You are here
Home > Posts tagged "Sudan" (Page 3)

The CIA behind Darfur-Sudan troubles?

Global R: Early CIA Involvement in Darfur Has Gone Unreported Intel Daily: CIA Uses Sudanese Intelligence in Iraq Global Research excerpt: "In 1978 oil was discovered in Southern Sudan. Rebellious war began five years later and was led by John Garang, who had taken military training at infamous Fort Benning, Georgia. "The US government decided, in 1996, to send nearly $20 million of military equipment through the 'front-line' states of Ethiopia, Eritrea and Uganda to help the Sudanese opposition overthrow the Khartoum regime." [Federation of American Scientists www.fas.org] Between 1983 and the peace agreement signed in January 2005, Sudan's civil war took nearly two million lives and left millions more displaced. Garang became a First Vice President of Sudan as part of the peace agreement in 2005. From 1983, "war and famine-related effects resulted in more than 4 million people displaced and, according to rebel estimates, more than 2 million deaths over a period of two decades." [CIA Fact Book -entry Sudan]" Intel Daily excerpt: "The US has been able to maintain its intelligence connections with Sudan and continues covert operations with a number of regimes, such as in the Ethiopian intervention in Somalia. But the debacle in Iraq and China’s growing economic weight in Africa are undermining its hegemonic role on the continent. In February this year the Bush administration announced that it intended to set up, by late 2008, a separate military command for Africa, known as Africom. At present the responsibility for US operations in Africa is divided between several commands. The new structure is designed to reflect the increasing proportion of American imports of oil and gas coming from Africa."

The Rwandan Genocide and The Others

'On the morning of 15 April 1994, each one of us woke up knowing what to do and where to go because we had made a plan the previous night. In the morning we woke up and started walking towards the church. ' an excerpt from the BBC's 'Taken over by Satan' The official sanitized, Western version of when the African genocides began begins with the Rwandan genocide of 1994, which happened just 14 years ago. To look before that time is to wander into ancient history to most of us ahistorical Americans. But what about afterwards then? Somehow, we suddenly leap to Darfur in the Western media, where another genocide besides the Rwandan is supposedly underway.... Will we repeat the apathy of the past, the corporate media prods our collective conscience? This is the now officialized version of the genocide in Africa story in short. But is this really the entire story? What we have with this pretty much official Western narrative, is a cloth with more holes than thread. Where is the Congo killing of 5,000,000 that occurred between Rwanda and Darfur? Where is the Somalia/ Horn of Africa genocides still in the making? Where are our Western government and corporate leaders in all this? See #5. High-Tech Genocide in Congo in Top 25 Censored Stories for 2007 for some possible answers to these questions. We have to answer these questions because we have the growth of yet a Second and Third Holocaust Industry. Israel, Darfur, and Rwanda all have promotions of their versions of history. In the case of Rwanda, their current governmental official version is integrally mixed up with the Rwandan government's own role in the even more massive killings in the Congo regions adjacent to their country. And of course, the Israeli government is involved in their own genocidal activities against the Palestinians, while the US government promotes a campaign against Darfur genocide even as it engages in a genocide against the Iraqi people. In A Tale of Two Genocides, Congo and Darfur: The Blatantly Inconsistent U.S. Position, author Glenn Ford hardly even mentions Iraq in pointing out the inconsistencies in the US official manipulation of public opinion about the issue of genocide. Yet Iraq, Korea, and SE Asia are all US genocides of the post-WW2 Era. In some ways, the African killing fields that the US government engages in, too, should be counted against our balance sheet. What do you think? Certainly, the historical US/ African killing fields did not just start with the Rwandan killings of 1994. What is the US role in the multiple genocides of African peoples?

Mugabe and the British move to regain control over Zimbabwe

The world corporate press has been going non stop against 2 African governments the last couple of years. The targets have been the governments of Sudan and Zimbabwe. Why such attention given to these 2 African governments out of a continent full entirely of unsavory governments and dictators? Is it that the US and Western European elites have suddenly become a group of benevolent saints, only concerned with the welfare of the poor Black populations of their 'Dark Continent'? One can't really think so. So let us take a brief historical look at Zimbabwe now, and see why the corporate press is so hot for regime change? One does not have to be in love with the 82 year old Mugabe, current head of the Zimbabwe state, to question why our attention is focused by others in his direction. Has this attention about 'human rights' been consistent, coming from the European and US governments and their servile press? Yeah, right... Let us ask several questions, then... Has the corporate press informed the world public about the economic warfare being waged by the colonialists against their former colony, Zimbabwe? Well, why not? Zimbabwe is an economic basket case today, but the US and Europeans have made it so, as well as Mugabe himself, but that's not what the corporate press wants the public to know. They are campaigning for regime change and not the welfare of Zimbabweans. The governments and their press want to gain back direct control over Zimbabwe, not save the people living there. Look for the likes of O'Reily and the other media whores at the Fox 'News' stable to be shedding crocodile tears on behalf of that population though, as the Murdoch press in England routinely does, too. Another question, too? A lot of press has been given to the dangers of an anthrax terrorist attack on the US. Has any of the pro-military/ police state press ever informed the public that the largest case of anthrax terrorism directed against people happened in Rhodesia (the white racist Apartheid state ruling over Zimbabwe) just a while back? That's right, the Whites of Rhodesia-Zimbabwe that were intimately connected with Great Britain, used anthrax against the Blacks of that country. It was the largest such biological warfare use of anthrax in world military history. As somebody around back then, I don't really remember the press ever giving much a shit about the affairs of Zimbabwe back then. Now, they can't do anything else other than blab on and on about Zimbabwe, same as they do about the Darfur in Sudan. The British, French and US governments want control back over these 2 regions of Africa. And they want the general public to think that they are being good people

The UN says it may occupy Darfur for 10 years

In talk reminiscent of how the US may militarily occupy Iraq and Afghanistan for decades, the US dominated and controlled UN military is now talking about how it may militarily occupy Darfur for 10 years. 'Saving Darfur' is now in march it seems, and it is now obvious just what this actually means. We can see other examples of 'saved' places, like Haiti, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, East Timor, Congo, and all don't look too saved at all, but just occupied by military troops. Darfur mission may last 10 years: UNAMID general This raises the issues of how a real Antiwar Movement can be organized, with much of the organizations we presently have full of supporters of war controlling leadership positions in these supposedly pro Peace groups? Almost all the 'leadership' consists of Democratic Party voters, who vote for candidates that promote US militarism. Further, under the guise of being saintly non-violent types, much of the membership continues to support the idea of their government called on to 'do things' with US troops, in places like Afghanistan and Darfur. We have a supposed antiwar movement at present, that wants to dote on 'the troops' even. Yes, the UN says it may occupy Darfur for 10 years. What a disaster! God save Sudan and all of its peoples. And let's get these thugs in dove's feathers out of Haiti, too! It's time to wake up about the UN, if only the pacifist liberals ever will?

Propagandist for Jews only Israel in town ‘for Darfur’ end of month

I just got a notice from a leader and promoter of the local 'Save Darfur' crowd, that LA film director Mark Jonathan Harris would be in town the end of March pushing the need to intervene against Sudan and China in Africa. While the multiple civil wars in Sudan have been horribly destructive of human life and I wish for them to end like yesterday, I know where this campaign is getting its biggest push from. It is getting it from the Go-Zionism lobby that operates and flourishes in D.C., Florida, and Hollywood. This film director, Mark Harris, has been sponsored before via The US Holocaust Museum, which is partially funded with America's tax monies, though it principally promotes the foreign agenda of Israel. The principal angle the US Holocaust Museum is always working, is that US militarism is absolutely necessary to protect others from genocides, which of course, the US government is never supposedly responsible for. What a dubious supposition, too! But then again, what would one expect would be the main argument of an institution that is partially sponsored by our own government? Harris is intimately tied to the US Holocaust Museum through one of his previous works (well promoted by 'the museum') about Jewish orphans after WW2. One will probably never get to see him doing a work about Palestinian, Afghan, or Iraqi orphans though, even if now he has a film out to supposedly educate the public about the need to 'Save Darfur'. Israel is trying so hard to justify their own repression against the Arab population the Jewish state has displaced and continues to displace, that the US Holocaust Museum is investing much of its funds to take public eyes off all the current Jewish and American sponsored slaughter thoughout the world. Through it's joining and sponsoring the campaign to supposedly 'Save Darfur', The US Holocaust Museum hopes to justify the concept of supposedly just and humanitarian interventions coming from The Empire's military power. 'Genocide, Genocide, Genocide' is what they want you to hear for the next 1,000 years, and they want you to hear it in a way that would justify next to anything Jewish Apartheid Israel might do to make itself yet larger in territory stolen away from another group of people. A US grab for Sudanese oil is nothing to them compared to their own desire to help Jewish Israel grab yet more land. Mark Jonathan Harris and the US Holocaust Museum want to operate like stealth bombers inside the 'Save Darfur' push by the Israeli propaganda squad. It is important that the general American public not realize that this is part of a Zionist campaign, so The US Holocaust Museum's front group is called Genocide Intervention Network instead. It's a case really, of an institution sponsored by 2 governments (Israel and the US are behind the US Holocaust Museum), posing itself off as an activist coalition.

The US and France invade Sudan

The 'Save Darfur' saviors often said that they were not promoting military intervention, but they lied to us. We knew they were lying all the time. And in local Peace group after another, many have been conned into promoting US and European military intervention under the idea that that would help stop a genocide, a sad replay of how many liberals ended up encouraging a war against Yugoslavia, also supposedly to stop a genocide. What those liberals and lost Leftists ended up doing was actually help pave the road to a a very real and ongoing US genocide against the Iraqi people. Sudan troops clash with EU Force Congratulations, Bleeding Hearts with Oh such good intentions! Unable to successfully mobilize to stop the US wars against Somalia, Afghanistan, the Palestinians, and Iraq, you have now successfully helped enable yet more US and European militarism, and this time into Africa! How fulfilled you must feel now? Of course the real genocides will keep going on because your own government, which you have been calling on to 'do something', is the actual cause of most of them. Is it really all that hard to figure out? Not really.

US allied troops sneak into Darfur by way of Chad

It's really quite simple. France owns Chad, and Britain once owned Egypt and Sudan. The US, Britain, and France are all into North Africa together these days. They want the Chinese out. Enter Zionist Steven Spielberg, and a whole host of other 'concerned people'. Enter European Union troops (under French, British, and US control) into Chad, the country that neighbors Sudan. Now throw in a sprinkling of tears. Yes, the European Union is now fully engaged in a regional war in North Africa. They snuck into the region through the back door last week, and it will all be very 'humanitarian' in the press spin. Chad rebels say French EU peacekeepers 'not neutral' and they are right. The group, 'Save Darfur', has promoted a return of French troop[s and towards the newer US colonial control of the region. They must really be happy now.

Europeans and US intervening in Darfur by way of Chad

After all those nice stories about how 'something must be done', the European Union is sending in its troops to Darfur by way of neighboring Chad. In so doing, it will be propping up a French maintained puppet dictator that is so unpopular, that even some of his own relatives are trying to overthrow him along with much of the population at large. Oh, Go blame it on the Arab horsemen and the Chinese, I suppose? What is all this Chad, Darfur, and Sudan stuff really about to our Western ears? Does our ruling class now have soft hearts and now are turning to stop bad things going on in the big bad, world? Pretty comical notion I think. 'Save the Blacks! Save the children!' What noblesse oblige! Is this the new compassionate conservatism in action? Oh No.... It's the liberal Democrats once again! Working with Bush and Sarkozy all together! Oh, and it's to 'Stop Terrorism', too. It's all part of the 'Global War on Everybody and Everything', patent pending in Washington DC office (or is it in Alexander, Virginia?). We got such good ol' soft hearts, we going to save the world once again. OK, actually the news is keeping the news away from us on this one. Too early to announce yet. We have short attention spans and need to stay focused on CHANGE and DARFUR. Chad is, well it is, politically incorrect to think about. There will be no Chad displays at the local library quite just yet. Hold your breath! And whatever you do, VOTE! The System need you. Chad president urges EU force to deploy Chad's President Urges European Peacekeeping Force to Quickly Deploy; PM Declares Curfew ...so many dead... so much suffering. But as Madelyn Albright would say... 'It's worth it.' The European and US corporations must run Africa for themselves.

Chad

There is a civil war going on in Chad, and this throws the simplistic accounts about Darfur put forward by some American bleeding hearts into total disarray. The strife in Chad, Darfur, and Sudan is about much more than bad Arabs on horseback and the evil Chinese government. It is about much more than repeating GENOCIDE, GENOCIDE, GENOCIDE over and over and over. It is about much more than 'The Lost Boys,' which is a simplistic propaganda display currently playing in a Colorado Springs library that supports increased US military interventionism into the region of Sudan and Chad. The United Nations Security Council, France, and the US support the current government in Chad and this government is liable to fall within days. And this is yet another government that lacks any real support from its own people. This is yet another government where imperialists, colonialists and the international 'bodies' they control want to determine outcomes in the favor of their own outside interests. This is a conflict that is about Africa though. We need to get the Europeans and Americans out of Africa altogether. They are the countries most responsible for the many African wars and the misery that comes out of that continent's continual warfare. We need to oppose all US Pentagon interventions into Africa and not encourage them with naiveté, tears, and hypocritical and song and dance. US Out of Africa Now! Who are we to encourage our horrible government and horrible corporate world to get involved in African affairs? The answer is maybe...FOOLS ... if we do.

Darfur round and round table discussion

People please come prepared to the Darfur round table discussion tomorrow night. The in-house event at the PPJPC is intended to bridge a perceived divide that our organization may be telegraphing regarding non endorsement of the Save Darfur organization and other like efforts. Is the PPJPC for western intervention in Sudan or against, military and/or economic? I'm hoping a moderator will be able to preempt filibusters by spirited missionaries intent on witnessing with descriptions of Janjaweed atrocities until the rest acquiesce in submission. Come prepared to be informed, but please do the background research. The discussion time will be limited and will be quite ill-served, I think, with a chorus responding "I didn't know snake oil was both TASTY and LESS FILLING." If you can read about the Darfur Crisis, you can read why it is also considered the Darfur Controversy.

Kenya’s ethnic civil war today is a result of the US-Ethiopian invasion of Somalia one year ago

Kenya is threatened by a fall into a horrible ethnic civil war since last week's theft of the national elections there by the US supported puppet who was voted out of office. This dictator named Kibaki, has made 200,000 Kenyans refugees within a period of one week, and the US refuses to denounce him. Why? The answer is simple. He, along with Ethiopia's dictator, Meles Zenawi, are the US allies in destroying the peace of neighboring Somalia, where the US took its stupid so-called 'War on Terror' and terrorized that people. See you tube video about the US role in planning Ethiopia's invasion Key to the US planning of this intervention intro nations that expand from Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, and Uganda is Jendayi Frazer, a former assistant of Condoleeza Rice who backed here to become Bush's principle director as US interventionist in the Horn of Africa. She was prominently seen on the previous video, and can be seen once again on you tube video Jendayi Frazer on Al Jazeera Frazer is at this moment in Kenya trying to patch up a deal between the winner of the Kenyan elections, Raila Odinga, and the US backed dictator still in office, Kibaki. See Kenya opposition demands poll re-run as US envoy flies in It is rather doubtful that the US government is planning to dump the man in power, just as they have not done so in Pakistan with Pervez Musharraf. Jendayi Frazer is an interesting figure, because it is she that is the present US thug in charge of directing US intervention against Sudan. And it is she that is in charge of current US meddling in Congo, too, where what was called 'Africa's World War' is on the brink of reopening back up once again. Refugees from Kenya are flowing into Uganda at this point, too. The best thing that the US, Britain, and France could do for Africa, is just to get out of the region altogether. The more they meddle and try to control, the more destabilization is brought to the region. For example, without French meddling in Burundi and Rwanda, there might never have been a Holocaust there. It was an integral part of the cause of the genocide. No more militarization of Africa. US out of Africa Now! Economic aid and not military interventions. US military intervention in Somalia is spreading disaster throughout the region and needs to be stopped.

The United Nations engages in war in East Congo

In East Congo, Just like in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti, Sudan, and Somalia, the United Nations is playing a propaganda role backing up the US government and the Pentagon. But in East Congo , see Brutal peacekeepers: Congo's election, the UN's massacre, the United Nations is actually battling the population same as it has done in Haiti. It's troops go into battle alongside Congo government forces, and what a sorry war it is waging indeed. What is the United Nation's actual record in preventing strife between the Tutsi and Hutu? Pretty horrible. And now once again, this same ethnic divide is the cause of the reopening of the Congo's on again /off again Civil War. The United Nations directed by Pentagon power from afar has no solution offered to help end this strife, beyond sending in 'peacekeeping troops', and ones that often engage in battle themselves, though most often they are behind the front lines support troops for occupation approved of by the US government. What is needed, as in Sudan and Somalia, is a FULLY funded economic assistance plan that helps out ALL ethnic groups, not just one against another. As long as the United Nations is controlled by the US and European colonizers, we can expect continual outbursts of ethnic violence, not just in Africa, but around the globe. The UN currently is not really doing much more than follow Pentagon lead as directed to do so from D.C., and the Pentagon thrives off using one ethnic group against another. There is no major economic aid being offered to end the warfare in Eastern Congo. The World Peace Movement should not see the United Nations as its friend in the effort to stop all the wars being waged by our US government. It just isn't, and East Congo is yet another example of how 'peacekeeping troops' just don't keep the peace, but instead even engage in the war. Like the wars in Somalia/ Horn of Africa, this war in East Congo/ Rwanda/ Burundi is easily as deadly as the regional strife has been in Sudan, and the UN is having little positive role to play in actually stopping the slaughter. Nothing will until economic stability is actually created, but that is not part of the United Nations activities nor is it part of what the bi-partisan US government wants to do in Africa. The US government just wants to play one ethnic group off against the other to better control the continent.

Co-opting the peace movement

Look for images on Google of crowds amassed to save Darfur and you get a paltry result. But google for posters and you get a flood. Quite the reverse when you google anti-war. The dearth of evidence of popular support for SaveDarfur caught me unexpected, particularly after watching George Clooney's documentary on HBO. He showed shot after shot of supporters, the same assemblage it now appears, of a DC rally at which he spoke, from diverse angles to make it look like a mass movement. Then his voice-over declared that "the American People had spoken," and it was now our government's turn to act. Far be it for me to denounce enthusiastic hype, but let me tell you where the fabrication took me. Even now, knowing that Darfur efforts are in fact proliferating on campuses nationwide, I see that it is not a fait accomplit, I see the Save Darfur objective, and why it is supported by establishment advocacy groups: they mean to co-opt the peace movement. The people who will turn out to demonstrate for peace and against injustice, who will plead emphatically with the media and fellow citizens, who have hope for a better world, who trust in man's better nature, who believe that one, ten, or several thousand can make a difference against the odds, these people are a limited population segment. Idealists, altruists, with a heavy conscience and usually an education which guides their belief that social progress lies in man's common destiny. How best to diffuse the efforts of altruists where there emerge too many to incarcerate? Misdirect their focus. Preoccupy them with victims of your choosing. Tie up the media outlets and the limited public attention span with a crisis that will serve you, not a crisis you might be perpetrating. Clooney defines the Darfur Crisis as "the 21st Century's first genocide." Does that strike you as omitting a genocide or two? Americans have killed five times as many Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Israelis have been cleansing the Holy Lands of their original Muslims for sixty years. Both efforts ongoing. Who are the agents decrying "genocide" in Darfur? Israel and the US. Nobody else. But plenty have all along criticized our ethnically motivated attack on Muslims and Arabs. And it bears repeating: from whom, by chance, are we asked to Save Darfur? Islamic Arabs. The "genocide" distinction matters such that according to a UN resolution, intervention on the part of the international community becomes mandated. It's a hammer wielded by those on the Security Council and withheld from those who are not. The US and Israel veto any attempt to label their aggressions as "genocide." It's a thankless task to be a nay-sayer cautioning against "action" to "save" Darfur. In the end to what result? We might have tried to halt America's revenge-driven invasion of Afghanistan. But had we prevented that tragedy, would the common citizen have recognize the danger averted? Even now those who supported the illegal US extra-judicial attack of Afghanistan can be excused

Lessons from Zoe’s Ark about ‘Saving’ Darfur

Zoe's Ark is the French Christian group that decided to ship some kids from the Darfur region to France for adoption. These missionaries to 'Save Darfur' say that they thought those kids were orphans, and they are now themselves accused by the government of Chad as being kidnappers. Currently they are on a hunger strike saying that it was all an innocent mistake on their part. These Christian religious people seem pretty convincing to us Westerners but here are the Muslim parents of the 'orphans' saying what happened. It seems that the children were not orphans at all but had very caring parents! Assuming that the Zoe's Ark branch of the 'Save Darfur' herd were not deliberately committing a criminal act as they state they weren't, then just what did they think they were doing in Chad? Actually, they thought they were doing good deeds like the 'Save Darfur' advocates of US locally think they are doing right here in Colorado Springs when they advocate interventionism. But the Zoe's Ark people were wrong and so are our local enthusiasts of this 'Save Darfur' cause. It seems that Zoe's Ark folk didn't even know how to tell real orphans from kidnapped children in that region of the world! Yet the even more ignorant local advocates of ACTION on this issue know even less about Darfur, Chad, and Sudan than they do. How can they think they know so much about what is really going on in Darfur, as they most certainly think they do, when they actually know next to nothing? Good intentions are all fine, but ignorance can get you into trouble especially when you arrogantly think that you should have the final word about the affairs of people totally different from you living on the other side of the world. Another example of this, was the good intentioned liberal woman who recently allowed one of her Sudanese kids to name a stuffed animal Mohammed. She got jailed for several weeks and run out of the country, and she was lucky for just that. I know some of the Colorado Springs 'Save Darfur' liberals who go bananas advocating that we 'push' our government into intervening against the Sudanese government. To tell the truth, I don't think these folk have a clue to what's going on even in our own country let alone what's happening in a remote region of Sudan. I'm sure I would NOT trust them to even be allowed to work for Child Protective Services- Colorado lest they make some major errors in judgment about kids and their parents equally as big as those made by members of Zoe's Ark while in Chad and France. Lessons here? Don't stick your nose into the affairs of other peoples that you nothing absolutely nothing about. And don't try to 'sanction' others when those economic sanctions actually are a form of waging war

Is there life after SaveDarfur?

Update: Retired UN ambassador Lakhdar Brahimi is interviewed on BBC the World: Elder statesmen seek Sudan progress. If you can't support the SAVE DARFUR call to arms, where does that leave you? Is there no "grass roots" non-profit think-tank network supporting financial incentives to encourage benevolent stewardship on the part of the Sudanese government? (Maybe none flush with money.) Is there no one urging US and allies to quit arming those fighting the government forces so that China wouldn't be called upon to resupply munitions to Khartoum? That is whose fault? Is there no congressional representative you can call to suggest legislation laying out diplomatic encouragement in lieu of divestiture and corporate maneuvers to snatch Sudan's resources from the clutches of the Chinese? That is whose fault? Just because an alternative may be a little more complicated than can be explained beneath a compelling poster, is no excuse not to take the high road. Just because your options are offered as the lesser of two evils: either approve UN peacekeepers or we will have to launch missile strikes, does not mean you have to choose either. Have you only Hillary or Obama to chose for presidential nominee? No you don't. Would any other candidate stand a chance to be elected? Should you try and see? Do not ask others to settle for your lack of imagination or stamina.

On not inciting a lynch mob

Do you know about the atrocities being committed in Darfur? Is the extent of your reaction being weighed as evidence about how much you know (ie. not enough)? If you are not calling for UN peacekeeper intervention, does it mean you have not exposed yourself sufficiently to the suffering of the Sudanese?   This would appear to be the logic of those advocating action/intervention. Surely you are a heartless do-nothing if you are not urging the tugging of every heartstring until a collective decision can prompt swift action. Cool heads might not prevail against a revenge-driven mob mentality, but why split hairs, they are hairs on the necks of Arabs. When agitators urge action, if even they caution it to be non-violent action, the challenging endeavor of creating non-violent dialog and diplomacy can easily appear to stagnate in the "inaction" category. The bigger picture about Sudan is that Europe and the US now face an eastern power vying for Africa's remaining resources. To continue to dominate Africa, they have to mobilize opinion to favor a reversal of what has been a de-colonization consensus granting indigenous peoples their regional autonomy. To this end, grassroots activist mechanisms are being co-opted to manufacture public consent for re-shouldering the white man's burden. A critical distinction for those concerned for the Sudanese is that western intervention is not the only solution. TO SAY NO TO MILITARY INTERVENTION IS NOT TO ADVOCATE DOING NOTHING. It is fine to raise awareness about the suffering in Darfur but maybe not if the common denominator response is an agitated public crying for blood. You'd be the odd man out, trying to talk a lynch mob out of meting out justice to the Jesse James Gang. Where would you stand as you saw tempers becoming raised in response to heightened emotional manipulation? No one wants to deny the crimes committed, but what of the mechanisms of a civil society meant to preempt our baser compulsion to vigilante justice? What if as well, the James Gang members the crowd was after were only the small fry? What if incredibly, the chief mob rouser was Jesse James himself? Perhaps even Jesse James would not have such gall, he would have to work through deputies like think-tank and media mouthpieces, or more insidiously through funding-starved non-profits, and tragically through unknowing surrogates with the best of intentions. Ideologically it shouldn't make a difference who is behind justice or before it. No one should be victim to a mob's wrath. That's not the point. What if you were working the crowd, trying to build an awareness that the Jesse James Gang was in their midst wreaking disaster of unfathomable consequence? Meanwhile the attention of that populace was being diverted to a humanitarian crisis which was in fact entirely a symptom and not a cause. The Darfur crisis, begun in 2003, far from being ignored by our media, has successfully been used to obscure the million people killed by the US in Iraq, and the Israeli incursions into

Selective intervention of genocide

A chief backer of such films as DARFUR NOW and SAND AND SORROW is the GENOCIDE INTERVENTION NETWORK, who urge us "Never Again," invoking the myth of western indifference to the tragedy of Rwanda. Through films like SAND AND SORROW they criticize American passivity in the face of their call to intervene. Actor George Clooney asks viewers to dial the GIN's 1-800-GENOCIDE hotline for talking points to urge congress to action. He calls Darfur "the 21st Century's first genocide."   Despite the predominant focus on Darfur, the website features a map of other "areas of concern." Notice anything missing? Palestine? Iraq? In fact the map would appear to exclude concern for the victimization of Muslims in Indonesia, Ceylon and the Philippines too.

The ‘Save Darfur’ PR scam

Alternet today published The Black Agenda Report's commentary calling the 'Save Darfur' a US interventionist PR scam. Ten Reasons to Suspect "Save Darfur" is a PR Scam 'Humanitarian intervention' is getting to be a more and more difficult sale for the government to make. It reminds me even of a new and used car dealership I once ran into. The salesman had this gigantic 3 foot by 2 foot Bible on his desk. Don't buy it! And don't buy that the US government is some how the agent for progressive intervention anywhere around the globe. It just is not. Too bad that it is this way, but it just is. Want to help the people of the world out? Then fight against giving this country's government permission to go into other peoples' territories to run their affairs. The 'Save Darfur' campaign is in great part a government funded PR scam that does the complete opposite of that. It wants our government to tell others just what to do, to do it our way, and to punish any of those who get in the way. It is a campaign to provide rationale for military interventionism into important parts of Africa that our corporate government wants to control.

Flooded Bangladesh, unconcerned US

Excessive amounts of energy used in the US brings floods to Bangladesh and drought to Sudan. What it doesn't bring, is much concern from the US public about the destructiveness of its economy on other peoples. See Thousands stranded without aid in Bangladesh after cyclone hits.

United Nations pedophile ‘peacekeepers’

Everywhere in the US liberals want the United Nations to get involved and send in the 'UN peacekeepers', even though the UN Security Council is totally controlled by the American government. And let's face it, at times the UN troops act in some ways like the US troops do in Afghanistan and Iraq. And in some ways even worse! Like many of the 'peacekeepers' having sex with minors in areas under their control. This has happened over and over in Liberia, Congo, Sierra Leone, Guinea, Haiti, East Timor, Bosnia, Kosovo,and yes, Sudan, too. See UN Child Sex Slave Scandals Continue and the latest S Lanka troops 'abused Haitians' . Why are liberals so enchanted about having UN troops being sent into a country? The UN is a total mess and totally under the control of the US. Isn't it time to stop calling or desiring for the UN to do the US's mop up operations?

Economic war on Sudan is not peace

Two more ideas for banners, to communicate why anyone would object to SAVE DARFUR and its lost boys. Honestly. Look up SaveDarfur.org on Wikipedia. This is the same emotional pitch made to rally Americas to save Kuwait. In Afghanistan it was the Taliban creating orphans, and in Kuwait it was Iraqis stealing the incubators. In Belgium in 1916 Germans were said to be sticking babies on their bayonets and carrying severed fingers in their pockets as souvenirs.

The Lost Boys?

It's amazing. The US has killed a lot of people through our life times, and yet there has never been another group of children from these devastated countries torn apart by US foreign policy made terrorism, flown to families in France, Britain, and the US like the Sudanese 'Lost Boys' have been. I guess there were no 'Lost Boys' in Iraq, Lebanon, or Afghanistan, nor from Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Vietnam to save? It seems, the US only goes for taking in 'Lost Boys' when they seem to come from countries that have supposed villains that are not our own government leaders. But is the newest set of 'Lost Boys' even lost, or are they actually the 'Stolen Boys'? The latest 103 of these supposedly 'Lost Boys' were said to have been found in Darfur, and not Chad. But an international scandal has broken out where the people carrying these kids off are now accused of being kidnappers themselves. In short, they are accused of stealing these kids. See the BBC report... Chad case children 'not orphans' Did they do this deliberately? Were they misled? Were they in cahoots with pro-interventionist propaganda groups like the so-called 'Save Darfur' who wanted to use these kids to urge their governments to intervene against Sudan with occupation troops and economic warfare? Will we ever find out for sure the truth in this case? Personally, I think that the truth may lie somewhere in between. Maybe the people were trying to help these kids just escape from their poverty, and didn't really care that the stories they were giving these European Bleeding Hearts that were to carry them out were all untrue? After all, how often does the Developed World come to aid some of the kids of Africa? How often does one get a free ticket to immigrate? Here in the US, we round up immigrants like they were stray dogs and cats. Promoting foreign intervention into Third World countries is big business, and if 103 kids were needed to push that cause, then 103 kids were rounded up. Who cares about the details since these kids were getting a bargain? Something to think about when you hear a 'Lost Boy' story in the weeks and years ahead. Maybe the 'Lost Boy' was not so lost to begin with, but his family or themselves simply found a ticket to ride out of a bad locale into a much nicer one? Who could blame them? But YES, it does turn out that there is a 'Save Darfur' group connection with the French group Zoe's Ark that was taking these 103 kids out of Africa. The two groups are part of the same effort to supposedly 'rescue' 10,000 kids ('orphans') from Darfur to safety in the US and Western Europe. See Reuters' Factbox

Top