Article

2008-07-12 Africa Horn

Sudan's Ambassador to the UN Criticizes International Criminal Court

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2008-07-12 00:00|| || Front Page|| [3 views ] Top
File under: Govt of Sudan

#1 Muslims only join the UN in preparation for its takeover by the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Western Civilization gets nothing from the UN, and their NYC properties should be turned into condos.

Posted by McZoid 2008-07-12 15:25|| 2008-07-12 15:25|| Front Page Top

#2 Okay, let's set it out flat.

Bashir is about to be indicted for genocide. His people don't want that. They say it'll start a "fire."

Isn't there one already going on? How many burnt-out villages? Crops? Livestock? PEOPLE?

Those at the U.N. seem more concerned about the reprisals Sudan may take against peacekeepers and providers of humanitarian aid than about thwarting this obscene regime.

Granted, we should be concerned about the safety of those people. But I get the drift it is being used, by some in the U.N., as a reason NOT to indict Bashir, as a reason NOT to take stronger actions to enforce the peace by those same peacekeepers.

So...because the regime might get more violent, we should allow our indictment against Bashir to be dropped, and let the violence continue there?

And isn't that PRECISELY what terrorism seeks to accomplish? Since terrorism, and the threat of yet more bestial violence WORKS, many think we should not oppose it.

Do we really mean it when we say "never again" about genocide? I doubt it.

Does anyone REALLY think that any genocidal regime will EVER stop what it is doing, by peaceful means? By conciliation? By negotition and diplomacy? When has THAT ever happened?

Genocidal regimes and dictators are such because they use force against their own people. They only understand force. They feel contempt at any non-violent approach to solving problems. And because they only understand force, it is force which is the ONLY way of getting rid of them. Unless they die of natural causes, internal coups, revolution on a massive scale, etc. But they NEVER voluntarily give up power, or stop slaughtering.

Darfur will continue. Until it is FORCED to stop. In truth, the ones most qualified to do a regime change there are other Islamic States. So why aren't they railing at Sudan and threatening regime change? Because they do NOT truly disapprove of the genocide. Which makes THEIR attitudes a subject in dire need of DEEP investigation. But that's another matter.

The indifference of the Arab/Muslim world leaves dealing with Sudan to the non-Islamic nations.

The genocide-beset people of Darfur will WELCOME the indictment, fully knowing the further danger it'll put themselves into. We need know no more than that to indict that evil man. For YEARS now, these victims have been BEGGING for the U.S. to intervene militarily, and end this horror.

Bosnia's genocide got the intervention it needed. Meanwhile, for many years before and several years since, the Sudanese first genocide was going strong. And it was a far WORSE genocide than Bosnia. Nothing was done. We defended Muslims who were being genocided, but the Muslim world has no interest in returning the favor for the black people of Sudan. To them, genocide against Muslims is evil; genocide BY Muslims is dandy.

Normally, I'm a dove. But where genocide is concerned, I hold entirely different views. Simply because it's necessary, and humane, to do so. There is no excuse for war - ordinarily. Genocide is one of the VERY FEW legitimate reasons.

Genocide, tolerated ANYWHERE, toward ANYONE, always spawns more genocides.

If we'd acted against Sudan in the '80's or '90's, perhaps Rwanda, Bosnia, Zimbabwe, Myanmar and N. Korea would never have become humanitarian horrors. The success of the Sudan genocide emboldened the others.

And remember this, too: If Bashir's indictment gets thwarted because of those fears of reprisals on peacekeepers, it'll be a green light for them to proceed in Darfur full blast. It means they know they'll never have to pay for their crimes. And why? Because they are able to intimidate the rest of the world. Those who seek to fight terrorism can, themselves, be terrorized.

Of COURSE, the regime will step up violence, particularly against the "foreigners" there who are trying to prevent janjaweed attacks, protecting refugee settlements, and who are providing vital humanitarian aid. But that should be expected - and planned for. It should NOT be used as an excuse to stop going after this regime full blast.

Sudan is bestial and supremely violent, supremely contemptuous of human life within its own borders. Because they'll likely extend that contempt to peacekeepers "on the ground" people are fearful of indicting Bashir. So if those fearful people get what they want, so does Bashir. Makes one wonder what "standing up against genocide" means to those fearful people.

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater, however, seems to be highly favored by many in the U.N. Let terrorism win, then, because that is what they seek to do, even if they think they are seeking peace.

Genocide can never be stopped, or even thwarted, by peaceful means. Period.

Posted by Holly B. 2008-07-12 22:22|| 2008-07-12 22:22|| Front Page Top

23:42 JDB
23:37 crosspatch
23:26 Old Patriot
23:22 OldSpook
23:09 rammer
23:05 crosspatch
22:45 Frank G
22:42 SteveS
22:33 Iblis
22:22 Holly B.
22:20 Pearl Jeager2939
22:20 OldSpook
22:14 Jan from work
22:08 RD
22:08 OldSpook
21:57 OldSpook
21:51 Anonymoose
21:50 bigjim-ky
21:49 Besoeker
21:43 Muggsy Cleagum6806
21:33 Nimble Spemble
21:31 Anonymoose
21:30 Nimble Spemble
21:27 OldSpook