by the Traitor Mustapha Kemal.

 

As to the point of hereditary rule, this is where the ummah neglected its right of bayah, this does not void the khilafah.

 

Yes we had good khaleefs and yes we had bad khaleefs but also does not void the khilafah.

 

http://www.1924.org/books/pdfs/HowTheKhilafahWasDestroyed.pdf

 

http://www.1924.org/books/pdfs/IslamicState.pdf

[NGONGE]

^^^ I know you probably took my previous point about King Fahad becoming a Khalifa as a joke (and I meant it to be so), but now I’m not so sure! Doesn’t the current Saudi government rule by the Quran and Sunnah?

 

Read your history books about the Ottoman Empire, saaxib. If in doubt, avoid reading books by Western “Mostashriqeenâ€. You’ll see that the Ottoman Empire was in decline; you’ll see that they abused their powers and were not different to the King Fahads of our times. If you’re saying a Khilafa does not need bayah (sic) in order to be recognised as such, then your whole point is about having one leader of the Islamic world who loosely rules along Islamic principles (loosely being the operative word). Mustafa Kamal Attaturk was no worse than Sharrif Mecca or Sacad Zaghlol (sp?) of Egypt or Mohammed Ali Jinnah of Pakistan. They were all nationalistic leaders who put national identity before religious requirements. Attaturk gets the major blame because he put a dying giant out of it’s misery.

[Truth Seeker]

No it doesnt, if it did it would not recognise the borders between itself and other Muslim nations, it would not seek the judgement of Taghut, it would not support the jufr against the Muslims, would not take usurious loans, would carry the Islamic dawah to the rest of the world etc..........................

 

I do not disagree with you the khilafah state was in a pittiful state and the final nail was nailed by that traitor - but it was still khilfah and it was the duty of the muslims to reawakenit but due to the delcine which happpened over centuries (as you righhtly Stated) this did not happen.

 

For you now to sayt that it was not khilafah you must say when it ruled by other than what Allah (swt) revealed?

[NGONGE]

I advice you to read the history of the Ottoman Empire, saaxib! I also urge you to reconsider your definition of the concept of “Khilafaâ€. In the early days of the Empire, in the days of Suleiman the magnificent and the ten/twenty that followed him, the Ottoman Empire was great. It had its faults of course but on the whole, it resembled some sort of Islamic Khilafa. After these guys though, corruption became widespread, nepotism was the name of the game and the removal of Islam from judicial decisions was the norm.

 

I could become really pedantic and say that the Ottoman khalifa was only a Khalifa by name. They fought the Egyptian Mamaleek to wrestle power from them; they usurped Iraq, Syria and most of the North African countries. They sent their cronies to run those places and abuse their own powers there. Even before the world war and the last days of the Empire, all this abuse led the Egyptians to revolt and seek independence(read about Mohammed Ali and Saad Zaghloul).

 

Attaturk, the guy you single out as a traitor (which I suppose he was), only did what he thought was right for his people. He didn’t sell out to the Europeans; he fought to FREE Turkey from everyone (Ottomans or otherwise). The Khalifa has already introduced half of Mustafa Kamal’s secular laws even before the empire has been conquered.

 

If holes need to be picked in most the Islamic Khalifas after the first four, there are plenty to pick. Winning wars, spreading Islam to far away lands and being altogether jolly chaps does not mean that these guys ruled by the Quran and Sunnah, saaxib. It’s all there for anyone with eyes to see but sentimentality keeps getting in the way.