Some questions on the possible intervention in Sudan.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Tripledoc:

1.) Those were the nations CAUSING PROBLEMS. While I don't agree with many (or most) cases of going to war, at least there was probable cause.

2.) Powerful nations aren't causing problems. Since WWII, only Russia and China have been powerful enough to match the US. We fought Russia for 50 years...if we had actually had a hot war, hundreds of millions would have died in the probable nuclear attacks, which is precisely why it never came to a hot war. Same with China, though they were backing the Koreans during that conflict, and we DID fight them.

While I agree with you in spirit, you are making ludicrous comments.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Sikander


What do the Christian militias in the South have to do with the government sponsored and abetted genocide of the black non-arab muslims in the west, ie Darfur?

These airstrikes weren't against military positions, they were simple area attacks against villages to instill terror in support of the much more dangerous attacks of the Janjaweed. This is ethnic cleansing with an eye toward genocide. The idea is to instill enough terror in the populace that they will abandon their crops, their land and all of their property and flee headlong into the desert where they will either die, live in a squalid refugee camp where they can be easily monitored or leave the country.

Yea, and I'm sure the U.S. is scared to death of the advanced Sudanese jets. If airpower alone could do something here, I'd be all for getting involved.

Well, as you know, a Civil War is often fought with dirty means. I am sure the Christian Militias are also guilty of atrocities. I remember there was a thread about it here by some finnish person, whose name I can't recall now.
During the American civil war, general Sherman burnt down many Confederate cities. When Israel was created many Palestinan towns were destroyed. In Vietnam villages were detroyed to save them. Where is your moral authority to demand more slaughter?

What really surprises me is how the american public is willing to gobble up all manner of propaganda without questioning it. You should really study the history of the CIA, then you will see what I mean.

This is the reason that I question Western motives against Sudan. I do not believe this will be to save lives. It will mean the destruction of even more lives. If the west intervenes it will not be out of good intentions.

Now let us say that the West does actually intervene in Sudan, and we see how the situation has developed in Iraq and Afghanistan, do you believe that the people there will be better off? I would say that there is sufficient evidence to the contrary.

Now what I sense is that the modern anglo-saxon/jewish version of history is not a means of understanding the past, but is rather weaponized argumentation used to justify immediate policies. As such it is un-scientific, and it is false. If you base your decisions on false assumptions it will ultimately lead to failure, because most people know when they are being lied to. Most people know that the Iraq war was based on a lie, so was Vietnam, and Nicaragua. the problem is that when you lie finally people won't believe it anymore. Even if it is true.

[Kuciwalker]

No US government, Christian or UN links please, as we all know that is pure propaganda.

As opposed to Al Jazeera and/or tapes released by AQ and OBL, which seem to be the only source you can possibly be getting your news from...

[Bosh]

If the Christian militias, who themselves have committed numerous atrocities, in the South had air support they would probably use it too. Why is it a problem for you that Sudan uses the same machinery of death as the US and other advanced nations? Sounds a bit cowardly to me.

First you were saying that the Sudanese government has had nothing with the attacks in the West, then you say that it was correct to use airplanes in its attacks in the west. God, at least keep your BS consistent.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Tripledoc

Now what I sense is that the modern anglo-saxon/jewish version of history is not a means of understanding the past, but is rather weaponized argumentation used to justify immediate policies

'false assumptions'

Of course, I forget, one cannot rely on people such as Simon Schama and Martin Gilbert to be truthful or objective- they're Jews.

Hmm, something smells a bit off about that 'Jewish version of history' statement.


However, happy am I that my reading is not restricted to the secret agents for the Elders of Zion, but also extends to Muslims such as Mohammed Heikal (the Road to Ramadan, a fascinating look at Middle East conflicts from the point of view of an Egyptian government insider) and also to Edward Said (Orientalism) and Turkish historians of the Ottoman Empire.


Yet another remarkable false assumption for someone whose posts are replete with unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.

I mean really, Amnesty International, the well known international backers of the Anglo-Saxon/Jewish Hegemony.


Tell me, with regard to the Ludendorff Offensive, if it was simply thought to be a waste of time or silly at its inception, why did they carry on?

Why did they nearly force the Allies into the sea, why spend FIVE MONTHS and endure 800 000 German casualties, for something believed to be ineffective?

Because of course, you're viewing it through the distorted spyglass of hindsight yet again.


Instead of questioning Western motives against Sudan, why not question the motives of a Sudanese government which caved into Islamic extremist pressure
decades ago and uses sharia law as a means of punishment for Christians and animist Africans living in the north?

And which turns a blind eye to modern day slavery?

http://allafrica.com/stories/200407230001.html

Too inconvenient to think of that in the light of your Western conspiracy theories?

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Of course, I forget, one cannot rely on people such as Simon Schama and Martin Gilbert to be truthful or objective- they're Jews.

Hmm, something smells a bit off about that 'Jewish version of history' statement.

However, happy am I that my reading is not restricted to the secret agents for the Elders of Zion, but also extends to Muslims such as Mohammed Heikal (the Road to Ramadan, a fascinating look at Middle East conflicts from the point of view of an Egyptian government insider) and also to Edward Said (Orientalism) and Turkish historians of the Ottoman Empire.

Just to give you an idea what I am talking about please read this synopsis from Arthur Koestlers book the Thirteenth Tribe, in which it is described how the Jews of Europe mostly originated from the Khazar Empire located in the Caucasus, and not from the Middle east. The question is that if the eastern Jews after the Holocaust where to have a homeland, why was it created in Palestine then?

The whole book is made available for reading online there too.

[Bosh]

Just to give you an idea what I am talking about please read this synopsis from Arthur Koestlers book the Thirteenth Tribe, in which it is described how the Jews of Europe mostly originated from the Khazar Empire located in the Caucasus, and not from the Middle east.

Aaaaah, all the hard-right fascists on Newsmax loved that book. The basic premise is a pile of ****, only a small segment of the population the Khazars ruled ever converted to Judaism.

[Spiffor]

In what way will it help to inject western troops into the area? Recent experiences of British and US interventions in Africa have shown that this has only escalated the violence. Most notably in Angola.

I don't know for you, but to me, the most recent western interventions in Africa, at least those that made a difference, were Sierra Leone and Ivory Coast.

These two interventions were considerably influenced by the lessons learned from the mistakes of the past, and by the fact there is no cold war anymore.
1. The aim of the intervention was stability, instead of supporting the victory of one side or another.
2. The interventions involved local politicians, and soldiers of neighbouring countries.

Had France not intervened in Ivory Coast, we could well be witnessing a Rwanda-style genocide, or a Liberia-style civil war. I would imagine a similar scenario in Sierra Leone.

Yes, a western intervention can make a difference, as it can force different parties to compromise, and to reach a stability they don't want. Sure, we bar them from doing what they want to (happily genociding each other), and many locals will oppose us for that, but you bet the losing side (the blacks) will really appreciate the help... that is, until they feel they can beat the crap out of the Arabs, and are frustrated by our forced peace.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Boshko
The basic premise is a pile of ****, only a small segment of the population the Khazars ruled ever converted to Judaism.

Actually Koestler describes of the Kings of the Khazar empire converted for political reasons, in the same manner as many Scandinavian kings converted to christianity I might add. In addition to that there were were a heavy influx of Jews from Byzantium who fled forced babtization. If they did not convert they would be squeezed to death in the olive presses. They came from a superior culture, and thus heavily influenced khazar public and religious life. The Hebrew alphabet was adopted. Coins from the period bearing Hewbrew inscriptions have been found Theoretically the state and the kings, the priestly class and the officials could have been Jews, while the common folk held on to their primitive beliefs. But is that likely when compared to the social history of the spread of Christianity and Islam?


On the Conversion of the khazar people to Judaism Kostler writes that it was a gradual process.

"It seems indeed that the judaization of the khazars proceeded in several steps. We remember that king Bulan drove out 'the sorcerers and idolaters before the angel appeared to him; and that he made his Covenant with the 'true God' before deciding whether he was Jewish, Christian or Muslim God. It seems higly probable that the conversion of King Bulan and his followeres was another intermediary step, that they embrazed a primitive or rudimentary form of Judaism, based on the bible alone, excluding the Talmud, all rabbinical literature, and the observances derived from it. In this respect they resembled the Karaites, a fundamentalist sect which originated in the eighth century in persia and spread among Jews all over the world - particularily in 'little khazaria', i.e., the Crimia- Dunlop and some other authorities surmised that between Bulan and Obadaiah (i.e., roughly between 740 and 800) some form of karaism prevailed in the country, and that orthodox 'rabbinic' Judaism was only introduced in the course of Obadiah's religious reform...

Thus the judaization of the khazars was a gradual process which, triggered off by politcal expediency, slowly penetrated onto the deeper strata of theri minds and eventually produced the messianism of their period of decline. their religious commitment survived the collapse of the state, and persisted as we shall see, in the khazar-jewish settlements of Russia and Poland." Page 73-74.

Several Hebrews from around the know world came to khazaria to observe and were displeased that they had not adopted all aspects of the Jewish faith, for instance Talmud readings, and their Sabbath was spent in the dark. Some also had misgivings based on racial grounds. Khazars who became jews without belonging to 'the Race', were named 'mamzer', meaning 'barstard'.

Others had more positive things to say about the Khazar Jews. Jacob ben-Reuben describes them as, "a single nation who do not bear the yoke of exile, but are great warriors paing no tribute to gentiles."

Around 860 AD The Byzantines therefore sent their most famed missionary St. Cyril (from where the term Cyrillic, i.e. Russian alphabet derives) to convert the khazars to christianity. But he had no luck. And in fact Cyril was succesful in all of Eastern Europe, but not in Khazaria.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Spiffor
[q]
Sure, we bar them from doing what they want to (happily genociding each other), and many locals will oppose us for that, but you bet the losing side (the blacks) will really appreciate the help... that is, until they feel they can beat the crap out of the Arabs, and are frustrated by our forced peace.

Exactly. Who in west gives anything about how the Albanians are treating the Serbs, now when they have the upper hand? The UN does nothing. Why? Because it is not in the strategic interest of the West to do so.

[Arrian]

Tin. Foil. Hat.

It's pretty extraordinary to see Molly Bloom forced into the position of defending the United States government (though not the current one, really).

-Arrian

[Bosh]

Actually Koestler describes of the Kings of the Khazar empire converted for political reasons, in the same manner as many Scandinavian kings converted to christianity I might add.

So? The Khazar Empire for squished nastily before the conversion went beyond the elite?

In addition to that there were were a heavy influx of Jews from Byzantium who fled forced babtization.

Doesn't that go against the whole basic premise?

But is that likely when compared to the social history of the spread of Christianity and Islam?

No.
1. The Khazar Empire wasn't around that long.
2. Do you have any idea how long it took for even Islam to convert most of the population of even places like Egypt?
3. Bunches of the population of the Khazars were Christian and Muslim.
4. Circumcism hurts, most people tend to avoid doing it when possible.

And is there any evidence whatsoever of large populations of Jews in Russia until relatively recently. The whole premise is absurd, since Khazaria is east of the Pale of Settlement.

[Tripledoc]

Peacekeepers 'stood by as Kosovo mob burnt homes'
By Kim Sengupta
27 July 2004


Nato forces and United Nations police in Kosovo were responsible for a "catastrophic" failure to protect minority communities during the upsurge of violence earlier this year, a report claimed yesterday.

Human Rights Watch said there was a "near complete collapse" of security, allowing gangs of Albanians to drive Serbs, Roma and Ashkali (Albanian-speaking Roma) from their homes in the Yugoslav province.

The report, based on interviews with officials and victims, describes how, time after time, heavily armed soldiers of the Nato-led K-For stayed in their barracks as Serb homes were burnt and looted. Relief, when it did arrive, was often too little, too late, leading to a new status quo in which displaced communities found it impossible to return home.

In the village of Svinjare, a mob of armed Albanians marched past the main French K-For base before burning all of the 137 Serbian homes. The Nato troops stayed in their barracks watching buildings just a few hundred metres from their base go up in flames.

In nearby Vucitrn, French K-For soldiers failed to intervene while Albanian gangs set fire to 69 Ashkali homes, just 10 minutes' drive from the military base.

At Prizren, in the south-east, German K-For troops failed to protect the Serb population and the historic Orthodox churches and monasteries despite repeated and frantic calls for assistance from German UN police in the town.

The entire village of Belo Polje was burnt to the ground by the mob. This time it was Italian K-For troops who locked the gates of an adjacent base.

Even in the capital, Pristina, Serbian civilians had to barricade themselves into the upper floor of an apartment block, while Albanian gunmen shot out the windows from the streets and looted the flats below. It took K-For and the UN police more than six hours to come to their aid.

On 17 March, the report said, 33 separate riots broke out over a period of 48 hours involving more than 50,000 Albanians. Nineteen people were killed, 4,100 people were displaced from their homes, and at least 550 homes and 27 Orthodox churches were destroyed.

Among the catalysts for the violence were reports that a group of Serbs with dogs had driven three Albanian boys to their deaths in a river; the blocking of the main road from Pristina to Skopje by Serbs after the shooting of a Serb teenager; and a march by veterans of the disbanded Kosovo Liberation Army protesting at the arrest of former KLA leaders on war crimes charges.

Human Rights Watch concluded: "This was the biggest test for Nato and the United Nations in Kosovo since 1999, when minorities were forced from their homes as the international community looked on.

"They failed the test. In too many cases, Nato peacekeepers locked the gates to their bases and watched as Serb homes burnt."

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=545060

[Arrian]

That's a Western source, and is therefore clearly without value! It's propoganda! Designed to, um, um, make the Serbs look good, or something! Yeah!

-Arrian

p.s. Personally, I feel our intervention in Kosovo was a mistake, or at the very least botched in that we picked sides without understanding the conflict - we found out later that the Kosovars were a bunch of *******s too.

However, how exactly does helping a bunch of Muslim seperatists against the Christian Serbs "serve Western interests?" IT DOESN'T! It was a misguided attempt to help the situation, not to serve our interests. I opposed it because I didn't think it would help. At this point, I'm not sure whether it did or not... mixed bag.

[Tripledoc]

The serbs are ortodox and feel themselves ethnically related to the Russians, the pan-slavic ideology is strong there. Having a strong Russian Fortress in the middle of the Balkans is against the interests of the West.