 |
| |
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sikander
What do the Christian militias in the South have to do with the government sponsored and abetted genocide of the black non-arab muslims in the west, ie Darfur?
These airstrikes weren't against military positions, they were simple area attacks against villages to instill terror in support of the much more dangerous attacks of the Janjaweed. This is ethnic cleansing with an eye toward genocide. The idea is to instill enough terror in the populace that they will abandon their crops, their land and all of their property and flee headlong into the desert where they will either die, live in a squalid refugee camp where they can be easily monitored or leave the country.
Yea, and I'm sure the U.S. is scared to death of the advanced Sudanese jets. If airpower alone could do something here, I'd be all for getting involved. |
Well, as you know, a Civil War is often fought with dirty means. I am sure the Christian Militias are also guilty of atrocities. I remember there was a thread about it here by some finnish person, whose name I can't recall now.
During the American civil war, general Sherman burnt down many Confederate cities. When Israel was created many Palestinan towns were destroyed. In Vietnam villages were detroyed to save them. Where is your moral authority to demand more slaughter?
What really surprises me is how the american public is willing to gobble up all manner of propaganda without questioning it. You should really study the history of the CIA, then you will see what I mean.
This is the reason that I question Western motives against Sudan. I do not believe this will be to save lives. It will mean the destruction of even more lives. If the west intervenes it will not be out of good intentions.
Now let us say that the West does actually intervene in Sudan, and we see how the situation has developed in Iraq and Afghanistan, do you believe that the people there will be better off? I would say that there is sufficient evidence to the contrary.
Now what I sense is that the modern anglo-saxon/jewish version of history is not a means of understanding the past, but is rather weaponized argumentation used to justify immediate policies. As such it is un-scientific, and it is false. If you base your decisions on false assumptions it will ultimately lead to failure, because most people know when they are being lied to. Most people know that the Iraq war was based on a lie, so was Vietnam, and Nicaragua. the problem is that when you lie finally people won't believe it anymore. Even if it is true.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tripledoc
Now what I sense is that the modern anglo-saxon/jewish version of history is not a means of understanding the past, but is rather weaponized argumentation used to justify immediate policies
'false assumptions'
|
Of course, I forget, one cannot rely on people such as Simon Schama and Martin Gilbert to be truthful or objective- they're Jews.
Hmm, something smells a bit off about that 'Jewish version of history' statement.
However, happy am I that my reading is not restricted to the secret agents for the Elders of Zion, but also extends to Muslims such as Mohammed Heikal (the Road to Ramadan, a fascinating look at Middle East conflicts from the point of view of an Egyptian government insider) and also to Edward Said (Orientalism) and Turkish historians of the Ottoman Empire.
Yet another remarkable false assumption for someone whose posts are replete with unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.
I mean really, Amnesty International, the well known international backers of the Anglo-Saxon/Jewish Hegemony.
Tell me, with regard to the Ludendorff Offensive, if it was simply thought to be a waste of time or silly at its inception, why did they carry on?
Why did they nearly force the Allies into the sea, why spend FIVE MONTHS and endure 800 000 German casualties, for something believed to be ineffective?
Because of course, you're viewing it through the distorted spyglass of hindsight yet again.
Instead of questioning Western motives against Sudan, why not question the motives of a Sudanese government which caved into Islamic extremist pressure
decades ago and uses sharia law as a means of punishment for Christians and animist Africans living in the north?
And which turns a blind eye to modern day slavery?
http://allafrica.com/stories/200407230001.html
Too inconvenient to think of that in the light of your Western conspiracy theories?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
Of course, I forget, one cannot rely on people such as Simon Schama and Martin Gilbert to be truthful or objective- they're Jews.
Hmm, something smells a bit off about that 'Jewish version of history' statement.
However, happy am I that my reading is not restricted to the secret agents for the Elders of Zion, but also extends to Muslims such as Mohammed Heikal (the Road to Ramadan, a fascinating look at Middle East conflicts from the point of view of an Egyptian government insider) and also to Edward Said (Orientalism) and Turkish historians of the Ottoman Empire.
|
Just to give you an idea what I am talking about please read this synopsis from Arthur Koestlers book the Thirteenth Tribe, in which it is described how the Jews of Europe mostly originated from the Khazar Empire located in the Caucasus, and not from the Middle east. The question is that if the eastern Jews after the Holocaust where to have a homeland, why was it created in Palestine then?
The whole book is made available for reading online there too.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:34
|
|
quote:
In what way will it help to inject western troops into the area? Recent experiences of British and US interventions in Africa have shown that this has only escalated the violence. Most notably in Angola. |
I don't know for you, but to me, the most recent western interventions in Africa, at least those that made a difference, were Sierra Leone and Ivory Coast.
These two interventions were considerably influenced by the lessons learned from the mistakes of the past, and by the fact there is no cold war anymore.
1. The aim of the intervention was stability, instead of supporting the victory of one side or another.
2. The interventions involved local politicians, and soldiers of neighbouring countries.
Had France not intervened in Ivory Coast, we could well be witnessing a Rwanda-style genocide, or a Liberia-style civil war. I would imagine a similar scenario in Sierra Leone.
Yes, a western intervention can make a difference, as it can force different parties to compromise, and to reach a stability they don't want. Sure, we bar them from doing what they want to (happily genociding each other), and many locals will oppose us for that, but you bet the losing side (the blacks) will really appreciate the help... that is, until they feel they can beat the crap out of the Arabs, and are frustrated by our forced peace.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boshko
The basic premise is a pile of ****, only a small segment of the population the Khazars ruled ever converted to Judaism. |
Actually Koestler describes of the Kings of the Khazar empire converted for political reasons, in the same manner as many Scandinavian kings converted to christianity I might add. In addition to that there were were a heavy influx of Jews from Byzantium who fled forced babtization. If they did not convert they would be squeezed to death in the olive presses. They came from a superior culture, and thus heavily influenced khazar public and religious life. The Hebrew alphabet was adopted. Coins from the period bearing Hewbrew inscriptions have been found Theoretically the state and the kings, the priestly class and the officials could have been Jews, while the common folk held on to their primitive beliefs. But is that likely when compared to the social history of the spread of Christianity and Islam?
On the Conversion of the khazar people to Judaism Kostler writes that it was a gradual process.
"It seems indeed that the judaization of the khazars proceeded in several steps. We remember that king Bulan drove out 'the sorcerers and idolaters before the angel appeared to him; and that he made his Covenant with the 'true God' before deciding whether he was Jewish, Christian or Muslim God. It seems higly probable that the conversion of King Bulan and his followeres was another intermediary step, that they embrazed a primitive or rudimentary form of Judaism, based on the bible alone, excluding the Talmud, all rabbinical literature, and the observances derived from it. In this respect they resembled the Karaites, a fundamentalist sect which originated in the eighth century in persia and spread among Jews all over the world - particularily in 'little khazaria', i.e., the Crimia- Dunlop and some other authorities surmised that between Bulan and Obadaiah (i.e., roughly between 740 and 800) some form of karaism prevailed in the country, and that orthodox 'rabbinic' Judaism was only introduced in the course of Obadiah's religious reform...
Thus the judaization of the khazars was a gradual process which, triggered off by politcal expediency, slowly penetrated onto the deeper strata of theri minds and eventually produced the messianism of their period of decline. their religious commitment survived the collapse of the state, and persisted as we shall see, in the khazar-jewish settlements of Russia and Poland." Page 73-74.
Several Hebrews from around the know world came to khazaria to observe and were displeased that they had not adopted all aspects of the Jewish faith, for instance Talmud readings, and their Sabbath was spent in the dark. Some also had misgivings based on racial grounds. Khazars who became jews without belonging to 'the Race', were named 'mamzer', meaning 'barstard'.
Others had more positive things to say about the Khazar Jews. Jacob ben-Reuben describes them as, "a single nation who do not bear the yoke of exile, but are great warriors paing no tribute to gentiles."
Around 860 AD The Byzantines therefore sent their most famed missionary St. Cyril (from where the term Cyrillic, i.e. Russian alphabet derives) to convert the khazars to christianity. But he had no luck. And in fact Cyril was succesful in all of Eastern Europe, but not in Khazaria.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
[q]
Sure, we bar them from doing what they want to (happily genociding each other), and many locals will oppose us for that, but you bet the losing side (the blacks) will really appreciate the help... that is, until they feel they can beat the crap out of the Arabs, and are frustrated by our forced peace. |
Exactly. Who in west gives anything about how the Albanians are treating the Serbs, now when they have the upper hand? The UN does nothing. Why? Because it is not in the strategic interest of the West to do so.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
Peacekeepers 'stood by as Kosovo mob burnt homes'
By Kim Sengupta
27 July 2004
Nato forces and United Nations police in Kosovo were responsible for a "catastrophic" failure to protect minority communities during the upsurge of violence earlier this year, a report claimed yesterday.
Human Rights Watch said there was a "near complete collapse" of security, allowing gangs of Albanians to drive Serbs, Roma and Ashkali (Albanian-speaking Roma) from their homes in the Yugoslav province.
The report, based on interviews with officials and victims, describes how, time after time, heavily armed soldiers of the Nato-led K-For stayed in their barracks as Serb homes were burnt and looted. Relief, when it did arrive, was often too little, too late, leading to a new status quo in which displaced communities found it impossible to return home.
In the village of Svinjare, a mob of armed Albanians marched past the main French K-For base before burning all of the 137 Serbian homes. The Nato troops stayed in their barracks watching buildings just a few hundred metres from their base go up in flames.
In nearby Vucitrn, French K-For soldiers failed to intervene while Albanian gangs set fire to 69 Ashkali homes, just 10 minutes' drive from the military base.
At Prizren, in the south-east, German K-For troops failed to protect the Serb population and the historic Orthodox churches and monasteries despite repeated and frantic calls for assistance from German UN police in the town.
The entire village of Belo Polje was burnt to the ground by the mob. This time it was Italian K-For troops who locked the gates of an adjacent base.
Even in the capital, Pristina, Serbian civilians had to barricade themselves into the upper floor of an apartment block, while Albanian gunmen shot out the windows from the streets and looted the flats below. It took K-For and the UN police more than six hours to come to their aid.
On 17 March, the report said, 33 separate riots broke out over a period of 48 hours involving more than 50,000 Albanians. Nineteen people were killed, 4,100 people were displaced from their homes, and at least 550 homes and 27 Orthodox churches were destroyed.
Among the catalysts for the violence were reports that a group of Serbs with dogs had driven three Albanian boys to their deaths in a river; the blocking of the main road from Pristina to Skopje by Serbs after the shooting of a Serb teenager; and a march by veterans of the disbanded Kosovo Liberation Army protesting at the arrest of former KLA leaders on war crimes charges.
Human Rights Watch concluded: "This was the biggest test for Nato and the United Nations in Kosovo since 1999, when minorities were forced from their homes as the international community looked on.
"They failed the test. In too many cases, Nato peacekeepers locked the gates to their bases and watched as Serb homes burnt."
http://news.independent.co.uk/europ...sp?story=545060
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
That's a Western source, and is therefore clearly without value! It's propoganda! Designed to, um, um, make the Serbs look good, or something! Yeah!
-Arrian
p.s. Personally, I feel our intervention in Kosovo was a mistake, or at the very least botched in that we picked sides without understanding the conflict - we found out later that the Kosovars were a bunch of *******s too.
However, how exactly does helping a bunch of Muslim seperatists against the Christian Serbs "serve Western interests?" IT DOESN'T! It was a misguided attempt to help the situation, not to serve our interests. I opposed it because I didn't think it would help. At this point, I'm not sure whether it did or not... mixed bag.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
The serbs are ortodox and feel themselves ethnically related to the Russians, the pan-slavic ideology is strong there. Having a strong Russian Fortress in the middle of the Balkans is against the interests of the West.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
Personally, I feel our intervention in Kosovo was a mistake, or at the very least botched in that we picked sides without understanding the conflict - we found out later that the Kosovars were a bunch of *******s too.
|
But do people understand the conflict in Sudan enough to make a valid judgment on whether intervention is a good idea or not?
I still feel that this intervention is being sold to the public, not discussed by the public.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
Bush Resists Pressure to Meddle in Sudan – for Now
by Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Bush administration continues to refrain from calling a campaign of ethnic cleansing against black Africans in Sudan's western Darfur province "genocide," although both houses of the U.S. Congress approved non-binding resolutions last week that used the term to describe the situation.
Such a determination would require signers of the Genocide Treaty, including the United States, to do what they can to stop the action – possibly including military intervention – but many experts have said recently the international community must not wait to act until the term is adopted.
Washington and its main allies in Europe are urgently pressing the United Nations Security Council to impose sanctions against leaders of the Arab militias (Janjaweed or "men on horseback") and their government supporters in Khartoum. A vote on a U.S. resolution is expected in the council this week.
On Monday, the 25 foreign ministers of the European Union (EU) indicated they were ready to sign on to the draft resolution, which would impose diplomatic and financial sanctions unless Khartoum acted immediately to stop the militias, whose raiding has killed as many as 50,000 people over the past 18 months and forced more than one million more to flee for their lives.
The EU ministers said they were "alarmed by reports of massive human rights violations" perpetrated by the militias, including the "systematic rape of women."
"The risk is very high for a potential catastrophe," said the EU's chief foreign policy official, former NATO chief Javier Solana.
Aid groups and the United Nations are reporting that access to camps, where many of the Africans who were forced from their homes are now being held, has improved over the past several days as the government pledged greater cooperation in the wake of steadily mounting pressure from abroad.
But at the same time, some Sudanese officials struck a defiant pose against the threat of sanctions, or even possible military intervention, which is being demanded by some humanitarian groups who have said the situation in Darfur amounts to "genocide."
"We don't need threatening; we don't need sanctions," said Sudanese Foreign Minister Osman Ismail during a trip in Turkey. He also assailed the pending UN resolution as "unbalanced," and stressed that the government has already pledged to disarm the militias and has arrested more than 100 militia members.
In addition to sanctions against yet-to-be-named Janjaweed leaders and Khartoum officials, the draft UN Resolution calls for an arms embargo.
The violence in Darfur has its roots in the competition for land and resources between Arab tribes that are mainly herders and the African population that consists mostly of peasants living in settled villages and towns.
In 2002, the Janjaweed stepped up raids on the African population. Angry that the government was not protecting them against such attacks, two African rebel groups retaliated against a government garrison, killing more than 70 soldiers.
At that point, Khartoum launched its counter-insurgency campaign, much of which was carried out on the ground by the newly supplied Janjaweed, who were also backed by government forces and warplanes.
More than one million people were forced to flee their homes; more than 200,000 of them have crossed the border into neighboring Chad, while the rest were internally displaced. Most of the latter have now been herded into overcrowded and unsanitary camps that lack adequate medical care, food supplies and even physical security.
The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) warned in May that even if humanitarian agencies are granted complete and unimpeded access to the camps and those who remain displaced, at least 300,000 people are almost certain to die by the end of the year.
The United Nations announced last weekend that it thought as many as 50,000 people have died already, both as a result of government-Janjaweed attacks and starvation and disease.
Doctors Without Borders (MSF) echoed the urgency of the situation Monday, calling death rates "significantly above the emergency threshold."
"Hardly anyone is getting the care civilians should get in a conflict," said Dr. Rowan Gillies, MSF's international director, who just spent a month working in Darfur. "There are pockets of real disaster, where people are at grave risk of dying in large numbers."
"I am particularly concerned about the food situation," continued Gillies. "For example, in one big camp around El Geneina, only 35 percent of the displaced people even have a card entitling them to food from the UN And the last time they received any was at the end of May – over seven weeks ago."
The U.S. Congress' assessment that genocide is occurring in Darfur has been echoed by the U.S. Committee for Refugees, Africa Action and the Committee of Conscience of the U.S. Holocaust Museum.
Several human rights groups that have called for stronger international pressure, including sanctions, exerted on Khartoum have said they have not yet concluded the situation qualifies as "genocide." But they say serious war crimes and crimes against humanity have taken place in what has been, at least, a campaign of "ethnic cleansing."
Some analysts believe Khartoum is itself divided on how to respond to the pressure, with hardliners arguing that neither the United States nor the EU is prepared to do much more than impose sanctions.
"At the current level of pressure, Sudan's government will only go so far," John Prendergast, a Sudan specialist and former U.S. National Security Council aide, told the Christian Science Monitor. "They don't believe Washington or the UN Security Council have the political backbone to take it any further."
British Prime Minister Tony Blair has suggested he is willing to send troops to Darfur if necessary, while France has sent its foreign minister to Darfur and Chad, where several thousands French troops are already based.
France also has troops stationed in nearby Djibouti, where a former French base currently houses some 4,000 U.S. troops deployed there after the 9/11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon.
(Inter Press Service)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tripledoc
Just to give you an idea what I am talking about please read this synopsis from Arthur Koestlers book the Thirteenth Tribe, in which it is described how the Jews of Europe mostly originated from the Khazar Empire located in the Caucasus, and not from the Middle east. The question is that if the eastern Jews after the Holocaust where to have a homeland, why was it created in Palestine then?
The whole book is made available for reading online there too. |
No the question is why would any sane person say: 'Jewish version' of history, when they don't in the same breath say black versions, or Muslim versions, or pick on any other 'race', or religion (other than Anglo-Saxon, but that fits in with your politics, too, I suppose)
and say their history cannot be trusted because it's 'Jewish'.
Not because it may or may not be accurate, or objective, but because it's 'jewish'
Does Simon Schama write 'Jewish' history because he's a Jew?
Or Martin Gilbert?
Are you of the opinion that their works are suspect because of their mother's religion or 'racial' origin, or if they happened to have been in a synagogue in the past 10 years?
Should we seriously question accounts of the Holocaust because a large number of dead were Jews?
I await your further suggestion that Sephardi Jews aren't real Jews either, but descendants of those Berber tribes who had converted to Judaism before the Islamic conquest of the Maghreb.
'The history of Khazaria presents us with a fascinating example of how Jewish life flourished in the Middle Ages. In a time when Jews were persecuted thruout Christian Europe, the kingdom of Khazaria was a beacon of hope. Jews were able to flourish in Khazaria because of the tolerance of the Khazar rulers, who invited Byzantine and Persian Jewish refugees to settle in their country. Due to the influence of these refugees, the Khazars found the Jewish religion to be appealing and adopted Judaism in large numbers.
Most of the available information about the Khazars comes from Arabic, Hebrew, Armenian, Byzantine, and Slavic sources, most of which are reliable. There is also a large quantity of archaeological evidence concerning the Khazars which illuminates multiple aspects of the Khazarian economy (arts and crafts, trade, agriculture, fishing, etc.) as well as burial practices.
Origins.
The Khazars were a Turkic1 people who originated in Central Asia. The early Turkic tribes were quite diverse, although it is believed that reddish hair was predominant among them prior to the Mongol conquests. In the beginning, the Khazars believed in Tengri shamanism, spoke a Turkic language, and were nomadic. Later, the Khazars adopted Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, learned Hebrew and Slavic, and became settled in cities and towns thruout the north Caucasus and Ukraine. The Khazars had a great history of ethnic independence extending approximately 800 years from the 5th to the 13th century. '
http://www.khazaria.com/khazar-history.html
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/3976/
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azazel
Do you claim, in that case, that all arabs of Nubian or african descent have no place in the Middle East? |
No. If Koestler is right, then I wonder why the Jewish homestate was set up in Palestine and not in the Caucasus. But that would have been imposible, since I don't think Stalin would have been amused. I am not being reactionary, and wishing for a relocation of the state of Israel, I just think that maybe the British were not thinking straight, back when Palestine was their mandate. Off course at that time the empire was falling apart, and maybe that confused them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
NATO is there for peacekeeping. I don't know if it has UN mandate or not, but I would believe so.
NATO troops there are trying to force a stability between Serbs and Albanians, and they somehow manage it. So far, the Serbs haven't been genocided, and many of them have even avoided being expelled.
|
"Of Pristina's 40,000 Serb population, only 400 are left. Statistics from the Serb church and a human rights group in Pristina suggest as many as 316 Serbs have been murdered and 455 more kidnapped, many of them killed, since Nato's arrival."
http://www.balkanpeace.org/monitor/koskss/kss16.html
I think that if 40.000 are expelled and only 400 are left, the the statement that 'many' of them have not been expelled is not true.
You are right it is NATO who is 'protecting' them now, the same Nato who has the US and Turkey as members. the US supported the Croats in their 1995 offensive in Krajina where up to 200.000 serbs were expelled. The Turks have now for a long time waged ethnic war against the Kurds, and the casualty figure there far exceeds what the Serbians have perpetrated.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:34
|
|
quote:
I should inform you Azazel, you have let some Ethiopians and Indians into Israel believing they were Jews.
The neighbourhood is really going to go down now. |
 I know.
quote:
No. If Koestler is right, then I wonder why the Jewish homestate was set up in Palestine and not in the Caucasus. But that would have been imposible, since I don't think Stalin would have been amused. I am not being reactionary, and wishing for a relocation of the state of Israel, I just think that maybe the British were not thinking straight, back when Palestine was their mandate. Off course at that time the empire was falling apart, and maybe that confused them.
|
Why in the caucasus? Don't you know that the jews came from central asia? You're justifying opression. 
In short, the connection between nation and ethnical origins is, well, stupid.
Look at, well, almost each and every nation on the med. We're all mixed up. Spaniards are a mixture of canaanites, arabs ( you'd call them jews or arabs now ), and germans, Italians are a mixture of Germans, and whatever the hell romans were. And the south med, and the east med? Turks, Greeks, Northen African Arabs, East mediterrenean arabs, Jews... All mixed up....
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-07-2004 08:39
But unleashing a bunch of muslim fanatics is? 
|