Where is the UN?

[CCTAU 3,361]

So that once again they can call us warmongers. What is the position taken by the UN on this? What does Kofi want the UN to do? Or does he want us to foot the bill....AGAIN!

Making 'Light-Skin Babies' in Sudan

    

 

printer-friendly page

email this item

 

    

by: Mr. Tony R. Perkins

War, we have all heard, is hell. But sometimes we repeat that, or hear it, without thinking about its underlying truth. We dismiss it as a truism. But it is a truism forged on the anvil of bitter human experience.

While we are willing to accept the fact that war, by its nature, is hell for the soldiers involved - that is what war entails and why it should be engaged in for only the gravest of reasons - we, and by that I mean all civilized nations, have not been willing to accept the death or suffering of innocent non-combatants; innocent people who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Much less have we been willing to accept the intentional targeting, the intentional killing or brutalizing, of innocent people. That is why we have the Geneva Conventions which protect non-combatants. That is why the world was horrified by the the ethnic cleansing and the rapes committed during the recent wars in the Balkans.

Yet today, grotesque atrocities are being committed in the largest country in Africa, Sudan. They are part and parcel of a long civil war that has pitted the northern, Islamic fundamentalist regime against the people of southern Sudan and other marginalized areas. During the war, the government has armed and equipped tribal militias, thereby elevating long-simmering tribal conflicts into genocide.

Genocide is not too strong a charge to make. Genocide under agreed international law is the effort to eradicate a social, religious or racial group. In Sudan, the government-sponsored militias are trying to do just that - to eradicate the African groups in Darfur, in western Sudan.

In fact, if we would just listen, we can hear the militia condemned with the words from their own mouths. In a recent account, militia members told why they engage in the systematic rape of African women during raids on villages. They want to create "light skin babies". The attackers are ethnically Arab; the women raped are black African. They seek to destroy the African cultural and racial groups by "converting" the children of the raped African women into "Arabs." The fact that this is a bizarre ethnic fantasy does not lessen the suffering of the women who are subjected to it.

The systematic rape of non-northern, non-Arab, non-Muslim women has been going on for years in Sudan. United Nations reporters, human rights groups, religious organizations, and others had reported on the attacks on villages, in which the men and elderly are killed and the women and children are taken hostage. The children are fated to have their tendons cut and forced to watch over herds of goats. If they displease their masters, they are tortured. Some are beaten to death; some have been crucified.

The fate of the women taken hostage is equally grim. They are systematically raped. Often kept in pens like animals, they are raped repeatedly by their captors as they journey north. They are raped both to break their will and to force them to have "light skin babies". And as has been documented by both religious leaders and Members of the U.S. Congress, women and children are also branded, like animals.

What word describes such treatment of one human being by another? The only word is slavery. Those who aren't killed are enslaved and treated like animals. In fact, they are treated worse than animals - anyone who tortured animals like this would be arrested in the U.S. But these women and child hostages are taken to slave markets in the north of Sudan, and are sold. They are then "owned" by someone else.

This is the reality of Sudan. It is an ugly reality. Until recently, the victims were Christian and animist people of the south. Many observers had hoped the attacks - the murder, the brandings and the rapes - would cease as the government and southern rebels signed documents that appeared to be moving the country toward peace. But, as has happened over and over again during the last 20 years in Sudan, the government took advantage of peace in one part of the country to open a new front against the civilians of another area. It is now focusing its genocidal energy on the black Muslim people of Darfur in the west.

It is time for the world to do something about this. The actions of the Sudanese regime and its militia allies violate universally accepted norms of law - their actions violate the Geneva Conventions, the Genocide Convention, and the Anti-Slavery Conventions. During the past decade, the world has acted against other instances of ethnic cleansing, of slavery, of political rape. Why is the government of Sudan permitted, through its militia stooges, to commit such atrocities? Is it because the victims are Africans? It is time to convene war crimes tribunals to try the murderers and rapists in Sudan. The victims cry out for justice. Can you hear them?

LINK

[DKW 86 7,499]

Hey man, Lighten up!

The UN has only had 600 or so meetings on this. It usually takes 1000 or so before they actually do anything. I am sure the "sanctions" they are sure to hand out will work just as well as they worked on Saddam.

Afterall, France and Germany will head up the inforcement of said sanctions as soon as they sign a $1Bn dollar deal with Sudan.

[CCTAU 3,361]

Hey man, Lighten up!

The UN has only had 600 or so meetings on this. It usually takes 1000 or so before they actually do anything. I am sure the "sanctions" they are sure to hand out will work just as well as they worked on Saddam.

Afterall, France and Germany will head up the inforcement of said sanctions as soon as they sign a $1Bn dollar deal with Sudan.

What do you think would be the reaction if the current admin went in and wiped out all rebels and set up a democratic government without UN blessings.

[DKW 86 7,499]

Hey man, Lighten up!

The UN has only had 600 or so meetings on this. It usually takes 1000 or so before they actually do anything. I am sure the "sanctions" they are sure to hand out will work just as well as they worked on Saddam.

Afterall, France and Germany will head up the inforcement of said sanctions as soon as they sign a $1Bn dollar deal with Sudan.

What do you think would be the reaction if the current admin went in and wiped out all rebels and set up a democratic government without UN blessings.

UUUHHHHH....Somehow it would be called racist I am sure. In the Liberal mind, anything involving blacks, even if it benefits them, is racist.

[clantontiger 0]

No Blood for Oil! :roll:

[TitanTiger 20,570]

Did anyone else see the morbid humor in David's call to "lighten up"?

[DKW 86 7,499]

Did anyone else see the morbid humor in David's call to "lighten up"?

I didnt, till now.

Have I been bad?

[TitanTiger 20,570]

No, not bad. Actually funny if you like dark humor every now and then.

Doh! I did it now!

[MDM4AU 336]

No, not bad. Actually funny if you like dark humor every now and then.

Doh! I did it now!

[clantontiger 0]

This is a good opportunity for France to step up and show that it belongs at the big boy table. If they could take two minutes from kicking us in the shin to prove they deserve respect. They do have a lot of experience on the African continent.

[CCTAU 3,361]

This is a good opportunity for France to step up and show that it belongs at the big boy table. If they could take two minutes from kicking us in the shin to prove they deserve respect. They do have a lot of experience on the African continent.

I agree. They never actually put their asses on the line, they just complain when others do not. Viva la francais! Course somebody might need to show them how to unpack, clean, load, and fire their weapons first. Maybe Germany could help. They are the ones that helped pack them up years ago????

[rexbo 104]

France is the one stopping any UN effort, they do not want to mess up their oil deals with Sudan, especially now that they have lost their oil deals in Iraq.

The scariest part is that Kerry and the Democrats are so naive to believe France's motivations are for peace and what is right for freedom and democracy...

What a “sensitive war” looks like.

For weeks, while more and more people were being kicked and killed in Darfur, the Security Council debated just what should be done to convince the government of Sudan to stop supporting the Janjaweed militia, the band of Muslim brothers responsible for the slaughter. The U.S. wanted to move decisively, but the resolution offered by the Bush administration went off the tracks because it contained the word "sanctions." "Sanctions" is not a sensitive word. The reporting in the French-leaning press — which would include theNew York Times and the Boston Globe, as well as the Times's expat paper, the International Herald Tribune — was thorough enough. Reporters such as the Times's Warren Hoge, whose piece ran in the IHT (now archived), covered the debate carefully — except for one stray fact that somehow escaped attention: Who on the Security Council had objected to the word "sanctions" and thrown the process into the slow lane? And why?

I'll spoil the suspense here, because you already know the answer. It was the French, of course.

The Sudan sits on what some experts think is a pool of oil the size of Araby, practically. And, as the BBC later nearly misreported — and Instapundit explains here how — the French have an oil deal with Sudan, just as they did with the Iraqis.