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

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

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.

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?

"""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)

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