| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Africa: East | ||
| Sudan refuses to close down Hamas and Islamic Jihad offices | ||
| 2003-10-23 | ||
Sudan has turned down an American request to close down the offices of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad Movements in Khartoum. AFP quoted Ibrahim Omar, secretary general of the ruling national conference party, as saying that the American secretary of state, Colin Powell, had tabled such a request. Omar refused to describe those two Palestinian organizations as âterroristâ, adding that his governmentâs position towards them was clear namely that they were Islamic forces struggling to liberate Palestinian lands, âwhich is a legitimate rightâ.
| ||
| Posted by:Fred Pruitt |
| #12 Wait a miniute.... Didn't Billy-Boy Clinton apologize in Sudan for the U.S. taking (actually buying) slaves from Africa? |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2003-10-23 10:04:53 PM |
| #11 While I believe war with Sudan is a good thing and should be done however there is a down-side in the fact there's tens of thousands Southerners in the North that would be trapped.And there is also the Nubians in Central and north Sudan,the Peoples of Darfur in the West and Beja in the East that need help as well.These groups are all allied with the rebels in the South |
| Posted by: Observer 80 2003-10-23 7:15:43 PM |
| #10 Of course if we go against the slavers we would get the bonus of watching the major media and people like A.N.S.W.E.R. and EU have a collective Aneurism as they try to figure out how to phrase it so the U.S. is protrayed as evil..... That in itself might be worth the cost. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2003-10-23 6:37:37 PM |
| #9 Arm and organize the south (where the oil is) and the country would split into two along religious lines. A handful of CIA operatives and Special Forces could assist, we wouldn't need much more unless we decided to remove the government in Khartoum. The result would be a dirt poor northern Islamic half and a wealthy non-Islamic south. The end to the civil war and an end to Sudanese slavery. Stopping the slavery, the use of starvation against the south, and support of terrorist organizations with a global reach (Hamas and Islamic Jihad which are based on two continents at least) are the rationals. It could be done on the cheap and send a serious message to any nations in Africa that are considering turning a blind eye to terrorists working in their country. |
| Posted by: Yank 2003-10-23 5:59:22 PM |
| #8 RC, the thought of Michael Moore with spittle on his chin, raging about "US military aggression in Sudan" to stop the slave trade is a happy thought! |
| Posted by: Steve White 2003-10-23 4:52:13 PM |
| #7 and the have oil too! No Slaves for Oil! |
| Posted by: john 2003-10-23 4:24:18 PM |
| #6 You are talking about a military offensive against the slavers, right? Nothing else will work, as far as I can tell, and, boy, can you imagine how much fun it would be watching the anti-Americans react to the US military going after slavers. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2003-10-23 3:25:44 PM |
| #5 Rumsfield might want to drop a comment about "bases on two continents equals global reach". Let the Sudan add up the numbers and see if they realize they're in the sites. Sudan would be far easier to take down than Afghanistan or Iraq. America could start by simply arming the rebels in the South and starting a UN offensive against the slave trade that seems to be centered in Sudan. |
| Posted by: Yank 2003-10-23 1:57:29 PM |
| #4 Looks like they want to get on our "to do" list. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2003-10-23 1:24:43 PM |
| #3 Why does it seem like every asshat is named Omar? |
| Posted by: Tornado 2003-10-23 1:17:07 PM |
| #2 Here's where those cruise missiles would really come in handy... |
| Posted by: Raj 2003-10-23 1:12:07 PM |
| #1 And same crushing embargo's. |
| Posted by: Charles 2003-10-23 1:08:07 PM |