/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Darfur



Hawa
09-25-2006, 08:07 PM
With permission from the author I thought I should post something up since Darfur is hardly ever mentioned in this forum, thank you Keltoi for your reminder.

Darfur Holocaust;
September 11th, 2006

“Why is no one helping us?” he asked. “I don’t know why the world is ignoring what is being done to my people,” he added.

I could do nothing to solace him other than provide my being there for him anytime he felt like talking. His tone was shaky and I sensed tears in his voice. Even a man is not strong enough to suppress the feelings of injustice he has had to harbor every day.

Ibrahim contacted me some time back and gave me a heads-up on how things were going down there in Sudan. He is a Sudanese native from the tribe called ‘Zaqawa’ who hail from the western region that is suffering an indignant genocide as I type; Darfur.

I met Ibrahim by chance a year ago while studying in Sudan. He’s a very intelligent person and has the kind of persona which would make you think that everything in his life is going perfectly. But underneath that smiling face and contagious kindness there’s a suffering heart. He has no news of his relatives back in Darfur and bears the kind of discrimination that is not openly shown but can be sensed in the atmosphere. I sometimes cannot help but envy his ability to keep up a happy face with all the indignity he and his people have to endure; and at the same time can do nothing but pray for his people.

I was inspired to write about this in hopes that his voice and the cries of those undergoing the daily humiliation and torture in Darfur wouldn’t go unheard.

I believe that when any government is found guilty of mass murders, other nations are obligated to intervene. When a leader of a sovereign nation is found blameworthy for supporting a terrorist militia and trying to cover it up, other leaders or the citizens of that nation have the power to bring him/her down. When there is a humanitarian crisis in an area, aid groups must be given safe passage to those suffering in order to relieve them.

But what happens when no one intervenes? What happens when the citizens don’t even have the power to openly express their distaste for that leader, let alone bring him/her down from power? What happens when that leader openly denies aid groups safe access to the people in the troubled regions?

Only one word comes to mind: genocide.

In a country that systematically victimizes its people and rules them with fear, I can understand why the citizens have no voice at all. When a normal scene is a group of spoiled teens driving custom BMWs and Porsches imported from Germany zooming past a pick-up truck filled with a dozen homeless passengers on the rear bed, I can understand why not much is done for Darfur. When people treat you based you your wealth and ethnicity, I know why there’s silence among the citizens (oh they’re from so-and-so tribe; it’s not our problem).

But when the Sudanese news channels talk about anything but Darfur, something is going wrong. When simple non-violent protests are sometimes answered with brute force and torture, something is off-beam. When the president’s motorcade of custom made BMWs occupied by young commandos rush off to cut the red tape on a new ATM machine while others suffer in the western region, something is seriously wrong.

I honestly don’t know everything that goes on in Darfur because I haven’t been to the region. Nor have I ever read any of the Sudanese newspapers because there is no freedom of press there and the government obviously ‘proofreads’ the papers before they hit the printing machines. All I know is that a terrorist militia receives funds from the government to wipe out those in Darfur. All I know is that countless scores of men, women, and children have been raped and killed simply because of their ethnicity. All I know is that millions have fled their homes to nearby Chad in order to stay alive in hopes of building a new life. All I know is that millions more are stranded in Darfur like sitting ducks in hopes that this will end before they too, become nothing more than a statistic on the death toll.

It’s been 3½ years and counting and the situation has only worsened. Several aid agencies have been working there way before this has been dubbed genocide, only to be forced to leave for their own safety. Ever since this began, the central government has been diplomatically dancing around the negotiation table avoiding all calls for peace in the region. What’s worse is that the government is now denying peace troops from entering the region to provide help and safety to the people.

As for outside help, we have the usual: the American government is trying to keep up its image as the world’s foremost peace and ‘democracy’ promoter by repeatedly sending senior officials to Darfur. After all, what is a war-torn, famine stricken, drought suffering region without US visits? Be it to increase international recognition, sign business deals, or simply to offer assistance, the US government is usually the first to come to the ‘aid’ of those in troubled regions and there is no exception here. If USA was really up for peace in Darfur, they would have asserted more pressure on the thick heads that rule Sudan but it’s pretty obvious that the recently found oil is a big player in their frequent visits. USA is playing another dodgy diplomatic game in Sudan, as it has before in many other places. It says it won’t give up on the peace when it actually won’t give up on coming back every time to sign a new peace oil deal. It puts oil deals above the lives of the innocent people of Darfur and then wonders why people don’t like its policies. I could understand the reasons USA won’t take a more active role in the Darfur crisis, but they don’t have to make it so obvious by sending senior officials to sign oil deals to satisfy their ever growing oil addiction.

These people are not like the Palestinians who are being punished for electing Hamas into office. They’re not like the Iraqis who are suffering because USA invaded their country and instigated a civil war. These people aren’t like the Lebanese who suffered a month of continuous pounding by Israel because it has some issues with Hezbollah. They’re not like the Somalis who suffered because of some mentally deranged war lords and a disgruntled Islamic militia. These people are simply being punished for being something they can’t change; for something that will always be a part of them: their ethnicity.

To the people of Darfur, a peace on paper means nothing as they wonder if there is any way to put an end to their pain. If the open support of the Sudanese central government for the militia doesn’t cry genocide, I don’t know what does. If the blatant denial of peace troops to enter the region doesn’t say anything, I don’t know what does. I ask you not to pity these people, but to offer your prayers that this ends soon so Ibrahim and his people can finally close this sad chapter in their lives and have their dignity as human beings restored.

You can make a difference by signing a petition to stop the crisis in Darfur. I also recommend the Save Darfur organization. http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/inte...aspx?source=dq
http://www.savedarfur.org/content?splash=yes
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Woodrow
09-25-2006, 08:49 PM
I think before anybody tries to decide who is who it may be best if we knew a little more about the people involved. Most of us are awre of the "Genocide" being commited against the Sudanese by the Janaweed, the question is what do we know about the Janaweed?

Background

Since February 2003, the government of Sudan has used militias known as “Janjaweed”3 as its principal counter-insurgency ground force in Darfur against civilians from the Fur, Zaghawa, Massalit and other ethnic groups from which two rebel groups known as the Sudan Liberation Army/Movement (SLA/M) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) are drawn. The government-backed Janjaweed militias are derived from the “Abala,” camel-herding nomads who migrated to Darfur from Chad and West Africa in the 1970s, and from Arab camel-herding tribes from North Darfur.4 With government aerial support, arms, communications, and other backing, and often alongside government troops, the Janjaweed militias have been a key component in the government’s military campaign in Darfur; a campaign that has resulted in the murder, rape and forced displacement of thousands of civilians.5

Hundreds of villages in Darfur have been totally or partially burned and destroyed by bombing and ground attacks. More than a million people have been forced from their homes and more than 158,000 people have fled Darfur for neighboring Chad. The vast majority of displaced civilians remain in Darfur where most are settled in camps and on the outskirts of towns, dependent on international humanitarian assistance that the Sudan government has blocked and restricted for months. In these areas under government control, displaced civilians continue to be preyed upon by the Janjaweed militias who are based in camps and villages in the rural areas they control, from which they have forcibly displaced most of the original inhabitants.

Despite the humanitarian ceasefire agreement signed by the government of Sudan and rebel groups on April 8, 2004, the violence has not ceased. Attacks on civilians have continued, including incidents of government bombing of both civilians and military targets, Janjaweed raids on civilians and their livestock within Darfur and across the border into Chad, and rebel attacks on various targets including aid convoys.6
Source: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/07/19/darfur9096.htm

Sadly this looks like a civil war. Brother against brother, Muslim against Muslim. How do we stop the killing without siding with either faction and if we side who do we side with?
Reply

Woodrow
09-25-2006, 08:57 PM
Who is Janjaweed aligned with?

Sudan

Sudan is torn by two major conflicts. The country has been split north and south, between Muslim and Christian, for more than twenty years. The National Islamic Front (NIF) government in Khartoum has promoted this conflict, arming Muslim militias, engaging in slavery, and committing aerial attacks on civilians. This Sudanese government identifies Islam as its state religion, and it aligns itself with Islamic extremist groups including Hamas and Hezbollah. Operation Lifeline Sudan, a United Nations-coordinated relief effort, estimates that 800,000 people currently are affected by this conflict.

More recently, a second catastrophic struggle has come to the attention of the international community. Ethnic cleansing in the Darfur region, in western Sudan, has pitted government-authorized Arab Muslim militias, the Janjaweed, against African Muslim settlements. The militias are attacking civilian villages, raping and murdering their citizens, and looting their possessions. The US Agency for International Development (USAID) estimates that 213,000 people have been displaced into neighboring Chad by this ongoing attempt to purge the Darfur region of non-Arabs; casualties are nearing 80,000.

Source: http://www.house.gov/mcdermott/issues_africa.shtml
Reply

Hawa
09-25-2006, 09:24 PM
Brother Woodrow I dont see why you would put the word Genocide in quotes..the number of deaths has been put to 70000, doesnt that fall under Genocide?

The government of Sudan should not be called Islamic, it is anything but. Whether it aligns itself with Hamas and Hezbollah is at this point very irrelevant, I fail to see why you highlighted that particular sentence.
Corrupt leaders should be removed from Muslim lands, the situation is heartbreaking and our silence only hastens the criminals in their activities..
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
AHMED_GUREY
09-25-2006, 09:50 PM
this is very sad :(
Reply

Woodrow
09-25-2006, 10:24 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hawa
Brother Woodrow I dont see why you would put the word Genocide in quotes..the number of deaths has been put to 70000, doesnt that fall under Genocide?

The government of Sudan should not be called Islamic, it is anything but. Whether it aligns itself with Hamas and Hezbollah is at this point very irrelevant, I fail to see why you highlighted that particular sentence.
Corrupt leaders should be removed from Muslim lands, the situation is heartbreaking and our silence only hastens the criminals in their activities..
Must be our age difference. I put Genocide in quotes because When I was in school we used quotes as emphasis and agreement. The reason for empasisng the alignment with Hamas and Hizbullah is to point out the difficulty in seperating this from being an internal problem. No matter which side is helped the helper is going to be condemned. No matter who does what, it will be seen as an intrusion and unwanted occupation.
Reply

north_malaysian
09-26-2006, 05:36 AM
Both are Muslims .... in fact both are black Africans.... the ONLY difference that one speak Arabic and one speak African languages.... CRAZY.... if those Janjaweed UNDERSTAND ISLAM.... they dont do this stupid thing....
Reply

Zulkiflim
09-26-2006, 10:31 AM
Salaam,

Both are muslim but what are doing is it Islamic?

Nope,..

But from both article it is clear that no one know the true reason why this conflict is happening..

What is the real reason?

And one wodner why the US or Security council is not doing anything,,perhaps becasue it need the aggresors..

We have already seen many times when the US want civil war or to prop up a dictatorship FOR ITS OWN PEACE>.

Inshallah,may they muslim in Sudan awaken and follow the way of Somalia Islmaic court and do not put the secular world in much importance.

To the end we will all die ,to the grave we will go and to life eternal in fire or with Allah..

Individual choices.
Reply

Woodrow
09-26-2006, 10:47 AM
And one wodner why the US or Security council is not doing anything,,perhaps becasue it need the aggresors..

What right would the US have in interfering with the internal affairs of another nation? Neither faction has asked for or even wants US intervention.

US involvement would be no different then the current involvement in Iraq. we would be the aggressors in an undeveloped country. the fighting would not stop and we would have US soldiers defending themselves from both groups with the final result being the US going to war against Darfur.

People holler for us to get out of Iraq, then holler for us to go into a similar situation, in which the outcome will be the same.
Reply

Hawa
09-26-2006, 01:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
And one wodner why the US or Security council is not doing anything,,perhaps becasue it need the aggresors..

What right would the US have in interfering with the internal affairs of another nation? Neither faction has asked for or even wants US intervention.

US involvement would be no different then the current involvement in Iraq. we would be the aggressors in an undeveloped country. the fighting would not stop and we would have US soldiers defending themselves from both groups with the final result being the US going to war against Darfur.

People holler for us to get out of Iraq, then holler for us to go into a similar situation, in which the outcome will be the same.

The US undertook the role as the World's policeman with great zeal when it came to Iraq...yes, the situation is out of control, but that doesnt mean the greatest contributor to the UN cannot push for peace talks in Sudan.
Those where the sentiments of the writer by the way, frankly I think it's the responsibility of the Muslim world to put an end to these atrocities.
It's utterly pathetic how they keep quiet, I guess African's simply arent worth the hassle..
Reply

Zulkiflim
09-26-2006, 04:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
And one wodner why the US or Security council is not doing anything,,perhaps becasue it need the aggresors..

What right would the US have in interfering with the internal affairs of another nation? Neither faction has asked for or even wants US intervention.

US involvement would be no different then the current involvement in Iraq. we would be the aggressors in an undeveloped country. the fighting would not stop and we would have US soldiers defending themselves from both groups with the final result being the US going to war against Darfur.

People holler for us to get out of Iraq, then holler for us to go into a similar situation, in which the outcome will be the same.

Salaam,

It is simple why the world blae the US for most of it troubles.

Look at the history of the US ,CIA and other agencies,create strifea nd dissent to casue civil wars for the US peace.

And in all that the US never once admitted to its underhanded dealing,but rahter say otehr are at fault while accpeting no blame to itself.

Search for this Secrets of the CIA
Or wath the video on you tube.

and the latest video just posted by in the world forum about CIA using drug money to support it evil operations.
Maybe that why the US allow Afghan to grow poppy again.

So it simple,can you be truested after so much lies and continue to lie?
And all for for the UNITED STATES own safety..
Reply

Woodrow
09-26-2006, 06:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zulkiflim
Salaam,

It is simple why the world blae the US for most of it troubles.

Look at the history of the US ,CIA and other agencies,create strifea nd dissent to casue civil wars for the US peace.

And in all that the US never once admitted to its underhanded dealing,but rahter say otehr are at fault while accpeting no blame to itself.

Search for this Secrets of the CIA
Or wath the video on you tube.

and the latest video just posted by in the world forum about CIA using drug money to support it evil operations.
Maybe that why the US allow Afghan to grow poppy again.

So it simple,can you be truested after so much lies and continue to lie?
And all for for the UNITED STATES own safety..
Quite true, which is why any USA intervention would be more destructive than helpful. Even with the best of intentions that is how any USA intervention would be seen and this places the USA into the posistion of only being a meddler and not a helper. Help, from us would cause more hardships then they would solve.
Reply

therebbe
09-27-2006, 01:55 AM
With permission from the author I thought I should post something up since Darfur is hardly ever mentioned in this forum, thank you Keltoi for your reminder.
It is because who is the commiter of the crime.
Reply

Quruxbadaan
09-27-2006, 02:39 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
And one wodner why the US or Security council is not doing anything,,perhaps becasue it need the aggresors..

What right would the US have in interfering with the internal affairs of another nation? Neither faction has asked for or even wants US intervention.

US involvement would be no different then the current involvement in Iraq. we would be the aggressors in an undeveloped country. the fighting would not stop and we would have US soldiers defending themselves from both groups with the final result being the US going to war against Darfur.

People holler for us to get out of Iraq, then holler for us to go into a similar situation, in which the outcome will be the same.

asalaamu alaikum wa rahmatullah

i see what you mean however i must say that regardless whether or not the intervention is desired something has to happen for this to stop

in the end its all the will and the ordainment of allah swt and nothing happens without his authority us as Muslims should want for the fighting between brother & brother to come to an end we should not try to justify why the world of muslims are idly twidling their thumbs and saying " ohhh interference is unwanted" it shouldnt matter to us who did what in the begining and how it all started people are deing right this moment and those people are more cluless to the situation than alot of us are

so at the least let us make dua for those muslimeen in sudan and in iraq and in palistine and anywhere that they are enduring hardship.

Maa salaama
Reply

Woodrow
09-27-2006, 02:51 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Quruxbadaan
asalaamu alaikum wa rahmatullah

i see what you mean however i must say that regardless whether or not the intervention is desired something has to happen for this to stop

in the end its all the will and the ordainment of allah swt and nothing happens without his authority us as Muslims should want for the fighting between brother & brother to come to an end we should not try to justify why the world of muslims are idly twidling their thumbs and saying " ohhh interference is unwanted" it shouldnt matter to us who did what in the begining and how it all started people are deing right this moment and those people are more cluless to the situation than alot of us are

so at the least let us make dua for those muslimeen in sudan and in iraq and in palistine and anywhere that they are enduring hardship.

Maa salaama
so at the least let us make dua for those muslimeen in sudan and in iraq and in palistine and anywhere that they are enduring hardship.
Ameen

As an American Muslim that is probably the most I can do besides doing what I can to support relief organizations. I think it would only worsen the situation if America were to try to interven as an "Official" American preciense and would lead to a situation much like Iraq. I believe for us American Muslims we can do more by donating money and/or time to the various relief organizations. But, that is just my thoughts. But, we can all make Dua.
Reply

blunderbus
11-05-2006, 05:23 AM
The United Nations tried to help the Darfurians in the United Nations but its resolutions were blocked by China with backing from Qatar (an Islamic country).

The great tragedy for the people of Darfur is that their victimizers are Muslims. Most muslims (certainly the violent ones) ONLY care about injustice when it is a kaffir mistreating a Muslim, otherwise they couldn't care less. (ask the Kurds if you don't believe me)
Reply

blunderbus
11-05-2006, 05:24 AM
I misstyped, the first sentence should say "The United States tried to help the Darfurians..."
Reply

thirdwatch512
11-05-2006, 05:28 AM
well of course darfur is being covered up.. covered by the headlines of the war in iraq and such.

it's time that action is taken against the sudan government. enough is enough. and why hasn't anyone done anything yet!
Reply

blunderbus
11-05-2006, 05:38 AM
Huge protests over cartoons in an obscure Danish newspaper, but nothing over the wholesale rape and murder of fellow Muslims. No huge protests outside the Sudanese embassy, no burnings of Sudanese flags, NOTHING.

What the people of Darfur are suffering far outwieghs in magnatude and viciousness any injustices done by America or Israel in Iraq or Palestine yet the great "muslim nation" turns away and does nothing.
Reply

stannis
11-06-2006, 05:18 PM
Are the people of Darfur Muslim? I thought they were Black Christian?
Reply

Skillganon
11-07-2006, 01:33 AM
I think the conflict is more political.

It is suggested in Islamonline.net Q/A session by an expert Hassan Mekky

All Darfuris have dark complexions and speak Arabic. Non-Arab Darfuris are those who speak Arabic and another dialect. In other words, those who do not have a certain dialect are called Arabs even if s/he has a darker complexion than those who speak Arabic and have a dialect.

But bear in mind that tribes in Darfur nowadays are mixed and the province's social fabric is now based on mixed marriages irrespective of ethnicity. True that there are some racial tensions, but all Darfuris are on board that the Al-Fur is the largest tribe in Darfur and its people are considered to be the best memorizers of the Noble Qur'an all over the world. They are also considered to be the indigenous people of pastime Darfur Kingdom, and that's why the province is named after their tribe.


The people of Al-Fur tribe are mostly farmers, who took the brunt of this conflict. And I want to assert that the conflict in Darfur is not ethnic or racial in nature. But it is a conflict on natural resources, power and political posts. It is no surprise then to find an Arab tribe allying with an African or Arab one. Farmers are taking the side of their fellow farmers, while shepherds are rallying behind their follows. Political ambitions have given this conflict an ethnic dimension. There are too much lies and exaggerations about the conflict in Darfur. In a nutshell, If we found a solution to the natural resources and power problem, the conflict's stumbling bloc would then be removed.

ref: http://www.islamonline.net/livedialo...GuestID=F316TD
Reply

Tayyib musawwir
11-23-2006, 02:40 PM
Assalammu Alaikum Ameen Whats up My Brotha I'm African American Name Is Tayyib 22 Year old This Hole Situation Hapenin Darfur Sudan Saudi Arab Janjaweeds Killin African Muslims Every One Of Yall Moslims Is Gonna Have To Invited The Country Sent Flood Money Make Sure They Get It On Time What Quran Saids Bout Two Islamc Person Murder Aother Goes Staight To Hell By The Way Ameen Are You White Or Black Not Dat It Matters
Reply

Woodrow
11-23-2006, 03:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skillganon
I think the conflict is more political.

It is suggested in Islamonline.net Q/A session by an expert Hassan Mekky

All Darfuris have dark complexions and speak Arabic. Non-Arab Darfuris are those who speak Arabic and another dialect. In other words, those who do not have a certain dialect are called Arabs even if s/he has a darker complexion than those who speak Arabic and have a dialect.

But bear in mind that tribes in Darfur nowadays are mixed and the province's social fabric is now based on mixed marriages irrespective of ethnicity. True that there are some racial tensions, but all Darfuris are on board that the Al-Fur is the largest tribe in Darfur and its people are considered to be the best memorizers of the Noble Qur'an all over the world. They are also considered to be the indigenous people of pastime Darfur Kingdom, and that's why the province is named after their tribe.


The people of Al-Fur tribe are mostly farmers, who took the brunt of this conflict. And I want to assert that the conflict in Darfur is not ethnic or racial in nature. But it is a conflict on natural resources, power and political posts. It is no surprise then to find an Arab tribe allying with an African or Arab one. Farmers are taking the side of their fellow farmers, while shepherds are rallying behind their follows. Political ambitions have given this conflict an ethnic dimension. There are too much lies and exaggerations about the conflict in Darfur. In a nutshell, If we found a solution to the natural resources and power problem, the conflict's stumbling bloc would then be removed.
ref: http://www.islamonline.net/livedialo...GuestID=F316TD
That is very similar to the "Range Wars" we had in the US during the 1800's. You had Cattle ranchers, Sheep herders and farmers(aka: "Sod Busters") The Cattle ranchers were constantly at war with Sheep herders over grazing right, and both were at war with the "Sod Busters" who wanted to plough up the grazing lands for planting. It was a very bitter and bloody time in our history, probably matched only by our "Civil War" Our own civil war was quite nasty.

If I remember my history correctly we lost over 1/4 of the entire American population during those 4 years of conflict. The sores of that war have only begun to heal during my lifetime and there still are some open wounds from it.
Reply

Wolodyjowski
02-12-2007, 08:14 AM
Deserting Darfur
By Steven Emerson
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 8, 2007

As the genocide in the Darfur region of western Sudan continues unabated -- the United Nations conservatively estimates more than 200,000 dead and 2 million displaced in the conflict between the government-backed janjaweed militias and the mainly Muslim African tribespeople[1] -- the reaction of Western powers has been shamefully timid. But it seems downright heroic next to the disgraceful response of many self-proclaimed Muslim civil rights groups.

Although foreign military intervention seems highly unlikely given the current political climate, many individuals and governments are taking steps to pressure Khartoum to end the slaughter. One such step, taken by the Virginia State General Assembly, is the introduction of legislation to divest the state’s pension fund from companies conducting business with Sudan – a courageous, if only symbolic step that sends a clear signal to Sudan: no longer will genocide be tolerated, in Africa or anywhere else. Six other states have already passed similar legislation; twenty-five more are slated to introduce bills this year.

One might think that all Americans could support such a strategy. But one would be very wrong. A group calling itself the Virginia Muslim Political Action Committee (VMPAC) has already issued a press release opposing the divestment legislation on the grounds that such divestment campaigns are “exclusively use[ing] economic sanctions and military interventions against Muslim countries." Never mind the fact that similar tactics have been used to fight repression in such non-Muslim countries as Cuba and North Korea. The real irony here is that the targets of the Sudanese genocide are in the main innocent Muslims.

Politicians rarely publicly stand up to Islamist pressure groups like the VMPAC. Doing so, they fear, may cause such organizations to mobilize their constituencies with a combination of fear-mongering and disinformation. One who refuses to be browbeaten is Rep. Frank Wolf, a Republican from Virginia. In response to the VMPAC’s opposition to the divestment legislation, the congressman has courageously called on the group to defend its position. In a letter to VMPAC, Wolf writes:

Your plea to the Virginia General Assembly to ask Congress and the State Department to pursue a peaceful, diplomatic response to a situation like that in Darfur is misguided … While people bicker over numbers and definitions and diplomatic strategies, families die in Darfur. … It is time for other methods of getting at this regime to halt the unspeakable violence it is exacting on the Muslim African population in Darfur. … We need to send a signal to Khartoum that America and the West will not stand silent in the face of genocide. It is your undisputable responsibility to stand up for the people of Darfur and not the Government of Sudan.

It should come as no surprise that Congressman Wolf champions the cause of Darfur. He has a long history of standing up against violence towards Muslims around the world. As he further writes to VMPAC:

In Sudan, Chechnya, China, Bosnia and Kosovo, I have spoken out in defense of poeple of the Muslim Faith .. I have been to Sudan five times, including leading the first congressional delgation to visit Darfur. I was the only Member of Congress to visit Chechnya during the fighting in 1995. When I returned, I condemed the violence against the Chechen people and called for a ceasefire ... I was one of the only Members to visit Muslim men in a Serb-run prisoner-of-war camp in Bosnia where I saw evidence of a modern-day holocaust taking place. Very early on, I began speaking out against the ethnic cleansing and cultureal genocide against the Bosnian people.

Taking the lead on ending the genocide in Darfur, where Muslims are being slaughtered is a "no brainer" for Congressman Wolf. Curiously, his position finds its most vocal opposition in self-styled Islamic "civil rights" and political organizations like the VMPAC. Which raises the question: Why would the VMPAC and its officials oppose a move by the Virginia legislature to aid Sudanese Muslims? A look at the activists behind the organization provides an answer.

VMPAC is headed by a man named Mukit Hossain. Hossain is the founder of an organization called Foundation for Appropriate and Immediate Temporary Help (FAITH). In January 2006, Wachovia bank closed the accounts of FAITH,[2] stating that certain account activity "was significantly different from that which Wachovia would expect to see in an account established for a charity."[3] FAITH’s offices are located in an office complex in Herndon, Virginia,[4] which housed a series of organizations and charities linked to radical causes, including International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) – the chief American sponsor of convicted Palestinian Islamic Jihad operative Sami Al-Arian’s Tampa think tank - as well as the “Safa Group” and the SAAR Foundation, currently under federal investigation.[5] M. Yaqub Mirza of IIIT, Safa and SAAR bankrolled FAITH to the tune of $150,000 in April, 2005.[6]

In 2004, another Hossain-led organization, the Muslim American Political Action Committee (MAPAC), received nearly $10,000 from Ahmad Totonji, also of IIIT, and his wife, Susanna. The Muslim Brotherhood-linked Muslim American Society (MAS) Freedom Foundation, who once lamented the death of Hamas founder Sheikh Yassin and referred to him merely as “a quadriplegic Palestinian religious leader,”[7] honored Hossain as the “Herndon Citizen Of The Year” in 2004.[8]

Bearing this background in mind, the fact that the VMPAC is attempting to stymie efforts to end the genocide in Darfur should come as no surprise. Radical Islamic groups and Islamist apologists have long tried to distract from the carnage in Sudan both by minimizing the deadly nature of the conflict and blaming the situation on their traditional bogeyman: the Zionists.

For example, influential Muslim Brotherhood cleric Yusef Al-Qaradawi told a newspaper in Qatar, “Look for the Zionists behind every disaster. We have found their fingers in Darfur.”[9]

The Khartoum regime itself has tried to spread such ideas throughout the Muslim world in an effort to shield itself from criticism and allow its vicious campaign against Darfuris to continue uninterrupted. The Washington Post reported on Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir’s efforts, writing[10]:

Bashir blamed unnamed Zionist Jewish organizations for stoking public opposition in the United States against his government, through the organizing of nationwide protests against the violence in Darfur.

"I'm not talking about Jews," he said. "I'm talking about Zionist organizations that have motives in Sudan. They have objectives in Sudan. They want to weaken Sudan. They want to dismember Sudan."

Taking their cues from Qaradawi and Bashir, Islamist organizations in the United States are doing what they can to protect Khartoum, which endorses continued violence and genocide.

Another Islamist group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), also has a lengthy history of opposing action against Sudan’s atrocities. In particular, CAIR has sought to shift attention away from the core issue of the conflict -- namely, that the janjaweed militia and government forces themselves have conducted a brutal and bloody ethnic-cleansing campaign, burning villages and raping and murdering inhabitants along the way -- and focus instead on conspiracy theories.

Reacting to similar Congressional legislation in response to a bloody civil war and widespread slavery in Sudan, CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad commented, “American Muslims have grown increasingly concerned that the issue of Sudan is being used by those with anti-Islamic political or religious agendas to stereotype Islam and Muslims worldwide.”[11] Similarly, after a large rally in April 2006 on the National Mall in Washington D.C. organized by the Save Darfur Coalition, Awad remarked in a press release, “It is unfortunate that the Save Darfur Coalition chose not to list any mainstream American Muslim groups in the rally program … This disturbing omission calls into question the coalition's true agenda at the rally.”[12]

CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper had previously questioned the motives of the coalition seeking to end the genocide in Darfur, “cautioning” the coalition against “allowing exploitation of the suffering to promote political or religious agendas.”[13] Both Awad and Hooper were sending a message: the Zionists are exploiting the Darfur issue to harm Muslims, while ignoring the fact that activists are obviously seeking to stop the slaughter of Muslims in Sudan by the Janjaweed and the Khartoum government.

In public statements, U.S.-based Islamist groups often go to great pains to minimize the nature of the devastation in Darfur. In a joint press release, CAIR, the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) stated that while the U.S. government has referred to the situation in Darfur as a genocide, the United Nations and Amnesty International "disagree on this point," and they warned against the "politicizing" the conflict.[14] Never mind the fact that two years earlier, United Nations Sudan coordinator Mukesh Kapila had called Darfur "the world's greatest humanitarian crisis and possibly the world's greatest humanitarian catastrophe. There has been systematic burning of villages and displacement of the population.'' The New York Times reported that, "[I]n one attack, on Feb. 27, more than 100 women were raped in the northern town of Tawilaa, Mr. Kapila said," and that Kapila "accused Arab militia of systematically attacking villages and raping women."[15]

Unfortunately, the self-appointed leaders of the American Muslim community opt to expend their efforts minimizing the tragedy and accusing others of "politicizing" the crisis as people are raped, exterminated and displaced in astonishing numbers. It is both sad and unsurprising, given their track record and ties to extremists, that VMPAC, CAIR and other organized political leaders of the Muslim community in the United States cannot agree with the common-sense positions of Congressman Wolf and work towards ending the tragedy in Darfur once and for all.


http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=26828
Reply

Zman
05-20-2007, 05:48 PM
:sl:/Peace To All

Darfur: Anti-Arab Prejudice & Oil Make A Difference

By: Roger Howard
The Guardian
5/18/2007
IViews

The atrocities taking place in Darfur are inexcusable and Muslim countries must take a lead in condemning this and putting pressure on Sudan to stop the mayhem. We must also be aware how certain special interest groups are taking advantage of this tragedy to portray this tragedy as a Arab vs. African issue.

In a remote corner of Africa, millions of civilians have been slaughtered in a conflict fuelled by an almost genocidal ferocity that has no end in sight. Victims have been targeted because of their ethnicity and entire ethnic groups destroyed - but the outside world has turned its back, doing little to save people from the wrath of the various government and rebel militias. You could be forgiven for thinking that this is a depiction of the Sudanese province of Darfur, racked by four years of bitter fighting. But it describes the Democratic Republic of Congo, which has received a fraction of the media attention devoted to Darfur.

The UN estimates that 3 million to 4 million Congolese have been killed, compared with the estimated 200,000 civilian deaths in Darfur. A peace deal agreed in December 2002 has never been adhered to, and atrocities have been particularly well documented in the province of Kivu - carried out by paramilitary organisations with strong governmental links. In the last month alone, thousands of civilians have been killed in heavy fighting between rebel and government forces vying for control of an area north of Goma, and the UN reckons that another 50,000 have been made refugees.

How curious, then, that so much more attention has been focused on Darfur than Congo. There are no pressure groups of any note that draw attention to the Congolese situation. In the media there is barely a word. The politicians are silent. Yet if ever there were a case for the outside world to intervene on humanitarian grounds alone - "liberal interventionism" - then surely this is it.

The key difference between the two situations lies in the racial and ethnic composition of the perceived victims and perpetrators. In Congo, black Africans are killing other black Africans in a way that is difficult for outsiders to identify with. The turmoil there can in that sense be regarded as a narrowly African affair.

In Darfur the fighting is portrayed as a war between black Africans, rightly or wrongly regarded as the victims, and "Arabs", widely regarded as the perpetrators of the killings. In practice these neat racial categories are highly indistinct, but it is through such a prism that the conflict is generally viewed.

It is not hard to imagine why some in the west have found this perception so alluring, for there are numerous people who want to portray "the Arabs" in these terms. In the United States and elsewhere those who have spearheaded the case for foreign intervention in Darfur are largely the people who regard the Arabs as the root cause of the Israel-Palestine dispute. From this viewpoint, the events in Darfur form just one part of a much wider picture of Arab malice and cruelty.

Nor is it any coincidence that the moral frenzy about intervention in Sudan has coincided with the growing military debacle in Iraq - for as allied casualties in Iraq have mounted, so has indignation about the situation in Darfur. It is always easier for a losing side to demonise an enemy than to blame itself for a glaring military defeat, and the Darfur situation therefore offers some people a certain sense of catharsis.

Humanitarian concern among policymakers in Washington is ultimately self-interested.

The United States is willing to impose new sanctions on the Sudan government if the latter refuses to accept a United Nations peacekeeping force, but it is no coincidence that Sudan, unlike Congo, has oil - lots of it - and strong links with China, a country the US regards as a strategic rival in the struggle for Africa's natural resources; only last week Amnesty International reported that Beijing has illicitly supplied Khartoum with large quantities of arms.

Nor has the bloodshed in Congo ever struck the same powerful chord as recent events in Somalia, where a new round of bitter fighting has recently erupted. At the end of last year the US backed an Ethiopian invasion of Somalia to topple an Islamic regime that the White House perceived as a possible sponsor of anti-American "terrorists".

The contrasting perceptions of events in Congo and Sudan are ultimately both cause and effect of particular prejudices. Those who argue for liberal intervention, to impose "rights, freedom and democracy", ultimately speak only of their own interests. To view their role in such altruistic terms always leaves them open to well-founded accusations of double standards that damage the international standing of the intervening power and play into the hands of its enemies.

By seeing foreign conflicts through the prism of their own prejudices, interventionists also convince themselves that others see the world in the same terms. This allows them to obscure uncomfortable truths, such as the nationalist resentment that their interference can provoke.

This was the case with the Washington hawks who once assured us that the Iraqi people would be "dancing on the rooftops" to welcome the US invasion force that would be bringing everyone "freedom".

Highly seductive though the rhetoric of liberal interventionism may be, it is always towards hubris and disaster that it leads its willing partners.

Roger Howard is the author of What's Wrong with Liberal Interventionism

howard1966@btinternet.com

Source:
http://www.iviews.com/Articles/artic...ef=GU0705-3287
Reply

Sami Zaatari
05-20-2007, 06:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by blunderbus
Huge protests over cartoons in an obscure Danish newspaper, but nothing over the wholesale rape and murder of fellow Muslims. No huge protests outside the Sudanese embassy, no burnings of Sudanese flags, NOTHING.

What the people of Darfur are suffering far outwieghs in magnatude and viciousness any injustices done by America or Israel in Iraq or Palestine yet the great "muslim nation" turns away and does nothing.
Mosr muslims dont know whats happening in darfur, so you cant blame them, its ignorance. :)
Reply

extinction
05-20-2007, 06:28 PM
And one wodner why the US or Security council is not doing anything
There is no oil in Darfur..there is no hope for material gain if the US go in and try to help...simple as...
Reply

KAding
05-20-2007, 09:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by hafizmo
There is no oil in Darfur..there is no hope for material gain if the US go in and try to help...simple as...
Well, rather there is no strategic interest for the US. Saddam actively threatened the US (Shooting at its planes, the earlier wars, the WMD issues). And Afghanistan doesn't have oil, but that didn't stop the US either. Sudan is not a threat to the US and as such they are ignored.

Besides, if the US intervened people here would be lining up to join the jihad against the Zionist Crusaders :D.
Reply

Sami Zaatari
05-20-2007, 09:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by KAding
Well, rather there is no strategic interest for the US. Saddam actively threatened the US (Shooting at its planes, the earlier wars, the WMD issues). And Afghanistan doesn't have oil, but that didn't stop the US either. Sudan is not a threat to the US and as such they are ignored.

Besides, if the US intervened people here would be lining up to join the jihad against the Zionist Crusaders :D.
afghanistan doesnt have oil, but they do have the worlds largest poppy fields, and the opoium trade has since TRIPPLED since the us-led invasion, drugs= big bucks, you dont really believe the goverment and some politicians are really wanting to crush the drugs trade? the CIA makes big bucks from drugs trade using the finances to fund black projects i.e. goverment top secret projects which even the president and white house doesnt know about. it long been documented of the CIA's active role in the drugs trade.

other than the oppoum fields, prior to the invasion of afghanistan, major corporations wanted to build a oil/gas pipeline running from turkimnistan all the way to pakistan, and this was BIG BIG BUCKS, obviously with the taliban there such a pipeline cudnt be built, or it cud be built but the revenue wudnt be as high cause obviously the taliban would want a big share, getting rid of the taliban helped fix this big bucks pipeline.

as for sudan, they indeed do have a major natural resource, and thats water, in the south, israel has taken a very huge interest in the large amounts of water in south sudan, israel sees this water resource very important for itself and are actively trying to find a way to flow this water to help israel, which is why israel happens to fund some of the southern rebels which sudanease inteligance has noted. :)
Reply

Cognescenti
05-20-2007, 09:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by hafizmo
There is no oil in Darfur..there is no hope for material gain if the US go in and try to help...simple as...
Good Lord in Heaven that is stupifyingly ignorant. Where do you get such demonstrably foolish notions?

Is there any oil in Kosovo, friend?

Please describe for the assembled multitude what possible good could come from a US intervention Sudan. Within a month the enmity would be directed agaisnt US troops.

Egypt has a big Army...why aren't they there? They could drive there. The Iranians are allegedly readyto defeat the US Navy. They could take a boat.

There are enough Saudis on vacation in Cairo ...they could send a brigade.
Reply

Cognescenti
05-20-2007, 09:59 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sami Zaatari
afghanistan doesnt have oil, but they do have the worlds largest poppy fields, and the opoium trade has since TRIPPLED since the us-led invasion, drugs= big bucks, you dont really believe the goverment and some politicians are really wanting to crush the drugs trade? the CIA makes big bucks from drugs trade using the finances to fund black projects i.e. goverment top secret projects which even the president and white house doesnt know about. it long been documented of the CIA's active role in the drugs trade.

other than the oppoum fields, prior to the invasion of afghanistan, major corporations wanted to build a oil/gas pipeline running from turkimnistan all the way to pakistan, and this was BIG BIG BUCKS, obviously with the taliban there such a pipeline cudnt be built, or it cud be built but the revenue wudnt be as high cause obviously the taliban would want a big share, getting rid of the taliban helped fix this big bucks pipeline.

as for sudan, they indeed do have a major natural resource, and thats water, in the south, israel has taken a very huge interest in the large amounts of water in south sudan, israel sees this water resource very important for itself and are actively trying to find a way to flow this water to help israel, which is why israel happens to fund some of the southern rebels which sudanease inteligance has noted. :)
Dood;

You tinfoil hat is too tight. Invade Afghanistan to make money? :rollseyes

Water supplies for Israel from Southern Sudan? :rollseyes Have you ever heard of the Red Sea? You know what that is...the thing the Israelites crossed to get away from Pharoe
Reply

Sami Zaatari
05-20-2007, 11:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Cognescenti
Dood;

You tinfoil hat is too tight. Invade Afghanistan to make money? :rollseyes

Water supplies for Israel from Southern Sudan? :rollseyes Have you ever heard of the Red Sea? You know what that is...the thing the Israelites crossed to get away from Pharoe
i suggest you go learn abit instead of giving such a weak response, your just ignorant of the facts so therefore your not qualified to make any arguments on such topics.
Reply

wilberhum
05-20-2007, 11:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sami Zaatari
i suggest you go learn abit instead of giving such a weak response, your just ignorant of the facts so therefore your not qualified to make any arguments on such topics.
And your qualifications are? Everyone that knows anything about anything knows if it is bad the US is responsible. If it isn't, the US just hasn't got there yet.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-22-2010, 03:24 PM
  2. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-01-2007, 06:02 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-13-2007, 11:14 PM
  4. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-17-2006, 09:23 AM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!