This section is online for reference only. No new content will be added. no deletion either...
Go to Current Forums ...with millions of posts
     | Friday, August 18, 2000 - 09:54 am I heard that the reason somalis were not part of the slaves african exported from africa was that: the white people saw them as Physiscally incapable of working for their farms.They were thin,weak,tall none nutritional.Want to comment this?
|
| | Friday, August 18, 2000 - 11:16 am As you can see that somalia is at the other side of africa. Your problem is that you can't face the fact we are everything plus the bag of chesse. So i wouldn't be talking cuz roses are red and violets are blue, we somalis are cool, but what the the hell are you?
|
| | Friday, September 15, 2000 - 06:57 am Salaan all. Let me recite you a little history. The east African slave tarde was runed by the Arabs, from the coast of Muzobque to Zanzibar. Somalia was closer to the Arabs if they wanted salves. But why the Arabs couldn't export slaves out of Somalia?????????? After all Indian Tarnsit Slavery was much older then the Atlantic one, due to the fact the the Americas were discovered recently. Somalis were Salve traders them selfs, my father knows and old man in his childhood who use to smmuggle salves early this Century from ..Ethoipia to Sacuudi Arabia. When the English patrolled the Indian ocean first they signed diifferent treaties with different somali Cheifs in 1849 the English signed a treaty with the Garxajis suldaan one of them was Boqor Xirsi Ammaan (1822-1883) to cease exporting slaves out of his domain (Berbara.. Xirsi Amman taxed every slave exported form Berbara to the Gulf) Also they assisted Xaaji Shermaarke to take Zaylac away from Suldaan Burhaan Beeh ( Great grand father of Cali Cariif the Canfar). When Richarad Burton came to Somalia in 1846 the somalis thought he was an English spy who was spying on slave trade , Sir Richard Burton lost and eye and fled to further south. On this century Maxamd Cabdulaahi Xasan had his own Bantu slaves, in fact there was a letter addressed to Richard Corfieled asking the English to returne his captured salves.The Aarbs in Muqdusho were non better treated then salves, they were isolated and dealt with as somali clients. Enough history my points is little boy is that Somalis are the Only pepole who never been enslaved..The Ormos..the Guraagis even there were Amaxaara slaves. Your reason is just childish and groundless..read more bro ..dig the books..and let me now if you find a somali salve..lol bye
|
| | Friday, September 15, 2000 - 07:55 am "My father told me" does not count as History. if you dont have documented facts then thats just a fairy tale. If you have facts let us know the source of your story. Otherwise thats bedtime story aight.
|
| | Friday, September 15, 2000 - 08:24 pm No but because the slavery was on the west side of Africa and not east...Freak. . . . It's better to transport human cargos by sea from the west of the land and not east for financial reasons. . . Damn haven't gone to school yet?
|
| | Monday, September 18, 2000 - 05:30 am Hebs man, your argument is flawed, it assumes the only market is in the Americas. In fact the Arabs maintained a very active slave trade - Zanzibar being an active port. Why weren't the Somalis enslaved?? Simple - Islam and violence. The Somalis have an infinite capacity for violence. They are not people easily tamed. Your "slave" would be likely to stick a knife in your back first chance he got. Secondly, the Somalis were (are) Moslems. The Arabs might have looked down upon their darker brethren but they weren't going to enslave them. The Somalis were active in the slave trade. They launched raiding parties in the classic nomadic tradition, took slaves from the southern and western neighbors, and traded them in Mogadischu and Kismayu (and I also heard Merka and Brava). The Somalis also employed slaves (with European conscent I might add) on the plantations along the Webi Shabelli and Juba Rivers. You want proof??? You're not going to find much in the way of written proof, after all Somalia was only a written language as of 1972. So where else to turn??? Hmmm, anthropology. There are Bantu peoples living in the riverine regions today. Now I don't want to say Somalis have a reputation (esspecially historically) for being hard to get along with, but let me throw it out there. Where do you think these Bantu populations came from??? How do you think you ended up with Bantus hundreds of miles from their parent populations in a hostile land??? And whoa, guess what, in the current insecurity many of them are being used as, you guessed it, slaves. You can find written documentation for that if you have a search engine that can review newspaper articles on Somalia for the last 365 days. Certainly the slave trade was not as active in the East as in the west - slaves biggest value is agriculture and the Arabs and Somalis were mostly pastoralist. The market was decidely smaller. But there's no doubt that there was an active slave trade down the east African coast. Incidentally, the reason Zanzibar was the largest trading port in Eastern Africa is because of it's proximity to Bantu populations - it's easier to move them by sea than over land.
|
| | Monday, September 18, 2000 - 07:34 pm Well for yar Freaking Input Mr. Mad-Disco, Slavery was abolished after Islam was introduced. . . In that freaking case Somalis weren't Moslems if they ever existed at that upon a time. . . No one knows how long Somalis existed, let alone faith and their social behavior. . . Please get back with yar source and kick his ass. . . This time the freaking RAT! Is being unreliable.
|
| | Tuesday, September 19, 2000 - 12:21 am Hebs Not true, Not true, Not true. Islam does not outlaw slavery and the Prophet Mohamed himself kept slaves. How do I know???? Because Asad told me. go to the Islam page and ask him yourself. He cited versus in the Qur'an and everything. So there.
|
| | Tuesday, September 19, 2000 - 05:15 am mad mac i am not sure if islam was factor in stopping slavery in somalia but i bet voilence was. can you imagine arabs coming to take slaves from somalia? they would probably loose more men than they can take-away.
|
| | Wednesday, September 20, 2000 - 07:23 pm Mad Doc with all do respect yar way out of line this time. . . . Do U know who was Bilaal? . . Well ask yar freaking source Asad. . . As far as insulting my Prophet (SWW) IM out of this sorry discussion. . . Who did U think we're talking about Thomas Jefferson?
|
| | Wednesday, September 27, 2000 - 03:10 am Hebs Mohamed or Thomas Jefferson????? Hmmmmmm. Who to go with?? That's a tough one. Hey, I hear that chick Sally Hemmings was good looking - So you can't blame Tom. I just checked my Qur'an. There's no reference to Bilaal in the index. and I ain't disrespecting anyone. I got into this last week with Asad. I say "I think we can all agree that slavery is morally repugnant." And Asad says no joy. He then starts explaining how Islam say under certain circumstances slavery is OK. Ain't my argument dude. Go ask that Asad guy yourself.
|
| | Thursday, September 28, 2000 - 08:59 pm Hebel once upon a time your Mohammed was married to a 13yr old child da ya know what they call men like that child molesters pedophile Mad Cow man ya disappoint me ya don't even know who bilaal is dayuuuuuuum
|
| | Friday, September 29, 2000 - 02:37 pm Dare-Devil I got nothing to say to U. . . . Yar Dumb and STUPID.
|
| | Sunday, October 01, 2000 - 10:40 am MAD MAC Friday, September 15, 2000 - 01:11 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OK everyone, how the hell did we get onto the subject of slavery. I'm pretty sure we can agree on two things. Anyone who wants to can justify slavery in Christianity or Islam. Slaves are being maintained in Sudan today, amongst other places, including Christian countries like Serbia. Let's just say no one has a clean slate on this subject and agree that slavery is wrong and move on. Asad Are you black?????? I didn't think I was talking with a black guy. I thought I was talking with a Somali. asad Friday, September 15, 2000 - 02:53 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Asad Are you black?????? I didn't think I was talking with a black guy. I thought I was talking with a Somali." i'm a somali who is a black african. :-) asad Friday, September 15, 2000 - 03:45 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Let's just say no one has a clean slate on this subject and agree that slavery is wrong and move on." i do not agree. what do you call prisoners of war, mad mac? in islam, the prisoners of war can be made to be slaves. in different countries, including america, the prisoners of war are made to work without salary in bad conditions. MAD MAC Saturday, September 16, 2000 - 07:20 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Asad Prisoners of War can be made to work, this is true. However, they must be released from the captivity at the conclusion of the conflict. Also, you may not beat or execute them. Hence, there are some poignant differences. Also, the POWs are hardly made to work in bad conditions. Many of the POWs kept in America after we signed the Geneva convention paritioned to remain in the US and become US citizens and not be repatriated - hardly the mark of an individual being held in poor conditions. Slavery, that is holding one in bondage for an indefinate period for financial gain, is wrong - plain and simple. What's going on in Sudan is wrong, not that I'm surprised since th Sudanese are primitive barbarians living in the 10th century. asad Saturday, September 16, 2000 - 08:45 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Prisoners of War can be made to work, this is true." without pay, right? what if they refuse to work? "However, they must be released from the captivity at the conclusion of the conflict." specially, in exchange of other prisoners of war at the other side. "Also, you may not beat or execute them. Hence, there are some poignant differences." unless they do some criminal acts, right? "Many of the POWs kept in America after we signed the Geneva convention paritioned to remain in the US and become US citizens and not be repatriated -hardly the mark of an individual being held in poor conditions." the same way, in islam, many prisoners of war became muslims; thus, having the same rights as everyone else. "Slavery, that is holding one in bondage for an indefinate period for financial gain, is wrong - plain and simple" in prisons where the prisoners of war are placed in can be called a "holding" place. the prisoners are in bondage without their will. they are made to work for financial gain that benefits not the prisoners but other people-- without their consent and without salary. this is no different than slavery and being in bondage. "What's going on in Sudan is wrong, not that I'm surprised since th Sudanese are primitive barbarians living in the 10th century." can you compare with what went on in sudan and what went on in kosova and bosina? which one can you characterize as more barbarian than the other-- against one group to another in this centruy? asad Saturday, September 16, 2000 - 09:53 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- speaking of slavery in sudan, let's take a look at what others have to say------which is different than the christian missionaries version: read it at your leisure time: Sudan, Propaganda and Distortion: Allegations of Slavery and Slavery-Related Practices An Open Letter to Baroness Cox and Christian Solidarity International by David Hoile An occasional paper published by The Sudan Foundation (Director: Sean Gabb) 212 Piccadilly London WC1V 9LD United Kingdom Telephone within the UK: 0171 917 1854 Telephone from abroad: **44 171 917 1854 E-mail: main@sufo.demon.co.uk ISBN: 1 86234 020 X (c) 1997: The Sudan Foundation, David Hoile All opinions expressed herein are those of the author, and not necessarily those of the Sudan Foundation. Executive Summary Baroness Cox Heavily Criticised for "Propagandistic and Unproven Claims" of Slavery in Sudan In a new Report, Sudan, Propaganda and Distortion: Allegations of Slavery and Slavery-related Practices, An Open Letter to Baroness Cox and Christian Solidarity International, published by the Sudan Foundation and released today in London, Baroness Cox and Christian Solidarity are heavily criticised for their unproven and propagandistic allegations of slavery and slavery-related practices in Sudan. The author of the Report, David Hoile, shows that Baroness Cox has produced no evidence for the serious claims she has made: "Reports on Sudan by Christian Solidarity International have lacked any sense of balance and objectivity and have been somewhat selective in their reading of recent Sudanese history. The reports for example, have made no mention of the thousands of adult black Sudanese and young boys who have been abducted or kidnapped by the SPLA and subjected to forced conscription and forced labour practices which by your own definition qualify as the practice of slavery." He shows also how these reports have served merely to distort still further an already difficult situation, and have added a further layer of misunderstanding. And he points out that, despite her concern about slavery, Baroness Cox has "openly associated" and continues to associate with: "People and organisations closely identified with what would clearly qualify by your definition, and that of several human rights organisations, as slavery and forced labour. These people and organisations include Sadiq al-Mahdi and John Garang and his faction of the Sudan People's Liberation Movement." Baroness Cox has openely associated with people such as Mubarak al-Fadil al-Mahdi, a Minister under Sadiq al-Mahdi, and identified by British human rights groups as the architect of the 1980s "militias" policy during the Sadiq al-Mahdi government, which resulted in thousands of kidnappings and abductions, which in turn resulted in numerous cases of false imprisonment and forced labour. On the main issue of the allegations of slavery within Sudan, Mr Hoile categorically states that: "The various key human rights organisations have quite simply not produced any credible evidence of state-sanctioned or condoned slavery or slavery-like practices. What these human rights groups have documented contradicts such claims. These human rights groups have shown repeated interventions by government authorities to free people detained by tribal militias. They have also documented that due process of law exists in Sudan, whereby Sudanese courts have repeatedly freed people held illegally." Mr Hoile reveals that while, in 1992, the American Government was officially insisting that there was "no evidence of organised or officially-sanctioned slavery" in Sudan, this line changed abruptly, and without fresh evidence coming to light, to suit the new priorities of US foreign policy. What had previously been described as kidnapping and slavery was seemingly reclassified as "slavery", in keeping with new American propaganda themes. Mr Hoile calls on Baroness Cox to do the following: 1 To urge the British Government to adopt a balanced and more constructive approach to the Sudanese political situation, particularly with regard to abuses of human rights by all parties to the Sudanese civil war, and to consider increasing development assistance to Sudan to alleviate the social conditions in which many of these abuses take place; 2 To consider a more balanced and less partisan approach to the Sudanese civil war, particularly with regard to reports published and distributed by Christian Solidarity International; 3 To bring pressure on John Garang and his faction of the SPLM/A to end the slavery and systematic abuse of human rights with which they have so long been associated; 4 To call Sadiq al-Mahdi publicly into account for the practices and human rights abuses practised and encouraged while he was Prime Minister in the 1980s; 5 To urge John Garang and his faction of the SPLM/A to follow the lead of so many of his southern colleagues and enter into the ongoing Sudanese peace process - a process which has resulted in the signing of political charters guaranteeing most if not all of the demands of the southern Sudanese political leaders, including a referendum on the status of southern Sudan. 7 To reconsider her continuing support for the John Garang and Sadiq al- Mahdi, given their commitment to a violent resolution of Sudan's political problems, especially given that there are clear moves towards a peaceful negotiated settlement from within Sudan itself. ====Main Text Begins===== Politics File Number 5 Sudan, Propaganda and Distortion: Allegations of Slavery and Slavery-Related Practices An Open Letter to Baroness Cox and Christian Solidarity International by David Hoile I write this open letter with considerable sadness and regret. You will remember that we worked together on some political issues relating to Mozambique several years ago. As you may also know I have long admired much of your political and educational work within the United Kingdom. I must state, however, that I have become increasingly concerned at the nature and direction of your recent work on Sudan, and feel that I must publicly address you on this issue. Sudan and its problems have been in the headlines for some time. We in the West have a responsibility to take a measured approach to African and Middle Eastern issues, particularly when the repercussions of distorted images can only but worsen already difficult situations. This is particularly the case with Sudan and I have to say that I have grave concerns at the way you and Christian Solidarity International, the organisation with which you are closely identified, have approached the issue of Sudan. Much of your work and that of Christian Solidarity International on Sudan has centred on allegations of slavery within that country. Quite frankly, for all the somewhat sensationalist claims and allegations you and CSI have made, the evidence to support such grave claims is simply not there. While the government of Sudan may well have been guilty of human rights abuses within the course of the Sudanese civil war, your reports do not in any way produce credible evidence of a slave trade, certainly as we in the West would understand it, within Sudan or of any governmental involvement in this alleged trade. I am sad to say that your reports have served merely to further distort an already difficult situation and have added a further layer of misunderstanding. Paradoxically you have openly associated, and continue to associate yourself, with people and organisations closely identified with what would clearly qualify by your definition, and that of several human rights organisations, as slavery and forced labour. These people and organisations include Sadiq al-Mahdi, the Umma party president and prime minister of Sudan from 1986-89, and John Garang and his faction of the Sudan Peoples Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A). Several of your visits to Sudan, for example, are within areas of the country controlled from time to time by SPLA gunmen As detailed further on in this letter, reports on Sudan by Christian Solidarity International have lacked any sense of balance and objectivity and have been somewhat selective in their reading of recent Sudanese history. The reports, for example, have made no mention of the thousands of adult black Sudanese and young boys who have been abducted or kidnapped by the SPLA and subjected to forced conscription and forced labour, practices which by your own definition qualify as the practice of slavery. It is very important, therefore, to examine the allegations of slavery within the Sudan in considerably more detail than the somewhat sensationalist and partisan way in which they have previously been presented. The Slavery Allegations Allegations of slavery have characterised much of the propaganda levelled at the present government of Sudan. The issue of slavery is a very emotive one within the Sudan. Much of the history of nineteenth-century Sudan is marked by a slave trade closely identified with the Turkish-Egyptian colonial authorities, slavery being therefore very much associated with Egyptian colonialism. Those who level accusations of slavery touch a raw nerve with the Sudanese. Those who have made such allegations, allegations that the Sudanese government condones and encourages institutionalised slavery, have, however, not provided the evidence necessary to justify such grave accusations. The slave trade as it existed in nineteenth-century Sudan involved the Turkish-Egyptian colonial authorities, their Arab servants and slavers and dominant black tribes in southern Sudan who supplied many of their captives as slaves to the slave traders. As Gray records, one of the most prominent southern slave dealers was Mopoi, a chief of the war-like Azande tribe, who provided slavers with thousands of his tribe's captives.[1] Grays also relates that "Europeans were amongst the foremost participants' in the African slave trade"[2] As the distinguished Sudanese academic, Mohamed Omer Beshir, stated: "The suggestion...that the `Arabs' or `the Northerners' were the only dealers in this repugnant trade and the ones responsible for the violence which accompanied it, is not true."[3] An end to slavery in Sudan had been one of stated motives for the British intervention in the late nineteenth-century. The subsequent Anglo-Egyptian government ensured that slave trading as an organised concern was brought to an end: the colonial government remained very hostile to the institution of slavery in all its forms. It is significant to note that while slave trading was at an end, inter- tribal disputes and fighting still resulted in the kidnapping and taking of captives, captives then often used as forced labour. The Report on the Finances, Administration and Conditions of the Sudan in 1904 records a "certain amount of kidnapping" in eastern Sudan[4]. There were also cases of kidnapping in Kordofan, Darfur and the Blue Nile. Beshir records that: "Abduction for the purpose of forced labour, especially among the nomad tribes of South West and North West Kordofan, continued until 1912".[5] McLaughlin documents that between 1905-1913 two hundred and forty-two people were arrested and convicted of kidnapping and abduction.[6] As late as 1947, an official Sudan government publication warned that kidnappings were still happening, being carried out by nomadic tribes in the north.[7] It would be another forty years before accusations of slavery were to be heard within Sudan again. They emerged in the mid-and-late 1980s in the course of the civil war being fought in parts of central and southern Sudan between central government and the Sudan Peoples Liberation Movement/Army under John Garang. The present civil war in Sudan started in 1983, towards the end of the Nimeiry dictatorship, and continued under the Transitional Military Council which overthrew Nimeiry in 1985, and then under the several coalition governments headed by Sadiq al-Mahdi from 1986-89. There are undoubtedly several key human rights issues with which the present government is still associated by inheritance. In addition to the civil war in the south, the government, for example, inherited the political and military conflict within the Nuba Mountains of Sudan, a conflict very much the result of specific policies devised in the mid-to-late 1980s by the then government of Sadiq al-Mahdi and John Garang's SPLM/A. These policies included the arming of tribal militias by Sadiq al-Mahdi, militias directly associated with the subsequent allegations of slavery that have been levelled at the Sudan, and the arming of these militias was the direct result of the SPLA's desire to spread the civil war to a new part of Sudan. The issue of the tribal militia raised, armed and used by the Sadiq al-Mahdi regime and the allegations of slavery go hand-in-hand. In order to examine the situation today it is important to trace the relationship between the two. The Nuba Mountains and the conflict within it have attracted considerable international attention, presently focused upon the present government in Khartoum. The British human rights group African Rights states very clearly, however, that "The war in the Nuba Mountains began in July 1985". African Rights also describes the genesis of this conflict, and the deliberate arming and use of tribal militias There were two events: an isolated raid by an SPLA unit on a cattle camp for Baggara Arab nomads close to the north-south internal boundary, and the government decision to arm the Baggara as a militia to fight the SPLA and the civilian population thought to be sympathetic to it.[8] The SPLM/A killed sixty Baggara tribesmen and wounded 82 others during the raid mentioned above. These circumstances unleashed raids by the army and newly equipped militia on villages and their inhabitants, resulting in the death of large numbers of Nuba Mountain residents and their leaders, numerous arrests and detentions, stock theft and army reprisals within areas in which the SPLA were believed to have had a presence. British journalist Julie Flint has also documented the origin of the violence in the Nuba Mountains and the role of the Sadiq al-Mahdi government and SPLA within it: Until the 1980s, Baggara and Nuba lived in intimate enmity - sometimes raiding, sometimes intermarrying, but with mechanisms for regulating disputes. This collapsed after the SPLA made its first incursion into the Nuba Mountains in 1985, killing and wounding more than 100 Arabs. The government responded by arming the Baggara against the Nuba...Neither side behaved well. The Baggara militia ran amok. The SPLA raided villages for food and forcibly conscripted young men. Tens of thousands of Nuba fled their homes.[9] African Rights have also summed up the essence of the Nuba conflict, pointing a particular finger at the Sadiq al-Mahdi regime: This stage of the war, and in particular the militia strategy, was designed by elected politicians, mainly from the Umma party. These politicians, most of whom are now in opposition and who speak grandly of `democracy' and `human rights', are among those who bear most guilt for the crimes committed against the Nuba.[10] Human Rights Watch/Africa have also explored the origins of the slavery allegations: The practices described as slavery in Sudan have their current origin in the human rights abuses committed in the civil war by government troops and militia in the south and the Nuba Mountains. These abuses did not start with the current government which took power in June 1989. They routinely were committed by Arab militias armed by local government and the Umma Party under the democratically-elected government (1986-89) of Prime Minister and Umma Party president Sadiq al-Mahdi.[11] African Rights states that several people were intimately involved in designing the militia policy: Fadallah Burma, who served as a Minister of State and defence advisor under Sadiq al-Mahdi; Abdel Rasoul el Nur, the Governor of Kordofan from 1987-9 and a former private secretary to Sadiq al-Mahdi; and Hireka Izz el Din, the chairman of the Umma party parliamentary group from 1986-9.[12] That the Umma party and Sadiq al-Mahdi opened a Pandora's box of inter- tribal violence is clear. And it is out of this deliberate policy that the allegations of slavery started to emerge. A comprehensive report on the El Diein massacres in March 1987, where Rizeigat tribal militia were involved in the shooting or burning alive of hundreds of Dinka men, women and children, was written by two Muslim academics at the University of Khartoum and showed the intensity of this new conflict. This report, The Diein Massacre and Slavery in the Sudan, stated that: Government policy has produced distortions in the Rizeigat community such as banditry and slavery, which interacted with social conflicts in Diein to generate a massacre psychosis...Armed banditry, involving the killing of Dinka villagers, has become a regular activity for the government- sponsored militia. Also linked with the armed attacks are the kidnapping and subsequent enslavement of Dinka children and women. All this is practised with the full knowledge of the government.[13] Sadiq al-Mahdi resolutely defended the militias, claiming against all the evidence that the Rizeigat militia were not guilty of the massacre, and subsequently stating that militias "were only to defend democracy".[14] Amnesty International was also able to describe the nature and effects of Sadiq al-Mahdi's policies: Between 1985 and 1988 northern Bahr al-Ghazal was devastated by a series of raids by the murahaleen, a militia raised from the Rizeiqat and Misseriya nomadic tribes of Southern Darfur and Southern Kordofan. Initially self-armed, the murahaleen developed close links with the armed forces and the Umma party, historically the strongest party in western Sudan. The raids, which involved the killing of thousands of Dinka civilians, rape, the abduction of women and children, the looting of livestock and the destruction of homesteads, led to severe famine in northern Bahr al-Ghazal and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of civilians.[15] This then was the appalling situation within parts of southern and western Sudan and in the Nuba Mountains before the present government took power in 1989. The position at least of the present government on slavery is very clear. It states that Sudan is a signatory to several key international conventions outlawing slavery. These include the Slavery Convention of 25 September 1926, as amended by the New York protocol of 7 December 1953 and the Supplementary Convention on the abolition of slavery, the slave trade and institutions and practices similar to slavery was ratified by the Sudan in 1956 and 1957. In 1995, following claims of the existence of slavery in remote areas of Sudan, the Sudanese government established a five man commission to investigate any alleged instances of slavery within the Sudan. Additionally, the 1991 Criminal Law Act clearly defines abduction, forced labour, kidnapping, unlawful confinement and unlawful detention as criminal acts punishable by imprisonment. The 1992 government publication, Sudan Yearbook, in a section reviewing measures to end the conflict in southern Sudan, clearly stated the government's position with regard to slavery: The issue of the slave trade, whatever historical justifications it had, and regardless of the participation of many quarters therein, whether colonialism, the North or citizens from the South, has been, and will continue to be for ever, the most atrocious practice ever known in history What then are the practices which have been described by some groups as "slavery"? What appears to have happened is that as the civil war spread to other parts of Sudan in the late 1980s, both the government and SPLM/A armed tribal militias within areas which had traditionally seen considerable inter-tribal conflict, including the raiding, abductions and kidnapping mentioned in the above colonial instances. Raiding, which had been virtually dormant for decades was given a new lease of life as traditional rivals such as the Baggara and Dinkas were armed with modern, automatic weapons and encouraged to attack each other. Additionally, given the vastness of Sudan, and even without the dislocation of civil war, several large areas of the country proved difficult to administer - just as they had been during the colonial government - providing ideal circumstances for abduction and kidnappings. It would appear that even travel guides have more of a grasp of the reality of Sudan than many human rights groups and Western governments. The Lonely Planet guide to travel in Sudan warns that: "The far west, particularly Darfur, is plagued by bandits who apparently have little compunction about robbing and sometimes killing their victims. The government is attempting - so far with only limited success - to bring these people under a measure of control".[16] There is also a particular difficulty in defining exactly what constitutes "slavery", an issue discussed below in more detail. What has been increasingly presented as slavery by anti- Sudanese and anti-Islamic propagandists can in no way be compared to slavery as we understand it. Additional attempts to project the present government of Sudan as either explicitly or implicitly supporting or condoning these practices is fundamentally dishonest, despite the clear implication of the previous government in allowing widescale abuses of human rights and practices within these areas. Given the present hostility of the United States government to the Sudanese state, it is interesting to note the references to slavery contained in the Department of State's comprehensive human rights publication, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. The 1990 entry on Sudan touches on several of the issues mentioned above: "Slavery reportedly exists in those remote areas where government control is weak and where displaced persons fleeing the war zones come into contact with armed groups...The revival of slavery is often blamed on economic pressure and the civil war, especially the practice of arming tribal militias".[17] The 1992 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices quite clearly states that: "Sudanese law prohibits forced or compulsory labor and there was no evidence of organised or officially sanctioned slavery".[18]The official United States perspective would seem to echo the Sudanese government's description of what was going on within Sudan. It is important to further note that the years covered in the above reports were years during which there was a marked escalation in the civil war, and the disorder and chaos that would have been associated with such increased conflict, and therefore the potential conditions for raiding, abductions and kidnapping would have been heightened. Yet the American position was quite clearly that there was "no evidence of organised or officially sanctioned slavery". From 1993 onwards, there was a marked de-escalation of the conflict resulting from the SPLM/A's loss of rear-bases in Ethiopia and the fragmentation of the SPLM/A itself. It is ironic and somewhat contradictory, therefore, that as the conditions for raiding, abductions and kidnappings decreased, what can only be described as a concerted propaganda campaign highlighting allegations of slavery and slavery-like practices was focused on Sudan and the Sudanese government from 1995/6 onwards. The early official United States government position outlined above was, of course, to change as the propaganda war was stepped up against the Sudanese government, when allegations of slavery would presumably have been seen as valuable and suitable propaganda and as the United States government and its allies stepped up their political and propaganda campaign. From 1995 onwards the allegations of slavery resurfaced with groups such as Christian Solidarity International claiming that "the institution of slavery continues on a large scale in GOS (Government of Sudan) controlled areas of Sudan".[19] In 1995, however, African Rights published a report on the conflict within the Nuba mountains. Facing Genocide: The Nuba of Sudan, which ran to 344 pages and was a forthright examination of both government and SPLA excesses. The issue of slavery is briefly mentioned in a section on forcible abductions. The report recorded that "El Amin Omer Gardud had been alerted to two cases, which he was investigating".[20]In one case three children had been "snatched" by a tribal militia: two had escaped. In the other case two girls were allegedly abducted by government forces. In a further reference, the report recorded that a woman had been abducted and was then "married" to a soldier. This was referred to as "a form of slavery".[21] One presumes that the slavery issue was not as pressing an issue as the American government and its allies may have wished it to be. It is significant in this respect that the black former Congressman Mervyn Dymally, a former chairman of the House of Representatives sub- committee on Africa, observed at a conference in November 1996, that allegations of Sudanese slavery were new and had never been brought to his attention during his twelve years on the Africa sub-committee. Dymally speculated that one reason for it surfacing in 1996 was that "it is a very emotional issue for forty million (black) Americans".[22] It is also notable that in its comprehensive 1994 report on Sudan, Civilian Devastation: Abuses by All Parties in the War in Southern Sudan, Human Rights Watch/Africa does not once mention slavery. Interestingly, the report cites a United States State Department cable which noted that government authorities in Wau and Aweil had freed kidnapped women and children, women and children detained by tribal militias.[23] What becomes clear is that there would appear to have been a time in 1995 or 1996 when what had previously been described as "abductions" were suddenly reclassified as "slavery". Human Rights Watch/Africa's 1996 report, Behind the Red Line: Political Repression in Sudan, for example, contains an eight-page section entitled `Taking Children and Women Slaves as War Booty'. The section is somewhat contradictory to say the least. The report categorically denies the Sudanese government's reading of the captives issue, which was that "these practices are nothing more than hostage-taking, done by both sides"[24] : the section records that "The government claims that with regard to slavery, `the element of intention is decisive.' In the Sudan, it maintains, tribal fights normally result in captives and prisoners of war on both sides of the conflict, but there is no intention to take slaves".[25] The report also went on to deny the Sudanese government's perspective that these captives would then normally be exchanged or ransomed at periodic meetings between the tribes and communities in question. While denying these practices, and preferring to label them as slavery, the Human Rights Watch/Africa report then goes on to describe exactly such circumstances later on in the section. It is worthwhile quoting the relevant passage in the report in some detail: In late 1995, meetings reportedly were held between representatives of the Dinka and the Rizeigat (Arabized western tribes, originally nomads in Darfur), a subgroup of the Baggara. In exchange for access to the fresh pasture land and water controlled by the SPLA, the Rizeigat agreed to release Dinka "prisoners" captured during their raids. They reportedly brought with them to a meeting a list of 674 children already identified and whose release has been promised. They were given Ls. 250,000 (US $473) for the immediate transport and clothing of twenty children said to have been gathered in Nyala in Southern Darfur.[26] What is cited above is precisely the sort of inter-tribal `conference' described by the government of Sudan, the existence of which was denied by Human Rights Watch/Africa in its report. What is also significant is that the report goes on to mention that in Nyala the relatives of two young teenage Dinka women had gone to court to secure their release from captors. The report also records that government authorities in El Diein in southern Darfur had ordered the release of "dozens of Dinka children brought to El Diein and surrounding villages by raiders who had captured them from the area around Aweil in Bahr El Ghazal in early 1996". These children were then handed over to the Dinka community in El Diein. The report also cites the case of an orphaned Dinka boy who had been kidnapped in 1986 by militias loyal to Sadiq al-Mahdi. His uncle had located him and informed the Sudanese police and "The police issued a warrant for the release of the boy to the uncle".[27] The section also additionally documents that in 1995 government authorities in Aweil freed 500 captured women and children who had been taken prisoner during fighting between tribal militias. Human Rights Watch/Africa also recorded that the human rights committee of the Sudanese parliament was in southern Sudan in early 1996 "investigating reports of slavery". The report also confirms that on 22 March 1996, the government of Sudan "notified the U.N....that it was extending the mandate of an existing special committee to investigate alleged cases of slavery and related practices in the Sudan. This committee is composed of representatives of the ministry of justice and interior, internal and external security, and military intelligence".[28] The eight-page `slavery' section in Behind the Red Line: Political Repression in Sudan is made up of four heavily-footnoted pages dealing with the post-1989 period, and the remaining four pages relate to the years 1985-1989, during which Sudan was administered by the Transitional Military Council and governments headed by Sadiq al- Mahdi. Far from proving or substantiating the very grave charge of slavery, the four pages dealing with the present Sudanese government reveals that the age-old practice of abduction and kidnapping and then exchanging or ransoming prisoners taken during what are essentially tribal conflicts (albeit perhaps dressed up in pro- government and pro-SPLA clothes) is alive and well, having been rekindled and fuelled by the Sadiq al-Mahdi governments. Human Rights Watch/Africa also unambiguously documents that government authorities have repeatedly intervened to release prisoners from what is clearly unlawful captivity. Additionally, the report documented that civilians have been able to go to court in successful attempts to free people held illegally. The 1995 Human Rights Watch/Africa report Children of Sudan: Slaves, Street Children and Child Soldiers, contains a 23-page chapter entitled `Slavery or forced labor of minors kidnaped from their families during militia raids'. The evidence cited to support the claims of slavery were described as "summaries of the testimonies of some of the individual victims" and related over eleven pages. The evidence provided, in fact, rests upon three cases, those of three Dinka children called Alang, `Mabior' and `Akom'. (The last two are pseudonyms). Once again, far from proving any case against the present government of Sudan, these testimonies are an indictment in effect of the Sadiq al-Mahdi regime. Alang was six years old when she was captured during a raid in 1986 by militias loyal to Sadiq al- Mahdi. Her father was killed and her mother injured in the raid. `Mabior''s story is somewhat confused. The introduction to his testimony states that he was abducted at the age of eight by a soldier during a raid on his village near Bor in 1988. It is then mentioned that he was abducted during a raid in 1992. `Akom' was five years old when he was kidnapped during a raid by militiamen loyal to Sadiq al-Mahdi in 1988. In all three cases these southern Dinka children had been abducted by soldiers or militiamen loyal to, or serving, Sadiq al-Mahdi governments. In all three cases the abducted children were subsequently kept in conditions of domestic servitude and abuse. And in two cases the children were released as a direct result of legal or judicial action during the tenure of the present government: in the third case legal action was underway but was curtailed by the removal of the child to a place of safety, which was interestingly enough, Khartoum, where the child was said to be "living in freedom".[29] Amnesty International has also documented the use of courts to free illegally held children. Amnesty International has also reported that government authorities have intervened to free villagers being held as prisoners by tribal militia in 1993 and 1994.[30] Even the material presented by Christian Solidarity International in its evidence to the United States Congressional sub- committees on International Operations and Human Rights, and Africa, in March 1996, reflected that a considerable number of the people cited as victims of slavery had in fact abducted during in the late- 1980s by forces loyal to Sadiq al-Mahdi.[31] Quite frankly, if this is the best evidence that can be gathered to support allegations of slavery or the condoning of slavery by the present government in Khartoum, then there is not much of a case to answer. Human Rights Watch/Africa has undoubtedly been very keen to gather as much direct evidence of these allegations as possible. If they are not able to support the claims then that does not say much for the veracity of the allegations. Far from proving their case, the material presented by Human Rights Watch/Africa in fact contradicts the claims that the government of Sudan supports or condones slavery in Sudan. Despite lurid claims that the present government is implicated in the slaving of thousands of Southerners, the specific evidence produced by Human Rights Watch/Africa proves that military forces loyal to Sadiq al-Mahdi were directly involved in the kidnapping and abduction of southern Sudanese children. The specific evidence provided by Human Rights Watch/Africa in two reports also clearly demonstrates that the present government's local government and police authorities have directly intervened on several occasions, occasions documented, in passing, by human rights groups, to release women and children detained by tribal militias. Indeed, once again, even evidence by Christian Solidarity International includes testimony that slavery- related practices "takes place in secrecy".[32] And, lastly, Human Rights Watch/Africa has also provided ample evidence that in case after case when evidence has been produced of illegal abduction, kidnapping or detention, the government has acted to free those victims of an earlier government's excesses. There is not one single recorded instance of this happening during the Sadiq al-Mahdi governments. The recourse to law to free illegally detained people, as mentioned in the various Human Rights Watch/Africa reports cited above is very significant. In Children of Sudan: Slaves, Street Children and Child Soldiers, for example, Human Rights Watch/Africa spends some time discussing the definition of slavery. This is clearly a crucial area. In the above report, Human Rights Watch/Africa cites "one authority" who states that: "The term `slavery' is technical and limited in scope, inasmuch as it implies ownership as chattel by another person and `the destruction of the juridical personality.'"[33] It is clear through the repeated use of the judicial process to free those subjected to involuntary domestic servitude that far from having been destroyed, the juridical personality exists and has been seen to have been enforced on numerous occasions (and in most cases far away from any Western eye, presumably precluding, therefore, any public relations motive). The present government in Sudanese government came to power through a bloodless military coup d'etat in July 1989 which overthrew the Sadiq al-Mahdi administration. It is a matter of record that the present government moved quickly to address the status and activities of the various tribal militias brought into being over the years. Shortly after coming to power, the Bashir Administration attempted to centralise, control and structure the various disorganised and undisciplined tribal militias, legacies of the Sadiq al-Mahdi government. In November 1989 the new government passed the Popular Defence Forces Act which absorbed the militias into the Popular Defence Force with the stated aim of instilling professionalism and discipline into these militias. Not surprisingly there were, and continue to be, a number of difficulties and problems in this process, but it was a process which the government clearly entered into. The behaviour of the militias had itself been a source of conflict between the Sadiq al-Mahdi regime and the Sudanese army. Apart from seeking to curtail the excesses of the militia from a military point of view there was another, political, reason why the government moved to control the tribal militias. The simple fact is that the Baggara militia so closely identified with these allegations of widespread abductions and kidnapping was not only a vehicle of the Sadiq al-Mahdi governments but owed long-standing historical loyalty to his sect and party. As the human rights activist Alex de Waal has stated: "the Mahdist Ansar organisation remains the dominant political element in the Murahalin". As de Waal has also pointed out, the present government in Khartoum are very aware of this: "the perceived continuity of tradition accounts for some of the fear with which the Murahalin are regarded in Khartoum".[34] Other academics have also pointed out that the present Khartoum government were keen to bring the militias under control: "there is no reason to suggest that they were all under the full control of the Government, a fact which prompted the Government to promulgate, in 1989, the Popular Defence Act".[35] The Religious and Race Issues Several of the allegations of slavery and slavery-related practices have additionally attempted to project them as linked to some sort of Islamic project against Christians within Sudan. Christian Solidarity International reports, for example, have carried statements such as "Slavery is used by the Government to debilitate and exhaust the Christian Communities".[36] Attempts to intrinsically link Islam and Islamic societies to slavery are patently false and misinformed. Slavery had been practised since the beginning of time and has featured within both Christian and Islamic societies. Both Islam and Christianity accepted the de facto institution of slavery, indeed it was the backbone of the deeply Christian, white southern states of the United States until 1865. Slavery is not supported or encouraged in either the Quran or in the Sunna: there are references pertaining to the good treatment of slaves. There is a tradition ascribed to the Prophet Muhammad, that the wickedest of people are those who sell people.[37] The inter-tribal raiding rooted in Sudanese history, which clearly reached a peak in the mid-to-late 1980s, and which exists to this day, is divorced from political or religious control from the centre. As the respected academic authorities on tribal militias, Salih and Harir, state: Even though the national political arena is dominated by debate over the values and ideology of the state, Islam and Christianity have never entered the realm of local politics nor have they provided the main source of antagonism at the village level, simply because they are not issues of political concern to the majority of the rural population...the rural populace used the war to pursue objectives that are different from those of the political elite, for instance, to square old enmities with neighbouring ethnic groups or to rustle cattle, seize women and plunder crops...It is therefore not possible to associate the emergence of tribal militias indirectly with the upsurge of strong Islamic sentiments within certain political elites in the North.[38] There have also been attempts to portray the slavery allegations as being racial in nature. It is regrettable that at least some of these attempts have been by Christian groups. In his March 1996 article on allegations of slavery, for example, an article based on material provided by Christian groups, Sam Kiley quotes a Christian minister: "`The slavery is obviously racially based. Black people are considered slaves by this regime, whatever its claims to adhere to the Koran's teaching on the brotherhood of men' said a cleric behind the anti-slavery operation'".[39] As we have seen, the allegations of abduction, kidnapping and ransoming are closely identified with the activities of the Baggara tribal militias. As anyone who knows, or has studied, Sudan will know there is very little, if any, physical difference between the Baggara and those they have been accused of abducting and kidnapping. The key reference source, Sudan: A Country Study, produced by the American University on behalf of the American Defence Department, makes this very clear stating, for example, that: "northern populations fully arabized in language and culture, e.g., the Baggara, cannot be distinguished physically from some of the southern and western groups with whom they are in contact".[40] It is disturbing to note that Christian Solidarity International has repeatedly added the term "black" when referring to those abducted when there is every likelihood that both parties to these allegations would have been black Sudanese. This is unfortunate because it does present these allegations within at best a questionable and at worst a non-existent racial context. Definitions of Slavery There has also been considerable confusion in defining or coming to terms with exactly what constitutes slavery or slavery-like practices. Allegations and accusations of "slavery" have been made by several groups, and in the absence of any strict definition of the term, there have clearly been exaggerations and distortions particularly with regard to Sudan. As pointed out by Sean Gabb in his open letter to the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, specific conditions and a certain framework must be present for a slave state to exist: "An institution like slavery, if it is to exist in any formal sense, must leave obvious footprints in the laws of a country." Gabb went on to observe that the law codes of slave states: "contain hundreds of pages devoted to questions arising from the existence of slavery. Are there any classes of free person forbidden from owning slaves? How are slaves to be bought and sold? If one escapes, after how long, if at all, is he to be considered legally free? What, if any are a slave's legal rights? If his religion is different from that of his master, may he be forced to convert? Is he allowed to marry? What is the legal status of his children? These and many other questions must be answered somewhere in the laws of a slave state...Yet the laws of Sudan are absolutely silent on all these questions. Indeed, at every point touching on the existence of slavery, Sudanese law is clearly prohibitive".[41] There are, however, definitions of slavery which are quite obviously far looser than the generally accepted one. The long-time British human rights activist Lord Hylton, for example, chaired a conference in London on what has been described as slavery in Britain in May 1995. The conference was titled `1995 Slavery Still Alive'.[42] The London Times of 23 September 1996 also reported that accounts of the imprisonment, assault and starvation of foreign domestic workers within the United Kingdom had provoked "a new wave of political debate on slavery in Britain, 163 years after its abolition". The Times went on to state that "Campaigners claim that Britain has become a `slave haven' for wealthy foreign diplomats'". Anti-slavery campaigners had recorded more than 2,000 cases of serious abuse of domestic workers: "Campaign groups claim that allegations of slavery are justified because of the lack of help offered to servants by the Government allows employers total control of their workers' lives." The issue of domestic slavery within Britain was debated at both the Labour and Liberal Democrat party conferences in 1996. Some commentators appear to lack any definition at all. The British journalist, Bernard Levin, writing in the Times in an article entitled "A slave state of our time", alleged, without the slightest evidence, that slavery was alive and well in Sudan. He claimed that twelve thousand southern children were "currently enslaved in the North". He freely conceded his article was based on CSI material.[43] It is somewhat disconcerting given the grave issue of slavery raised in his article that Levin has openly admitted to exaggerations in his work stating "It is quite widely known that my middle name is Hyperbole, and I think I can say that I have lived up to it...I have got into the habit of multiplying...awfulnesses, just for fun".[44] It would perhaps place Mr Levin's predilection for exaggeration into perspective that in 1993, in a Times column entitled `Of inhuman bondage', he states that: "Slavery has reappeared in Britain", claiming that he had in his hands "unchallengeable evidence of the truth of it. A book by Bridget Anderson, entitled Britain's Secret Slaves and published by Anti-Slavery International, has provided the copious evidence, scrupulously documented. There are slaves in Britain...it is absolutely essential, in thinking about this dreadful business, to understand that...the slavery...is going on at this moment, all over the country, and the British government condones it". He believes that there are hundreds, if not thousands of slaves in Britain. What Levin is actually referring to is the mistreatment of domestic servants brought to London by foreign families resident in Britain.45 This illustrates quite clearly a tendency to use terms such as slavery in a particularly slapdash manner, as clearly, from Mr Levin's point of view, the governments of Sudan and Britain both condone slavery. If in the minds of Lord Hylton, Levin and others, what they describe as slavery can exist within the United Kingdom, perhaps the freest and most democratic country in the world, where access to the legal and judicial system is direct and clear-cut, four observations follow. Firstly, there is the distinct possibility that these practices are not slavery as generally understood. Secondly, if these practices were alive and well in Britain, then they could well occur within a country racked with civil war, a country parts of which historically have never really been fully administered. Thirdly, if Levin is lax in his definition of what constitutes slavery in Britain, then there is every possibility he is equally ill-defined in what he labels as slavery in Sudan. And fourthly, both Lord Hylton and Levin provide examples of how certain illegal and odious practices can exist within a country, whether it is Britain or Sudan, without the government in any way condoning them. What is also clear is that what Christian Solidarity International has presented as slavery is in fact the taking of captives during tribal raiding (whatever the modern political context), followed in some cases by equally illegal forced domestic servitude. It is highly unlikely, for example, that a former captive such as the 65-year old tribesman, cited in a CSI report and featured prominently in a London Times article, would ever have been taken for purposes of slavery or slavery-related practices: common sense would dictate that he was simply too old and infirm.[46] He was, however, clearly one of the many tribesmen illegally taken captive during inter-tribal raiding - yet he is presented as a "slave" by a sensationalist media. Many of the instances Christian Solidarity International have described are clearly the kidnapping and subsequent ransoming of those abducted. While undoubtedly done for sincere reasons, the decision of Christian Solidarity International to pay the ransom on kidnap victims is questionable. Christian Solidarity International is then party to a process whereby it pays ransom to people who claim to have in turn kidnapped children from their original abductors, with no means of ascertaining that this is indeed the case. In summary, Christian Solidarity International's involvement in ransoming kidnap victims (and in some cases double kidnap victims), while providing media sensationalism, does not in any way provide evidence of slavery. It does provide evidence of tribal raiding, captive-taking, kidnapping and ransoming within areas of Sudan in which government administration is clearly weak or absent (evidenced by the fact that you were able to visit them accompanied by SPLA gunmen). Perhaps the last word on definitions can be given to British journalist Simon Sebag Montefiore who has thoroughly researched the claims of slavery in Africa, clearly in considerably more depth and with more intellectual and practical vigour than Levin, for a British television documentary. Writing about the issue in the London Sunday Times magazine, he observed: The word `slavery' is often used loosely in an African context: we frequently read tales of schoolchildren in, say, Sudan or Liberia being kidnapped and sold in the midst of civil wars. But chattel slavery, the formal system that existed in the Middle Ages and in the American South before the civil war, supposedly survives now only in Mauritania.[47] Human Rights Watch/Africa's attempts to define slavery have included the following positioning. Slavery was defined in the 1926 Slavery Convention in Article 1 (1) as "the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised". Human Rights Watch/Africa added the following observation: "One power attaching to the right of ownership is the power to completely dispose of the (unpaid) labor of the slave". Human Rights Watch/Africa then cited this as justification for classifying the kidnapping of Dinka children and their subsequent use as forced unpaid domestic servants as slavery. Given that the evidence produced by Human Rights Watch/Africa dealt with individuals abducted during a previous government, and made to work as unpaid domestic servants until freed by legal intervention by the present government, the involvement or implication in slavery or related practices of the present government is unproven at best and unclear at worst. The SPLA and Slavery What is clear, however, is that by Human Rights Watch/Africa's own working definition, the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army led by John Garang is clearly and unambiguously identified with slavery and related practices. Garang has led the SPLA since 1983 and is therefore directly accountable for the kidnapping, abductions, forced labour, forced conscription and other slavery-related practices his organisation has been party to. The 1990 United States State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices records that the SPLA were responsible for the arming of tribal militias in the Nuba Mountains.[48] It further stated that "the SPLA/M often forced southern men to work as laborers or porters or forcibly conscripted them into SPLA ranks. In disputed territories this practice was implemented through raids". The role of the SPLA in creating the circumstances for slaving was touched on in the 1991 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices which recorded that: "It was not clear at year's end whether the intra-SPLA fighting, marked by Nuer-Dinka tribal rivalries, would also result in the taking of slaves".[49] The 1991 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices placed on record that the SPLA had "forcibly conscripted at least 10 000 male minors"[50] and reiterated that the SPLA/M continued to use southern men for forced labour and portering. Human Rights Watch/Africa and the Children's Rights Project published Sudan: The Lost Boys which described the removal of young boys from southern Sudan by the SPLA in what has been described as the "warehousing" of children for subsequent use in the war.[51] These children are unaccompanied and the SPLA have refused any attempts at family reunification. Once suitably isolated these children are then used for forced labour and then forcibly conscripted into the SPLA. In its 1994 report Civilian Devastation: Abuses by All Parties in the War in Southern Sudan, Human Rights Watch/Africa documented the SPLA's use of "forced unpaid farm labor on SPLA-organized farms". Human Rights Watch/Africa also reported that "The SPLA has conducted forcible recruitment...since at least the mid-1980s" and that "Forcing civilians to porter supplies for the SPLA is a chronic abuse."[52] Civilian Devastation: Abuses by All Parties in the War in Southern Sudan also described the phenomena of "military slavery". Douglas Johnson in `Military Slavery in Northeast Africa' states that: "Military slavery involved systematic acquisition of slaves who were trained and employed as soldiers".[53] Human Rights Watch/Africa goes on to observe that "the southern Sudan and the Nuba hills were seen by Anglo-Egyptian officials as the main reservoirs of recruitment of new slave soldiers".[54] The clear and unambiguous resemblance between SPLA forced recruitment within these very same areas and what has previously been termed "military slavery" is obvious. The comparison between John Garang's SPLA and the old Turkish-Egyptian regime which colonised, enslaved and terrorised parts of Sudan in the nineteenth-century is also clear. The Egyptian state was sustained by a caste of soldier-slaves known as the Mamelukes, a grouping similar to the Turkish Janissaries. This caste was based on the deliberate enslavement and isolation of children who were then militarily trained to serve the political masters of the day. The SPLA's purposeful abduction and isolation of southern Sudanese children can be seen as a corrupted and less sophisticated version of the Mameluke model, the result of which is a grouping of child soldiers within the SPLA known as the "Red Army". The SPLA's abduction and gathering of children, and their subsequent treatment, is dealt with over almost thirty pages in Civilian Devastation: Abuses by All Parties in the War in Southern Sudan.[55] In a separate study, Human Rights Watch/Africa concluded that: The primary purpose, however, of luring and keeping thousands of boys away from their families and in separate boys-only camps was, in the judgement of Human Rights Watch, a military purpose. This resulted in the training and recruitment of thousands of underage soldiers who were thrust into battle in southern Sudan and briefly in Ethiopia.[56] In addition to John Garang's close identification with slavery and practices described as slavery by key international human rights groups, the SPLA has also been closely identified with terrorism and additional widespread abuses of human rights with Sudan. The United States Department of State's 1990 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices reported that the SPLA "conducted indiscriminate mortar and rocket attacks on the city of Juba, killing more than 40 civilians and wounding many others. These attacks...seemed intended to terrorize the inhabitants". The human rights report also stated that there had been "extensive pillaging and shooting of civilians by SPLA/M forces along the Sudan-Ethiopian border".[57] In November 1991 the SPLA again shelled the southern city of Juba, killing 70 civilians. In August 1991, the SPLA fragmented and one of the factions, the Nasir Group, accused Garang of human rights violations including the torture and execution of opponents, arbitrary detentions and the forced conscription of children. The SPLA-Nasir group claimed that some of Garang's southern opponents had been incarcerated for up to six years.[58] In 1992, the SPLA continued the random shelling of Juba, killing over 200 southern civilians. Garang's group was also responsible for the murder of three international relief workers and a journalist.[59] The SPLA has also admitted the shooting down of civilian airliners within Sudan, incidents involving considerable loss of life. It is a matter of record that in its 1994 report Civilian Devastation: Abuses by all Parties in the War in Southern Sudan, a 279-page study, Human Rights Watch/Africa devoted 169 pages to "SPLA Violations of the Rules of War": government violations were dealt with over 52 pages. Human Rights Watch/Africa reported that the SPLA was guilty of, amongst other things, indiscriminate attacks on civilians, abducting civilians, mainly women and children, torture, summary executions, the deliberate starvation of civilians, forced recruitment and forced labour, theft of civilian animals, food and grain, and the holding of long-term political prisoners in prolonged arbitrary detention.[60] Garang is also politically at best similar to many former Marxists within central and eastern Europe after the collapse of the Soviet Union, that is to say politically untrustworthy and opportunistic. A clear indication both of Garang's political orientation and his own ethics was the unconditional military, logistical and political support he received, and accepted, from the doctrinaire Marxist government in Ethiopia. The Mengistu regime in Ethiopia, the Dergue, was responsible for the murder of thousands of Ethiopians, the forced relocation of hundreds of thousands of other Ethiopians, a policy which directly resulted in the agricultural failures and famine highlighted by the Western media in the 1980s. For the SPLM/A to accept support and ideological comfort from such a bloodstained regime is a clear indictment on the ethics, judgement and political orientation of John Garang. Given the above facts about John Garang and his organisation it is somewhat jarring to read in Christian Solidarity International's June 1996 report that you recommend support for "the efforts of the SPLM/A...to promote the values and institutions of civil society". You also claim that "the SPLM/A shows a serious commitment to the implementation of principles and policies for the promotion of peace and justice".[61] Baroness Cox, your close association with both John Garang and Sadiq al-Mahdi, when coupled to your obviously sincere concern about slavery and slavery-like practices is confusing given that most, if not all, human rights organisations and commentators date the "slavery" issue to the mid-to-late 1980s, when the government of Sadiq al-Mahdi armed tribal militias against the SPLA. The then government and the SPLA armed long-standing tribal enemies and in effect renewed the culture of hostage taking, ransoming and abduction - which unfortunately continues to this day despite concerted attempts to stop it. The SPLM/A is additionally undeniably guilty of slavery and slavery-like practices through its abduction and use as forced labour of thousands of southern Sudanese men, women and children. What is even more questionable is that you have not only associated with these men and their organisations, but that you have actively argued their case within the United States Congress and at Westminster. It is indeed ironic that both the SPLM/A and Sadiq al- Mahdi's Umma party are partners in the National Democratic Alliance. John Garang's faction of the SPLM/A is now in direct coalition with the Umma party, a party responsible for many of the atrocities of record within the Sudanese civil war. It was not so long ago that Garang was calling Sadiq al-Mahdi an "Islamic extremist" and Sadiq al- Mahdi was referring to Garang as a "terrorist". It is also somewhat surprising that in addition to these two groupings, the National Democratic Alliance, an organisation you clearly support, has another questionable component, the Sudanese Communist Party - a party with as much of a commitment to democracy as the SPLA and Umma party. The close identification of Christian Solidarity International with Sadiq al-Mahdi has led what can only be described as a selective reading of recent events in Sudan. The CSI report on its visit to Sudan from 10-15 June 1996 provides an example of this selectivity. Baroness Cox was accompanied on this trip by Mubarak al-Fadil al- Mahdi, a former senior Umma party minister in his cousin Sadiq al- Mahdi's government and now General Secretary of the NDA, Hammad Salih, the East Africa representative of the Umma party, and Bona Malwal, a Sudanese exile who had been a minister during the Nimeiry dictatorship. The CSI report recorded the speeches made by all three during the visit inside Sudan. Mubarak al-Mahdi warned against any attempts to encourage conflict between the Dinkas and Arabised tribes "because such conflict is wrong, and because Allah will not tolerate wrong-doing: Islam does not allow us to attack innocent people." Bona Malwal, a Dinka, was reported as saying that the present government "has armed our local Arab brothers to fight against us". Haddam Salih stated that "Muslims have been attacking Dinkas, burning houses and killing people; this should not be our way; such behaviour reflects badly on Islam and we must stop doing such things...it is not in your own interests to fight your neighbours". There was not the slightest mention of the Umma party's involvement in years of actively encouraging the very things they were now said to be decrying. This may have been because Mubarak al-Fadil al-Mahdi was the Interior Minister under Sadiq al-Mahdi at the height of the human rights abuses within Sudan, a man described by African Rights as being "seen by many as the architect of the militia policy".62 Bona Malwal is also no stranger to the al-Mahdi militia policy and its related slavery-like practices. As the editor of the Sudan Times, an English-language newspaper published in Khartoum, Malwal had extensively reported on the militia policy, and the abductions and kidnappings associated with it, at the time in 1987. He was denounced by Umma party politicians as an enemy of the Sudan and Sadiq al-Mahdi threatened to close down the Sudan Times.63 Malwal's silence on the very history he so starkly documented in the late 1980s is possibly explained by his current close, and some would say opportunistic, association with the very same Umma party politicians who designed and unleashed the militia policy. It is clear that Sudanese exile politics certainly makes for strange bedfellows. Conclusion It is a matter of record that the present government inherited the Sudanese civil war and inherited the atrocious human rights record of the previous administrations. There is also no doubt that as long as the armed conflict within Sudan continues, there will be human rights abuses by all sides to the conflict, such is the nature of war, and particularly civil war. What can be said is that the present government presents itself as a pragmatic administration. It would appear to have quickly grasped the essence of civil war and the dynamics of guerrilla war. The present government realised very early on that despite a very positive military situation by 1993, it probably would be unable to militarily defeat its armed opposition and that those elements of the SPLA still in the field were very unlikely to topple the Sudanese government. The result was a political stalemate. The government of Sudan then made a number of strategic concessions: Islamic sharia law was limited, a federal system was introduced followed by local and state elections and then parliamentary and presidential elections observed by the Organisation of African Unity. The April 1996 Political Charter guaranteed a political referendum for southerners to determine the political status of the south of Sudan. The nation-wide code of sharia law within Sudan inherited by the present government from the Sadiq al- Mahdi regime has been limited to those parts of Sudan in which there is a Muslim majority population: non-Muslim areas in the south were exempted. Even the United States Department of State was forced to note that sharia exemptions were applied to the south. Given all the strategic concessions made by this government, its attempts to negotiate peace and achieve a political settlement with the leaders and people of southern Sudan, and the delicate balance within Sudanese politics, it is inconceivable that the government would be party to, or in any way condone, slavery or slavery-related practices. The various key human rights organisations have quite simply not produced any credible evidence of state-sanctioned or condoned slavery or slavery-like practices. What these human rights groups have documented contradicts such claims. These human rights groups have shown repeated interventions by government authorities to free people detained by tribal militias. They have also documented that due process of law exists in Sudan, whereby Sudanese courts have repeatedly freed people held illegally. The cases reported by groups such as Human Rights Watch/Africa also show that many of the children freed by Sudanese courts under this government were abducted by militias and forces loyal to Sadiq al-Mahdi before the present government was in power. Baroness Cox, in conclusion, it must be stated that your work on the issue of slavery and slavery-like practices within Sudan is somewhat undermined by your close association with, and support for, Sadiq al- Mahdi and the Umma party and for John Garang and his SPLM/A group, both clearly identified with slavery and related practices according to your own definition. Indeed, your June 1996 trip to south-western Sudan, the scene of so many of the horrific abuses inspired and sanctioned by the Umma party in the late 1980s, including abduction and kidnapping followed by what you term slavery (and documented in some of your own reports) was in the company of very architect of the policy of arming the tribal militias who wreaked such devastation, Mubarak al-Fadil al-Mahdi. For someone as deeply interested in the issue of slavery within the Sudan, your reports show not the slightest interest in the immediate history of slavery and slavery- related practices. Indeed, you openly support those men who are directly responsible for them. Nor do your reports show the slightest interest in the thousands of southern men, women and children abducted and used for forced labour or as "military slaves" by John Garang and the SPLA. Indeed, you visit parts of Sudan in the company, and under the protection, of the very SPLM/A gunmen responsible for such abductions and slavery-related practices. What your reports, and those of others, also do not explain, is that if what you say is true, and that there is widespread slavery of southern Sudanese by northern Sudanese, then why have two million southern Sudanese voluntarily sought refuge in Khartoum, the very heart of the north, rather than fleeing further south? There is a further twist. Is it not somewhat contradictory that Christian Solidarity International clearly seeks to hold the government of Sudan accountable for practices and human rights abuses which are happening in areas of Sudan in which government administration has historically always been weak, and in which there has been a clear break-down in law and order, given that the break- down in law and order has been brought about by the very SPLA gunmen you unreservedly support and openly associate with? Recommendations Given that there already exist many channels through which it is possible to bring pressure to bear on the Government of Sudan, and given that you are so closely identified with John Garang and his faction of the SPLA, those of us who are committed to a peaceful, negotiated settlement of the Sudanese conflict call upon you: 1 To urge the British Government to adopt a balanced and more constructive approach to the Sudanese political situation, particularly with regard to abuses of human rights by all parties to the Sudanese civil war, and to consider increasing developmental assistance to Sudan to alleviate the social conditions in which many of these abuses take place. 2 To consider a more balanced and less partisan personal approach to the Sudanese civil war, particular with regard to reports published and distributed by Christian Solidarity International 3 To bring pressure to bear on John Garang and his faction of the SPLM/A to end the slavery and slavery-like practices with which he has been so closely associated. 4 To particularly pressurise John Garang and his faction of the SPLM/A to return those children his organisation have forcibly removed from southern Sudan for the purpose of developing as a "Red Army" and to co-operate with Sudanese and international humanitarian organisations in reuniting these minors with their families. 5 To pressurise John Garang and his faction of the SPLM/A to end the systematic abuse of human rights with which they have for so long been associated. 6 To call Sadiq al-Mahdi publicly into account for the practices and human rights abuses encouraged by his party and governments during the 1980s. 7 To urge John Garang and his faction of the SPLM/A to follow the lead of so many of his southern colleagues and enter into the ongoing Sudanese peace process, a process which has resulted in the signing of political charters guaranteeing most if not all of the demands of the southern Sudanese political leaders, including a referendum on the status of the southern Sudan. 8 To consider investigating, and producing a report on, the issue of the "warehousing" of children by the SPLA for subsequent use as child soldiers. 9 To reconsider your continuing support for the National Democratic Alliance and particularly the Garang faction of the SPLA, given the commitment of those organisations to a violent resolution of Sudan's political problems, especially given that there are clear moves towards a peaceful negotiated settlement from within Sudan itself. David Hoile is a public affairs consultant. He has written and edited several books on African affairs. He has visited the Sudan on several occasions, and observed the 1996 parliamentary and presidential elections. http://msanews.mynet.net/~msanews/MSANEWS/199703/19970325.2.html http://msanews.mynet.net/~msanews/MSANEWS/199703/19970325.3.html MAD MAC Saturday, September 16, 2000 - 12:30 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ooohh Sahib good question. Who falls lower on the anthropological ladder, Sudanese culture or Balkan culture. This is a tough one. I have to admit I'm biased because I visited Balkan culture first hand. Overall I'd have to say the Sudanese win this one because at least in the Balkans people know how to have fun when they're not acting like Barbarians. As for the POW thing, you're really reaching here. Most of the work that POWs were forced to do in WW II (the last time we held POWs in the States) was farming - the POWs were growing their own food. I still think it's a reach to compare a POWs status to that of a slave. A POW has to be held until the conflict is over - there's nothing else you can do with him. Slavery on the other hand, is wrought solely for the personal gain of an individual or group of individuals. I can't believe you are now trying to justify slavery. Clearly you are playing the devils advocate here. I'm sure that any modern interpretations of the Qur'an forbid slavery because if it didn't slavery would definately be legal in Saudi Arabia today. asad Sunday, September 17, 2000 - 11:56 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Ooohh Sahib good question. Who falls lower on the anthropological ladder, Sudanese culture or Balkan culture." mad mac, the question was which one can you characterize as more barbarian than the other-- against one group to another in this centruy--which culture is more brutal and committed the most atrocious crimes against it's people of different faith? "Overall I'd have to say the Sudanese win this one because at least in the Balkans people know how to have fun when they're not acting like Barbarians." how is a fun-------the brutal crimes and atrocious acts against the muslims in bosnia and kosovo by the Balkan christians? "I'm sure that any modern interpretations of the Qur'an forbid slavery because if it didn't slavery would definately be legal in Saudi Arabia today." if the law of saudis says that slavery is illegal, that does not mean it is an islamic law. driving a car by women in saudi arabia is illegal, but that does not mean it is an islamic law. the Qura'n does not forbid slavery as the bible and torah didn't. . prisoners of war could be made to be slaves, in bandage, for work and for exachange in other prisoners of war. as to the rest of the world, human bondage is still legal, believe it or not, in the united states of america, what is outlawed is PRIVATE OWNERSHIP of bonded individuals, the state still can and does own bonded humans in both regular prisons and prisoners of war where they are made to work free. the western prison system is not only obscenely expensive but it is an inhumane abomination, far more cruel than chopping off hands or being a house slave. walk amongst prisoners in america------trust me the system is thoroughly evil. this is the accepted way of things and no one questions it, however strictly speaking this is bondage, slavery is private or state bondage. in the west, illegal sexual slavery is a multi billion dollar industry, especially in Israel, Thailand, Russia, and many parts of Eastern Europe. In many places it brings in so much cash that authorities wink upon it. slavery is a global phenomena, it has not changed excepting in the FORM and in some cases the specific legalities of it, but it exists, has always existed, and indeed in spite of 2 centuries of so called progressive social change still exists. slavery come in different forms. prisoners of wars can and are made to be slaves, but some other slavery is illegal. the kind of slavery the religion forbids is the one the prophet of islam has forbidden due to the industrialization of Britain and the Northern united States, and the politics associated with these phenomena. it is only 3 or so generations since slavery was legally stamped out by britannia and the united states. islam recognizes slavery as a constant in human society. slavery is a constant, it is ugly, like poverty, and sometimes a cause of misery, like poverty, but often slavery fulfills a valuable social function. the entire, or at least most, of the Ottoman government, and military ELITE were slaves during many periods of Ottoman history after they became muslims from many different faiths and cultures. MAD MAC Monday, September 18, 2000 - 03:59 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Asad 1. Dude, Israel, Thailand, Russian and Eastern Europe are not generally considered "the west". 2. By far most prisoners in the US penal system do not do any siginificant labor. You hit it on the head the first time when you said it is "obscenely expensive." It is not a profit making industry - the Chinese are doing better in that area than we are. Again, prisoners of war and convicts are a special case, their loss of freedom caused by the exigencies of war or their own hand. Incidentally, they had prisons in Somalia and have them today in EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. They are not a US phenomenon or invention. Although there is clearly a problem in the US penal system with the disparity of blacks incarcerated this is due to social factors that have caused so many blacks to resort to crime. In your book of accountability, they get what they deserve. In my book it's just a serious social problem we have yet to effectively tackle. 3. Slavery was made illegal in 1864 in the US - earlier in Britain though I don't recall the date. At the end of the day slavery (Private ownership of Bonded individuals) is wrong - you know it and I know it. You and I also know that on many of the plantations in Somalia today slavery is happening. People are being forced to work for no compensation for fear of death. I'm not pointing the finger at Somalia or Somalis. This is the actions of a few criminals, but arguments such as yours that Islam says it's OK don't do anything to weaken their moral position. Not that that means much in Somalia today. As Mao said "all power comes from the barrel of a gun." That's certainly true in Somalia right now. If it were sister and father who were in the hands of these animals you'd be asking me to help you free them, regardless of what Islam says - at least I hope you would. asad Monday, September 18, 2000 - 03:10 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- mad mac, there is nothing wrong slaving people who try to kill me for religious reasons. there is nothing wrong if my enemy is being put into bondage. for me, if a gaal like you wants me die in his religious war against muslims or he forces me to worship any other god other than Allah, i'll make him suffer. i'll humiliate him too before i kill him. the prisoners of religious wars (the captives) against muslims must pay the crimes they committed against muslims. they must be made useful for the society. it is foolish and immoral to let your enemy go free (and then only to come back and try to kill more muslims in wars). its is not good idea also to let them be in jail forever and throw the keys away. if he repents and becomes a muslim, i'll let him go free. if my brother is held captive by the enemy, i'll exchange with the one in my hand. asad Monday, September 18, 2000 - 03:13 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I am not trying to brain-wash anybody." in your arguments, i don't think you can brain-wash anybody. "And Asad's arguments will ensure that anyone who starts this conversation a Muslim will remain one" i have no control of who stays muslim or he becomes a muslim. MAD MAC Tuesday, September 19, 2000 - 04:55 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Asad My arguments are sound enough, but your mind was made up before the discussion started. It doesn't matter much. I'm comfortable with my logic train just as you are comfortable with yours. The only thing I find troubling is that as the information superhighways get ever larger some Islamic countries are going to look for more and more ways to limit what comes over that highway and this could easily lead to friction and even violence. Esspecially among extremists. Tell me, why don't you live in a country that is more Islamic in orientation like, say, Oman or UAE or Yemen? Why did you choose a secular society? asad Tuesday, September 19, 2000 - 10:38 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "My arguments are sound enough, but your mind was made up before the discussion started. It doesn't matter much. I'm comfortable with my logic train just as you are comfortable with yours." you are right that your logic train and arguments are what you are comfortable with as i'm with mine. your argument is that if you kill a person, it is not your fault, but it is Allah's fault and i'm saying to you that it is your fault; it is not Allah's fault. "The only thing I find troubling is that as the information superhighways get ever larger some Islamic countries are going to look for more and more ways to limit what comes over that highway and this could easily lead to friction and even violence." the internet is every where these days. even in america, there are censorship laws. "Esspecially among extremists" there are extremists in america that blow up buildings and others who learn how to make bombs through surfing the internet. "Tell me, why don't you live in a country that is more Islamic in orientation like, say, Oman or UAE or Yemen? Why did you choose a secular society?" Oman and UAE are secular states too. it does not make a difference to me (as far as my islamic is concern) if i live in UAE or Yemen and if i live in america. i would always practice islam and be a muslim. MAD MAC Tuesday, September 19, 2000 - 02:51 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Asad The argument, that if I kill someone it's Allahs fault, is yours. You claimed that Allah made us the way we are, that he made the world the way it is, that he is all knowing and all powerful. I simply extended that to its natural conclusion. I personally don't believe any of that. Yes, in America there are censorship laws, but they're weak and getting weaker. The real issue at stake, I think, among Islamic societies will be exposure to non-Islamic thought and non-Islamic images. These images are all pervasive on the internet. You can see how, in a society like Afghanistan, some guy who is an internet provider can suddenly find himself being executed. Then his subscribers might be upset. Or maybe the providers place will be blown up, because the provider wasn't executed. You can see how the whole internet thing creates a problem for people who believe words and ideas are illegal - I mean the service is about words and ideas. As for American extremist - yep, we've got 'em. No doubt about it. Don't think too many want to blow up internet providers, though. they want to blow up the FBI and Black People and stuff. Not sure what they have to do with Islam. I did say "Islamic orientation". Meaning most of the people there are Muslims. The countries laws are designed to accomodate Muslim beliefs - you don't need to watch women in mini-skirts, etc.I'm just curious, why wouldn't you want to live somewhere like that as oppossed to someplace you obviously have a rub with? asad Tuesday, September 19, 2000 - 10:31 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The argument, that if I kill someone it's Allahs fault, is yours" no, it is not. it is yours. i told you to be responsible for your deeds (actions) and you want to blame on Allah. "You claimed that Allah made us the way we are, that he made the world the way it is, that he is all knowing and all powerful." no, i told you that Allah made you, but he didn't make you a thief if you steal; He didn't make you to deny His justice of hell and heaven; you decided. "I simply extended that to its natural conclusion." the conclusion that there is no hell or heaven; that a man should not be blamed if he steals something because Allah created him to be a thief. "Yes, in America there are censorship laws, but they're weak and getting weaker." they are not getting weaker. every politician or presedent that runs in the united states wants to be elected because he promises to protect people from what the people are tired of listening and seeing on movies, online and radio. "You can see how the whole internet thing creates a problem for people who believe words and ideas are illegal - I mean the service is about words and ideas." yes, words and ideas are service, but most people are tired of these services. they do not want their families to see and hear them. "As for American extremist - yep, we've got 'em. No doubt about it. Don't think too many want to blow up internet providers, though. they want to blow up the FBI and Black People and stuff." which one is worst---blowing up internet providers and blowing up black people? "The countries laws are designed to accomodate Muslim beliefs - you don't need to watch women in mini-skirts, etc. I'm just curious, why wouldn't you want to live somewhere like that as oppossed to someplace you obviously have a rub with?" i told you that i can practice islam and be a muslim in any country, but did you say that you want to be in somalia and may be live there? why would you want to live somewhere that obviously has muslims not needing to watch women in mini-skirts? asad Wednesday, September 20, 2000 - 10:10 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "To sum up my position on Judgement, I contend that I do not know (and did not say I don't believe in anything about the afterlife, that's extrapolation) if there's a heaven or a hell. I do not know if there's a day of judgement." you say that if you steal something, it is not your fault; it is Allah's fault. you say that a man like hilter may not be punished for his deeds. "I do not know if there's a day of judgement." then, you are kufar. you believe that a man like hitler would not have to face judgement for the crime he committed against his victims. "However, I do not believe we are here as some sort of test to see where we go." so what you are saying is that a man like here was here to kill and didn't have to worry about the consequence for his actions? "I just don't believe we know the answers, that's all. And I don't think we ever will. I don't think we're suppose to." speak for yourself. "Sensorship laws are definately getting weaker. Don't talk about presidential races, please. In terms of law making they mean nothing. That's all hype." but people who are tired of what they are given are buying the hype the presidential candidates are selling-----censorship. "Lastly. Which is worse, blowing up internet providers or blowing up black people? Depends on the provider, depends on the people." maybe it is not the fault the american extremists who want to blow up people (whoever they maybe); it is not the TV; it is not the providers of the bomb ingredients online-----instead what you are saying is the fault of Allah, right? ;-) http://somalinet.com/forums_archives/4669/8058.html
|
| | Sunday, October 01, 2000 - 07:14 pm Damn....Now this what a call Freak On A real Corruption Stage. . . Or Yar Mind At Work And Yar Hands On a Shaky Situation.
|
| | Sunday, October 01, 2000 - 07:16 pm Or maybe a Republican Sympathizer.... IDUNNO!
|