open Democracy News Analysis - Testimonies of the survivors of the Genocide inDarfur, - Comments

Iron Mike on "Testimonies of the survivors of the Genocide inDarfur"

Iron Mike — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 12:46:46 +0100

Quote:

Ok IM, you tell me, if there is genocide unfolding in Sudan, why are refugees returning back to Sudan in their tens of thousands? No one has been able to give my a coherent answers to that question...

I have speculation, but no supporting evidence why refugees are returning. But i'm also not sure it matters since the remaining situation still (arguably) meets the narrow definition of genocide. As I suspected, the UN is in typical fashion, is reluctant to make a decision that will require them to take action. The "missing link" is the requirement of "government intent." All other conditions have been met. Unfortunately, intent in Sudan is strongly implied, but not proven. By the time it is proven to the satisfaction of the EU and UN, the end game will have played out and no intervention will be necessary---how convenient. The fact remains that the Janjaweed wear government uniforms, are equipped with military weapons, and have government finaincing. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and carries an AK-47, it's probably a genocidal duck. IM

Iron Mike on "Testimonies of the survivors of the Genocide inDarfur"

Iron Mike — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 12:32:38 +0100

Quote:

if you ask me, people like L.W and Robert couldn't really care less about Sudanese refugees, they have no idea why refugees would want to go back to a country that is currently engaged in a brutal 'genocide'.

I don't think statements impugning the motives of others is useful in the discussion. The fact that any of us may or may not be driven by some personal agenda does not in itself invalidate an argument. I found your references interesting. There is a theme there that genocide deniers (and i don't mean that in a pejorative sense) apply a very narrow criteria to genocide. One problem they seem to have is there seems to be a lack of "policy of genocide" by the government. Of course, if the government sub-contracts policy to Janjaweed and empowers them with financing and weapons to execute a policy which is not officially condoned, but tolerated by the government (since it achieves common objectives)---you have a de facto policy, if not a written one. Clearly people are returning in the south as the result of a peace agreement. Yet, the Janjaweed is actively killing in the west. Why? What's different between the two arenas? I'm not sure and plan on doing some research today. Isn't that the purpose of our debate--open each other's eyes to other perspectives? But the fact I don't have an answer for you now does not mean I (or L.W. or Robert) don't care about over 1 million Sudanese refugees displaced or the 250K already dead. IM

L.W. on "Testimonies of the survivors of the Genocide inDarfur"

L.W. — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 08:16:02 +0100

Courtney, By the way It's been a great sport debating with you. I am going on time off for the summer and I don't mix rest with politics, so I will check back with you after quite a while ( of course I will catch your reply, if any, before I take off). Have a good one.

L.W. on "Testimonies of the survivors of the Genocide inDarfur"

L.W. — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 08:15:22 +0100

"""Remember how you were so 'shocked' to find out that your hard 'proof' of genocide which you presented to the forums actually ended up turning into thin air when it confirmed that the Sudanese government had not committed acts of genocide?"" Courtney Hamilton There is no contradiction what so ever . Yes that is shocking that the hard proof of genocide presented in the report of the UN actually is being Denied at the end. That is shocking and that is why I brought it in the debate in the first place in relevance to your own denial which you based back then and you still do on the false pretence that there is no such evidence. I brought in the evidence to you yet you overrun the evidence and only want to talk about the conclusion. A conclusion can be erroneous, facts are not. You keep referring to the conclusion of the commission but like any conclusion it can be appealed and in this case the International Citizens Tribunal consisting of judges, lawyers, human rights activists are appealing this conclusion. You can talk all you want about the conclusion of the commission and you still won't change any of the evidence and sooner or later the law will return to the facts and the evidence like it is happening now in 2006 and 2007 . I also brought to you the conclusion of another comission which takes all the evidence in consideration and it Concludes that there is an ongoing Genocide. I am not surprised that you don't mention anything about that. Courtney, Proof is every where before you on all points that you have questioned, there is an answer to your questions in each of the links that I had provided, starting form the UNs report presenting the evidence of everything that has occurred and how it has occurred, going on with a definition by law of what a Genocide is, followed by more evidence presented by eye witness interrogation, followed by testimonies and pictures, and topped off by the analysis of evidence and conclusion of the International Citizens tribunal and more goes on and on. But you my friend you just don't want to look and as long as you are determined not to look at the evidence, you will not see it. There is no point in me to keep presenting the evidence over and over to you when you are determined to just repeat that there is absolutely no evidence - an absolute denial which speaks for itself . You spend more time addressing your opponent's arguments on personal level than you spend to actually reason over what they have told you. One example is that you keep asking the same questions that are being repeatedly answered to you ( the question about why refugees are returning, which I answered to you already was negotiated by the UN as part of avoiding military intervention and appeasing the International Eye which has begun to clearly distinguish a Genocide. Even if all refugees return, it still doesn't change what has been done by al Bashir to the hundreds of thousands who cannot return because they are dead. So what is your point? Civil war? Where are the weapons of the unarmed civilian non-combatant hundreds of thousands of people who were intentionally run over, bulldozed, bombed, raped and tortured by a government's military, and being used an perceived as black worthless slaves by the Arab militia? You continue to avoid answering some of the questions posed to you such as again : Could you elaborate on how exactly will things get worse for the Darfurians, if the UN intervene. For Instance with measures such as: Russia stop supplying Weapons to the Sudanese government or China uses it's influence as currently engaged in about I believe 60% of the Sudanese oil export). Russia and China together could have a tremendous impact on Al Bashirs behaviour, even though that will put a strain to their economy. As I previously said taking measures against supporting this genocide will make things worse but surely not for Darfurians. It will make things worse for al Bashir ( politically), for China ( strategically), for Russia( economically), for the USA ( in the aspect of terrorism) etc. If you present a good argument on how things will get worse may be you will make me see why you see things the way you do. May be I will learn another something that I didn't know. You seem to believe that the acknowledgement of the Genocide will make things worse, so you are opposing to it with an absolute denial. The extreme of your denial though backlashes at your own arguments and makes them pointless. Here is a thought. I personally do not see any use in Military intervention because it will create another "muslims versus western forces zone" as bin Ladin has already made his position on Sudan. I am in fact strongly against military intervention. No one wants to start another military conflict. But I believe that a financial war can do a great deal of difference and before you know Sudanese influential figures might get tired of the financial and political losses and rid of al Bashir themselves. All that is needed is the rapes totures and murders targeting non combatants to stop, villages to be rebuilt, some kick back to Darfurians on oil revenues and al Bashir to be put on trial for his crimis against humanity. Yet, the denial of the genocide only makes such financial war baseless and that in it's turns doesn't do any favors to Darfurians. Then again, when can we actually expect other countries to make sacrifices for African blacks..... Now that is the real genocide. (edited once)

Courtney Hamilton on "Testimonies of the survivors of the Genocide inDarfur"

Courtney Hamilton — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 23:32:04 +0100

"We probably shouldn't worry around here about any genocide. We have YOU to assure us that is a Civil war a natural state of war for some tribes." L.W I've never said no such thing - if I did, why did you not quote me on it? All I've ever hear from you is unadulterated blah, blah, blah - all the main evidence you've brought to this debate actually ends up contradicting your initial proposition - like the UN report. Remember how you were so 'shocked' to find out that your hard 'proof' of genocide which you presented to the forums actually ended up turning into thin air when it confirmed that the Sudanese government had not committed acts of genocide? You have no absolute proof of genocide in Darfur, in fact, to date, no one has any soild proof of 'systematic genocide'. You need to give up labelling the civil war in Sudan as a genocide - your not doing the people of Sudan any favours whatsoever.

Courtney Hamilton on "Testimonies of the survivors of the Genocide inDarfur"

Courtney Hamilton — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:40:11 +0100

The 1948 Geneva Convention definition is perfectly fine with me - however my friend, that requires absolute proof of mental intent to kill or displace people based on national, ethnic, or religious identity. The warring parties in Darfur are the same nationalities, and they are the same religion, they are also the same colour - it therefore does not fit the description of genocide laid down by the Geneva Convention. "You've denied every description of Darfur as Genocide." IM It's not just me - the UN also thinks the description of genocide is rather ill informed, and over exaggerates the extent of the conflict in the region. Indeed, a team of EU special investigators also drew the same conclusion. Nearly every time I hear someone shout that genocide is unfolding somewhere in the World, sooner or later evidence always seems to emerge that points towards a very different story altogether. First it was Bosnia, now it appears to be Sudan's turn. Ok IM, you tell me, if there is genocide unfolding in Sudan, why are refugees returning back to Sudan in their tens of thousands? No one has been able to give my a coherent answers to that question - if you ask me, people like L.W and Robert couldn't really care less about Sudanese refugees, they have no idea why refugees would want to go back to a country that is currently engaged in a brutal 'genocide'. Tell me IM, if the war in western Sudan is as bad as you would like me to believe, why would Sudanese refugees choose to return and live right next to it?

L.W. on "Testimonies of the survivors of the Genocide inDarfur"

L.W. — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 21:50:46 +0100

"The *genocide* label makes matters worse for Darfurians" Courtney Hamilton So does that mean that you think that their situation after all isn't that bad the way it is now? Is that what you are implying? Could you elaborate a little bit on how their situation will become worse if al Bashir is put in the same jail cell in which Milosevic ended? Will they loose their homes? Their homes were destroyed already Will they lose their land? They are already displaced from their land Will they lose their means to provide for themselves? Everything was taken away form them Will they starve? They are already starving Will they become attacked by desease? they are already suffering from that Will they lose their freedom ? They are already imprisoned by fear in refugee camps Will they become subject to torture rapes and slavery? They are already subjected to that? Wil they be subjected to millitary attacks and bombing? They already were and al bashir can repeat it if UN turned their eyes away one more time Will all of them they die? Yes, it seems very probable that they will die slowly and painfully, like the 200 000 or more civilians murdered under the direct order of al Bashir and many more from desease and starvation...yes, perhaps they will die..... that's only how much worse it can get and that is EXACTLY why The International Citizens Tribunal is calling for the ending of this slow and brutal GENOCIDE. I wander how much worse in your mind something has to be in order to fit your unknown yet perception of Genocide. Do we have to wait untill all and each one of those people are dead to turn around and say " Now I can say it was a genocide" ? I believe that I somewhat understand the root of your denial . You see the negation of Genocide to somehow prevent things of getting worse but for whom? Surely not for Darfuri . Darfuri are screaming for help. Things can only become worse for those who become involved in helping those people and I believe that is the main reason why the UN continues to tiptoe around it . Ossam Bin Ladin has already stated once "hey , don't touch Sudan-it's part of my gang"...so it wil become worse. No one said that fighting for human rights is easy You are right it will become worse, but for whom? We probably shouldn't worry around here about any genocide. We have YOU to assure us that is a Civil war a natural state of war for some tribes.

Courtney Hamilton on "Testimonies of the survivors of the Genocide inDarfur"

Courtney Hamilton — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 18:51:17 +0100

Thank you very much for the link on the 'genocide' in Darfur - even though none of the articles within that link use the word 'genocide' to describe current events on the ground in Darfur. Would that be the reason why you never actually quoted anything from the link you gave us - I wonder? The reason I say that is because one of the Washington Post (WP) articles on that very same link, entitled '5 Truths About Darfur' argues the very opposite of what you would like everyone to believe. As far as the Washington Post is concerned (and I wholeheartedly agree with them), the constant labelling of the conflict in Darfur as a *genocide* is actually making matters worse on the ground - yes Robert, worse. The constant labelling of the conflict in Darfur as a 'genocide' has meant that the Sudanese government need not negotiate with anyone anymore, indeed, Sudanese forces have used the label to actually increase their attacks. As the WP have argued the '[genocide] label only seems to have strengthened Sudan's rebels; they believe they don't need to negotiate with the government and think they will have U.S. support when they commit attacks'. So there you have, flippant talk of genocide actually makes matters far worse for those on the receiving end - but how much do you or L.W care about that? Absolutely nothing. I'll leave the last words to Ted Dagne, an expert on African affairs for the Congressional Research Service who argued in the WP that the US 'called it a genocide and then we wine and dine the architects of the conflict by working with them on counterterrorism and on peace in the south - I wish I knew a way to improve the situation there. But it's only getting worse'. Darfur's genocide? Yeah right whatever.

Iron Mike on "Testimonies of the survivors of the Genocide inDarfur"

Iron Mike — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 18:43:19 +0100

Quote:

As far as the Washington Post is concerned (and I wholeheartedly agree with them), the constant labelling of the conflict in Darfur as a *genocide* is actually making matters worse on the ground...

Courtney, You've denied every description of Darfur as Genocide, arguing it is a civil war. Frankly, if this is NOT genocide, what would you define as Genocide? It can't just be a matter of scale---how does your criteria differ from the rest of the world? Inquiring minds want to know. IM

L.W. on "Testimonies of the survivors of the Genocide inDarfur"

L.W. — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 03:12:14 +0100

No problem Jessica, I will accomodate that. Adjustments are now completed. Regards LW

casaccia on "Testimonies of the survivors of the Genocide inDarfur"

casaccia — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:35:00 +0100

L.W. Here is another testimonial about the murderous activity of Karthoum's Government in Darfur, aka 'Genocide' of Darfurian civilians.

Jessica Reed on "Testimonies of the survivors of the Genocide inDarfur"

Jessica Reed — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:33:06 +0100

Hi L.W,

I asked forum member Solve to do this before, but the same goes here: as a general rule, it is appreciated that posters explain the content of their posts so as to provide grounds for a debate (rather than posting a single link and no explanations).

Thanks!

Jessica

- oD moderator

L.W. on "Testimonies of the survivors of the Genocide inDarfur"

L.W. — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:06:28 +0100

photographs http://www.ushmm.org/conscience/alert/darfur/steidle/

Testimonies of the survivors of the Genocide inDarfur,

L.W. — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 00:24:08 +0100

This thread is to the attention to those who continue to negate the existance of any evidence of genocide In Darfur. source Summary of Indictment "........SPECIFIC CRIMES CRIMES COMMITTED AGAINST THE PEOPLE OF DARFUR Fur, Massaleit, Zaghawa, and Dajo people of Darfur; the peoples of the Nuba Mountains; the Dinka and Nuer peoples; the people of the Shilluk Kingdom; and the Beja people of East Sudan. Specific crimes undertaken in execution of this criminal enterprise were: • The targeting of certain minority tribal and civilian groups for repression, attack, and destruction; Read the rest of this post...