More than 200,000 people have been killed since war broke out in Darfu

[Fifth Way]

I became recently very suspicious when I noticed that New York City was plastered with a “Darfur Genocide Awareness Ad-Campaign". So, it’s a campaign that claims “Genocide" is happening in Darfur and killings are committed in the hundreds of thousands, just at a time as Bush sends more troops to the Middle East.

It struck me on two levels as very strange. A: I was not aware of many hundred thousand killings in Darfur and B: A mayor US city should be plastered with an awareness campaign to the extend that a far greater number of killings is happening in Iraq - committed by its own evil leaders and its own evil military killing squads. In a nutshell; It struck me as a mayor distraction campaign. “Hey everybody, don’t look over here – look over there. OVER THERE!!!"

Just a couple of days ago in Europe, I was lucky enough to meet with a friend of mine who is managing humanitarian efforts for one of the world’s largest humanitarian organizations. He was just back from Darfur. I told him what I noticed and how I felt about it. He gave me the background and the bottom line was – as I expected: There is NO Genocide!

That may sound brutal but let’s not forget: Genocide has a precise definition and it does not apply to the situation in Darfur and around. First of all; its said that the “Arabs" are killing the “Blacks" . Truth is that everybody involved in the crises and that region is black - also the “Arabs" . And everybody is Muslim – also the “Blacks".

Secondly and even more important the number of 200,000 death was achieved by somebody saying: “there where 5,000 death in the month X and its been going on since 40 month, thus the total number must be 200,000. Basically, it was a wild guess. Nothing more. The organization my friend works for commissioned a team to verify the number and they couldn’t. He tried to obtain the right number from the person in charge directly. However that person was ordered to not reveal it due to its political implications. The consensus though is that the numbers are off by several digits!! While deaths by the hundreds are terrible – they are not Genocide.

I should note that to my knowledge, it was Codo-Lizard Rice that first used the G-word.

“Torched huts and smashed pots" do NOT constitute genocide.

“Hey everybody, don’t look over here – look over there. OVER THERE!!!"

 

[SeekinTruth]

Yes Darfur, like many other places, is being used to manipulate public opinion and attention. Are we really to believe that the PTB are concerned about innocent civilians being killed or injured rather than fomenting and shaping any and all conflicts for their own gain? In Iraq, there have been in the ball park of a million civilians killed since the 2003 invasion. Add to that the millions killed from 1991 to 2003 and it does seem there is a whole lot more cause for concern there than in Sudan. This manufactured crisis is obviouly being used to get foreign troops into the country to control their resources and the entire greater Middle East region, while taking attention away from the catastrophe of Iraq.

 

[Mr. Premise]

Yes, in fact they scheduled a protest against Darfur genocide on the very day of the largest anti-war protest in the U.S. in 2006. Then the news media could jump on covering that one, diluting their pathetic coverage of the anti Iraq War protests.

Darfur is the "safe" human rights cause that won't anger the Zionists. A Hollywood star can seem compassionate and involved preaching about Darfur but would commit career suicide if he or she raised awareness about Palestine.

How convenient that there is this undeniable disaster in East Africa where Israel has long been deeply involved and the U.S. is working to gain control over oil regions.

 

[seek10]

I became recently very suspicious when I noticed that New York City was plastered with a “Darfur Genocide Awareness Ad-Campaign". So, it’s a campaign that claims “Genocide" is happening in Darfur and killings are committed in the hundreds of thousands, just at a time as Bush sends more troops to the Middle East.

It struck me on two levels as very strange. A: I was not aware of many hundred thousand killings in Darfur and B: A mayor US city should be plastered with an awareness campaign to the extend that a far greater number of killings is happening in Iraq - committed by its own evil leaders and its own evil military killing squads. In a nutshell; It struck me as a mayor distraction campaign. “Hey everybody, don’t look over here – look over there. OVER THERE!!!"

Just a couple of days ago in Europe, I was lucky enough to meet with a friend of mine who is managing humanitarian efforts for one of the world’s largest humanitarian organizations. He was just back from Darfur. I told him what I noticed and how I felt about it. He gave me the background and the bottom line was – as I expected: There is NO Genocide!

That may sound brutal but let’s not forget: Genocide has a precise definition and it does not apply to the situation in Darfur and around. First of all; its said that the “Arabs" are killing the “Blacks" . Truth is that everybody involved in the crises and that region is black - also the “Arabs" . And everybody is Muslim – also the “Blacks".

Darfur issue as a 'false issue' is a suprise to me.

I have been hearing this darfure issue for almost 3 yrs from NY99.5 WBAI ( public supported independent Media) FM radio. There is a darfur guy ( some minsiter in darfur or active social workers , I does not remember) begging for attention from US, UN and media on this issue and talked of raising the awareness for a long time. I have good respects for this station for boldly airing lot of untouchable stuff like 911 exposures etc , even though some covert funding comes here and there to some of their anchors. May be PTB is using this issue for its advantage.

 

[Fifth Way]

Darfur issue as a 'false issue' is a suprise to me.

It's not a 'false issue'! There are millions of displaced people, which is definitely a true issue. The devil as always is in the detail. And the detail I meant to stress (which I may have still not stressed enough as you still over-read it) is the word "GENOCIDE"!!!
"Genocide is the mass killing of a group of people as defined by Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide" See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#Genocide_as_a_crime_under_international_law This "MASS KILLING" has just NOT taken place.
The displaced people however are taken care off pretty well as - do to the exaggeration of the problem - more humanitarian money flow towards this situation than needed.

There is a darfur guy ( some minsiter in darfur or active social workers , I does not remember) begging for attention from US, UN and media on this issue and talked of raising the awareness for a long time.

So there is no lack of "attention" and "awareness" from US, UN and humanitarian organizations. There are first class camps set up, holding millions of those displaced, that include schools, everybody has enough to eat and a considerable part of the displaced people are nomads. That means the situation of displacement does not inflict the same harm on them as for example on people in Iraq whose homes that they had for generations have been reduced to rubble and are now radiated due to the use of depleted uranium. Do you see the difference now?

I can imagine that the radio host may relay on the information of "this Darfur guy" and the "Darfur guy" does not bring the situation in realtion to other crises around the world. Way don't you call-in next time they are talking about it and ask about the 200,000 killings and whether the "Darfur guy" has seen the mountains of dead bodies that come with it?

I'd like to add that this friend of mine who gave me the background of the situation also showed me tons of photographs on his laptop that he did when they build the camps. They are huge but the people in it do look really okay! This friend has also been in Iraq and Afghanistan and Palestine and Congo and Columbia, always giving humanitarian support. He's been there - seen it. Due to his work which forbids him to take sides openly politically, he knows all the players personally including the warlords and the worst offenders.

 

[brainwave]

No doubt horrible things are occuring in Dafur. I know some people from there who at first denied it then after a visit had a completely differnt view. but they also say that compared to other instances it is not to the extent that it is being reported. Any killing like this is awful and granted if enough jump on the ball about it maybe we can avoid it becoming as bad as "other instances" of genocide. I also think it is being used to further demonize muslims and to distract from another genocide taking place-the one in Palestine. Living in one of the most diverse places in the world, I get to discuss these issues with people of various ethnicities, religion etc. With the exception of Palestinans, whenever I mention genocide in Palestine, I get a kneee jerk "that's not genocide look at Dafur and it's muslims doing it too". All the trendy hip-hop and hollywood types can unite in helping Darfur while Palestine and its citizens continue to dwindle. It should not be a matter of competing genocides but I guess this is how it is covered. So I think genocide in Darfur while real and not to be ignored, it is also the latest distraction from another decades long genocide and has even greater implications the world over. Sheesh! israel has nuclear weapons for christ sakes.

 

[Fifth Way]

Nktulloch, even though I appreciate your post and agree generally, It seems you too surrender to the hypnotic mantra:

So I think genocide in Darfur while real...

Genocide in Darfur is not real! Killings are in the hundreds, not in the hundred thousands. Its not Arabs killing Blacks but black Muslims killing other black Muslims. The definition of Genocide as given by source above DOES NOT APPLY!
I meant to include this earlier but didn't want to wander off-topic. But since you brought up Palestine: I asked my friend where he thought people do behaved the worst in terms of torture/killings. Having seen all these places with his own eyes, having piled up slaughtered people's body parts with his own hands around the globe, he thought this to be the Israeli military (against Palestinians) - and as far as I know, he is jewish.

 

[brainwave]

I KNOW it is not necessarily Arabs killing blacks. Did I say that? When I heard about the issue three years ago it was that warlords from one group (mostly muslims) were fighting with another grouup( mostly animists and christians). I understand that was part of another conflict which may have some influence on what is happening now. Muslim is not synonymous with Arab to me, although I think some people want it to be. It has been made synonymous already because when discussing the palestinian issue people bring up Darfur as if we should ignore palestine because " Isreal is defending itself and besides those same type of people are committing genocide". This is why I jumped in because the whole NYC campaign is probably to make sure everyone gets this.


I disagree with your definition of genocide however. Systematically targeting a race, religion ethnicity or any distinct group for that matter in order to eliminate them is genocide. It was originally described as a armed comflict. It can still be that and genocide if the arming is pretty much onesided. It can be genocide if one group in the conflict is deliberately given the capability to wipe out the other group by some third group that wants genocide without the credit. If the better armed group proceed to do eliminate the other group thinking they are just involved in some inter-tribal warfare there is still genocide occuring.

This does not compare to the nazis true, but the dynamic is similar. The nazi's were aided in building up arms and they in turn targetted homosexuals, mentally ill, slavs, and jews because they had the means and thought these groups should be eliminated. You think the dominant warlords don't want to emilinate those they see as below them. I jumped in to discuss why this particular issue is currently popular not whether or not genocide is occuring. I'm sorry but it's like a deciding the holocaust did not occur because the number of jews that were actually killed is way overstated. The numbers may be wrong but jews were still targetted and killed. I think particular groups in Darfur are being targetted. Infact I think the genocide is against people in the entire region it's just that civil conflicts are being used to perpetrate it. So what if it's not hundreds of thousands?

I think there is some confusion with past Sudanese conflicts between christians and muslims however, this current conflict may well be carryover from that and there is the chance of it spreading. I have heard it said that the janjaweed is Arab supported but I have no proof. This came from two sudanese students I know. One who self identify as a black atheist with warlord family members so go figure with that one. The other identifies as arab muslim (I would have considered her black but that's another discussion). As I said I have no proof of what either of them say is true. The arab identified one also has family in the government and military. There is also a sudanese professor from my school who has had talks about the issue. Both these students were present at his talk. The arab identified student didn't believe it was happening but said she knows how "blacks" or those from the south west are seen as inferior and little more than animals. Infighting in the west is encouraged by the northerners according to her, regardless of religion or ethnicity. When she went to visit family she said that mostly non-muslims are targetted but that is confusing to me as many in darfur are muslims and they seem to be dying too. She also said most of the women in the east and north have no clue what is happening either but as you move southwest it is obvious. It may be black against black, muslim vs non-mulsim, anyand all variations. In any case one group is systematically wiping out another.

The numerous conflicts that have occured in the region, even with loosly defined groups have resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths. It would seem to be a genocide against the sudanese people as a whole. I hear from somali, acquaintance that there is a similar dynamic in somalia but that's also for another discussion.

All I know is that the PTB want people to think it is an arab/ black thing and it doesn't help that some of those sudanese blacks with connections to janjaweed supporters consider themselves "arabs" and certainly identify as muslim too. They play into the hands of the PTB also wants the whole world in chaos. It is easier to destabilize places like Africa and the middles east after years of colonialists systematically taking and never giving back. The people are so desperately poor that if genocide will provide their particular group with food, then genocide it is. It is sad. The rate the US is going we may see our own genocide disguised as civil war. No wait, it is already on slow boil for muslims in this contry.

I could be misinformed and these students at my school are nothing but psyops.

 

[Fifth Way]

I could be misinformed and these students at my school are nothing but psyops.

Is that suppose to be ironic?

So what if it's not hundreds of thousands?

You mean that is insignificant?

The numerous conflicts that have occured in the region, even with loosly defined groups have resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths.

Says who? Or is that your random figure?

but as you move southwest it is obvious

So what is it then. Can you be precise, because its not obvious to me.

Systematically targeting a race, religion ethnicity or any distinct group for that matter in order to eliminate them is genocide.

But the most central thing the "elimination" the "wiping out" is not taking place.

I disagree with your definition of genocide

How can you disagree with a "definition" that is agreed upon by nations and the UN. Genocide is not an "opinion" you can agree or disagree with.

 

[brainwave]

THe figures are disputed. Some say 60, 000 others 400, 000. The UN cited the 400, 000 number. They are reluctant to declare it genocide because I agree it is not so cut and dried. There are decades long conflicts between various groups that makes it hard to say what is what. However, when the government is (systematically) providing aid to a particualr group so that they can target another then what is it called?
The point is people are being targetted and killed for their group affiliation. The people in Darfur have to be totally wiped out before it is called genocide?

The definitions I looked says.
Dictionary.com Unabridged
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.
[Origin: 1940–45; < Gk géno(s) race + -cide]

—Related forms
gen·o·cid·al, adjective
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source
gen·o·cide (jěn'ə-sīd') Pronunciation Key
n. The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.


[.
Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source
genocide
1944, apparently coined by Polish-born U.S. jurist Raphael Lemkin in his work "Axis Rule in Occupied Europe" [p.19], in reference to Nazi extermination of Jews, lit. "killing a tribe," from Gk. genos "race, kind" (see genus) + -cide, from L. -cidere "kill," comb. form of caedere "to cut, kill" (see concise). The proper formation would be *genticide.


systematic killing of a racial or cultural group

WThe deliberate destruction of an entire race or nation. The Holocaust conducted by the Nazis in Germany and the Rwandan genocide are examples of attempts at genocide.

[Chapter:] World Politics

Webster's Medical Dictionary - Cite This Source

Main Entry: geno·cide
Pronunciation: 'jen-&-"sId
Function: noun
: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group —compare HOMICIDE —geno·cid·al /"jen-&-'sId-&l/ adjective
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster

You are saying this is just a tribal fight, there is no systematic destruction of a particular group of people in the Darfur region?
How many deaths before one says wiping out is taking place? If one person is randomly killed by another, I wouldn't say genocide, homocide yes. If people of a particular group is being targetted for murder and their murderers are supported by a third party who wants the group to be wiped out then it is genocide.


When I said that "as you move southwest this is obvious" this what the person who visited told me. I didn't see for myself, just as your source told you that it is not taking place and you did not see for yourself. To be honest I think there is a systematic 'elimination' of people in the region just as there is in the middle east. It is more drastic in Palestine, yes. I know that the UN has proposed draft resolutions and yes by their definition what is occurring in Palestine is genocide, but did they actually declare it to be? How long, how many deaths before it is claimed to be. I am not saying all attention should be focused on Darfur by any means but to get what is really happening there some focus is necessary no?

Torture is torture, murder is murder. We are shocked when we see this happen in great numbers, we should be shocked that is happening at all.

 

[seek10]

There are millions of displaced people, which is definitely a true issue. The devil as always is in the detail. And the detail I meant to stress

When I first heard about this issue from this station, there is not much awareness in public . Now I see lot of publicity in every quarter, so some thing more is going on rather than simple publicity for saving people. I agree with other possibilities of excuse to continue palestine killings, looks like lot of money involved in this, so possible divertion of money for some other purpose. I searched on the internet about the possible misuse of the issue, I couldn't get much. May be your friend can put his findings on the net, hopfully truth will come out .

 

[Fifth Way]

How many deaths before one says wiping out is taking place?

For me 'wiping out' means 'nobody left'. So having 'nobody left' would be the objective of the killing. And that objective is disputed by my source.

Using the term Genocide where it cannot be confirmed by definition will weaken the term and will be actually counterproductive. That could be the objective of the people responsible for the campaign.

The bottom line is:
The NYC 'Darfur awareness campaign' is meant to enhance the US image as a saviour around the world when in fact they are the perpetrators of Genocide.

That was my whole point. 'Nough said.

 

[Fifth Way]

May be your friend can put his findings on the net.

He would like to but legally cannot due to his position. That is why I wrote on his behalf. I will suggest to him to join the forum though. Thank you for your suggestion.

 

[swchef]

i have spent the day trying to find a way to start a new artical and due to the confusion of the sott web site i have not been able to find a way to either start a new thread or comment on an artical. i click on comment on this and it takes me to the forum or i try and find a way to start anew thread and none is found other then going into a thread and doing as i am. ther should be a line or list that says new thread or when one wants to coment on an artical it chould say just that. i cant belive how hard it has become to make a remark on something over the years.
basicly i think signs is making it more difacult for people to make remarks on items. for what reason i have no idea. i see remarks from people but yet cant make a remark. so either signs is choosing the remarks that they feel is best or someone is luckey. signs i think is getting away from the way it first started. and that was that they would find a story and let us know and then we would talk about it and now i think its more that they let comments be visable acording to there agrement. or coments are able to be made acording to there agrement. they are failing us and falling into the world of chossing what coments can be posted or i could say freedom of speach is failing at signs acording to there aproval as to what should be posted. i belive everyones coment should be posted regardless of content acording to the freedom of speech in the usa regardless of if its offencive to others because freedome of speech is just that, freedome of speech. if you dont like the words then either ignore them or go back to sleep. because freedome is just that freedome of everything including freedome to ignore others words but not the freedome to block there words. dave

 

[anart]

signs i think is getting away from the way it first started. and that was that they would find a story and let us know and then we would talk about it and now i think its more that they let comments be visable acording to there agrement. or coments are able to be made acording to there agrement. they are failing us and falling into the world of chossing what coments can be posted or i could say freedom of speach is failing at signs acording to there aproval as to what should be posted.

Uhhm, or maybe you're just not logged in? Anyone can comment on any article on the SotT page, but you have to log in first - it's actually rather simple - just register at the top of the screen. If you're talking about starting a new thread on the forum, then you can use the 'post new topic' tab under any of the subject headings.


Also, go here for a full explanation - http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=4853.msg31854#msg31854 - odd how you jumped to certain insulting conclusions, though, eh?