Sudanese People

[gerralife]

[quote="*Arabman"][arabman what was the point of this thread? are u dealing with a sudani or are u sudani?!]

The point is simple; our Sudanese brothers and sisters have been vilified and demonized by non-Muslims, and I wanted to know what our impression of them is.[/quote]


Arabman,when you state 'villified and demonized by non-muslims',do you refer to goyim or Jews?Your post has political undertones of a theological nature.

[musika man]

^^^^

arabman sudani means black and is a war between their color of skin. all muslims. who do you support? janjaweeds. sounds like dope.

[FAH1223]

[quote="musika man"]^^^^

arabman sudani means black and is a war between their color of skin. all muslims. who do you support? janjaweeds. sounds like dope.[/quote]

they are all dark skinned though..................

[e!]

[quote="FAH1223"][quote="musika man"]^^^^

arabman sudani means black and is a war between their color of skin. all muslims. who do you support? janjaweeds. sounds like dope.[/quote]

they are all dark skinned though..................[/quote]

well...the ppl in the north are lighter than the blue blacks in the south

[FAH1223]

[quote="e!"][quote="FAH1223"][quote="musika man"]^^^^

arabman sudani means black and is a war between their color of skin. all muslims. who do you support? janjaweeds. sounds like dope.[/quote]

they are all dark skinned though..................[/quote]

well...the ppl in the north are lighter than the blue blacks in the south[/quote]

janjaweed are some dark muhfukkaz tho

[*Arabman]

[who do you support? janjaweeds.]

Are they salafi, wahhabi, takfiri or qutbist?

[e!]

[quote="*Arabman"][who do you support? janjaweeds.]

Are they salafi, wahhabi, takfiri or qutbist?[/quote]

they are genocidalist

[*Arabman]

[they are genocidalist]

Based on what?

[paidmonk]

I agree with most people.

The South Sudanese are great people, never met a bad one, never. Generally very socially acceptable and extremely modest.

The North Sudanese are generally arrogant assholes, only met a few in Duugsi way back. These guys looked mixed between Afro-American and White, I thought they were African American all along until I started talking to them. It took me 6 months to explain to them they were Black, but they never got the memo. Their dad got mad at me for putting 'lies into their ears.'

True story.

[*Arabman]

[I agree with most people.]

Good for you. Most (91%) have a positive impression of the Sudanese people.

[paidmonk]

^ are we talking about the delusional janjaweed types or the southerners?

[*Arabman]

[are we talking about the delusional janjaweed types or the southerners? ]

We are talking about you agreeing with 91% of those polled.

[paidmonk]

...I guess in that manner, yes.

[Ceelgabo]

Questions about


If alleged genocide has been happening in Darfur since 2003 would there be anyone left in Darfur today?

why are Christian rights and Zoinist Jews shedding crocodile tears for muslims in Darfur at same time advocating their government to Nuke every muslims country?

Finally how come no western media has ever talked about were the Rebels get their weapons or massacres the Rebels have also committed? We all know who supports the Janjaweed and their crimes, but we know nothing about the other sides guilt. What happened to journalist never taking aside in story.

[Grant]

I suspect the dialog is about to be ratcheted up. There seems to be general agreement that the problem is with the Arabized government and it's support, located almost entirely in the north:

"Khartoum deserves no respect
Joel Brinkley

Sunday, June 3, 2007

As the carnage in the Darfur region of Sudan grinds on for a fifth year, President Bush is imposing new diplomatic penalties on the government in Khartoum on top of similar, ineffective sanctions that have been in place for 10 years. Normally, from this president, diplomatic restraint would be welcome -- but not this time.

Since early 2003, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, the Sudanese president, has played Western leaders for fools. He has worked this into a high art. When, now and then, the international pressure builds to a critical point, Bashir throws out a bone. That's what happened when Ban Ki-Moon, the new U.N. secretary-general, came to Khartoum in April.

Bashir told Ban that he would permit the United Nations to dispatch 3,000 U.N. peacekeeping troops to Darfur -- a fraction of the number the United Nations had demanded. Immediately Ban put out a press release touting his triumph. But then, the next day, a U.N. diplomat leaked a report that said the Sudanese government was continuing to arm the militias in Darfur that are responsible for the slaughter. And so it has gone since the Darfur conflict began. In February 2003, Darfur rebels attacked government facilities, accusing the leaders in Khartoum of ignoring their region. The government struck back with a fury, enlisting local militias to massacre civilians and destroy entire villages. Since then, more than 200,000 people have died, and another 2.5 million have been driven from their homes.

Starting in 2004, a succession of world leaders began trooping to Khartoum, among them Tony Blair, the British prime minister; former Secretary of State Colin Powell followed by now-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; Kofi Annan, the former U.N. secretary-general; and now Ban, his successor. For each of these visitors Bashir, smiling a Cheshire-cat grin, has promised to end the carnage. In Darfur, meanwhile, the only change has been a continuing deterioration. Last year, many international aid agencies were forced to flee.

In 2005, Bashir showed his true face. Secretary Rice was visiting. She, like all who had preceded her, intended to ask Bashir to call off the militias, known as the "janjaweed." But before she had a chance, Bashir's guards roughed up members of her staff, and the morning turned ugly. I was there. I saw Bashir lean back in his chair, watching with a sly grin, as two of his guards dragged an American TV reporter, kicking and screaming, out of the chamber.

That day, for the first time, he displayed his true nature. Bashir is a thug. So, I wonder, why does the West still accord this man -- a man responsible for more than 200,000 deaths -- all of the diplomatic courtesies due respectable world leaders? In April, John Negroponte, the new deputy secretary of state, paid his own visit to Khartoum, along with Jendayi Frazer, an assistant secretary of state. After the meeting, Frazer said the two had, once again, asked Bashir, to "end the crisis and the war in Darfur." Bashir, once again, said he would do what he could but added, as he always does, that he could not control the militias. Frazier expressed due skepticism. But at this point, I have to ask: Why do foreign diplomats still walk politely up the steps to the president's lair -- the same steps on which Mr. Bashir's political forebears beheaded Charles Gordon, the last British governor of Sudan, in 1883 -- settle into one of his magniloquent settees and expect to hear anything but double talk and lies?

"Khartoum's word means nothing," Susan Rice, who was an assistant secretary of state in the Clinton administration, told the U.S. Senate last month.

Washington is now aflutter with expressions of exasperation -- mostly from politicians running for office. Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., who is running for president, favors sending American troops to Sudan. "We could take out the janjaweed overnight," he boasted last month.

But I agree with Robert Zoellick who, when he was deputy secretary of state, said, "the last thing we want to do is send American troops into the middle of an African civil war."

Think Somalia. Think "Black Hawk Down." On Tuesday Bush ordered new sanctions against about three dozen additional individuals and companies in Sudan. But he left it up to the United Nations to impose robust and potentially effective measures: a worldwide arms embargo and a no-flight zone over Darfur.

But Ban is still pushing diplomacy. Last week, he sent Bashir a letter. He is planning another trip to Khartoum -- up those steps to Bashir's office.

In mid-May, the United Nations issued a routine Darfur update that said, "the school in the village of Um Rai was struck by rockets fired from a government helicopter. Some of the 170 pupils were injured" and "two civilians were killed."

That was just one day in year five. Hasn't the time for well-mannered diplomacy passed?

Joel Brinkley is the Lorey I. Lokey professor of journalism at Stanford University, a position he assumed in the fall of 2006 after a 23-year career with the New York Times, where he served as a reporter, editor and Pulitzer-Prize winning foreign correspondent. "

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... P1J6O1.DTL

This article appeared on page E - 5 of the San Francisco Chronicle

San Francisco Chronicle Sections MagazineCarsStyleSportsBay AreaTravelInsightBusinessReal EstateBook ReviewsCommentarySunday DatebookNews
© 2007 Hearst Communications Inc. | Privacy Policy | Feedback | RSS Feeds | FAQ | Site Index | Contact