# Q&A: Sudan's Darfur conflict



## Gunny

> The United Nations Security Council has approved a 26,000-strong peacekeeping force to replace the 7,000 African Union (AU) observer mission struggling to protect civilians in Sudan's western province of Darfur.
> But the exact make-up and deployment date for this beefed up force is still to be determined.
> 
> In the meantime, more than 2m people are living in camps after fleeing more than four years of fighting in the region and they are vulnerable without peacekeepers.
> 
> Sudan's government and the pro-government Arab militias are accused of war crimes against the region's black African population, although the UN has stopped short of calling it genocide.
> 
> Peace talks involving the government and most of the myriad rebel groups have recently resumed, but until the new UN-AU force deploys in Darfur the prospects for an end to violence look remote.
> 
> How did the conflict start?
> 
> The conflict began in the arid and impoverished region early in 2003 after a rebel group began attacking government targets, saying the region was being neglected by Khartoum.
> 
> The rebels say the government is oppressing black Africans in favour of Arabs.
> 
> Darfur, which means land of the Fur, has faced many years of tension over land and grazing rights between the mostly nomadic Arabs, and farmers from the Fur, Massaleet and Zagawa communities.
> 
> There are two main rebel groups, the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement (Jem), although both groups have split, some along ethnic lines.
> 
> More than a dozen rebel groups are now believed to exist. Most will attend the talks in Libya, but one key leader, Abdul Wahid el-Nur, is boycotting the talks until the conflict ends.
> 
> more ... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3496731.stm



A quick refresher course on the history of current events in Sudan's Darfur region.


----------



## Gunny

Hell, I finally found an issue I agree with Obama on.  Will wonders never cease?


----------



## akiboy

And we have countries like China backing the Sudanese "regime" for their own bullshit agenda. Yeah , China does have a history of backing sore losers(read N.K , Pakistan , Iran and a group of anti-US third world countries.)


----------



## Gunny

akiboy said:


> And we have countries like China backing the Sudanese "regime" for their own bullshit agenda. Yeah , China does have a history of backing sore losers(read N.K , Pakistan , Iran and a group of anti-US third world countries.)



Looks like they picked a sure bet this time.  A government with a modernized military slaughtering what villagers who live in huts and shacks.


----------



## Gurdari

akiboy said:


> And we have countries like China backing the Sudanese "regime" for their own bullshit agenda. Yeah , China does have a history of backing sore losers(read N.K , Pakistan , Iran and a group of anti-US third world countries.)



You sound like you would be bothered by the US backing of other groups?
Why do you think there are 'anti-US' nations in the third world? Do they hate freedom?


----------



## onedomino

Gurdari said:


> You sound like you would be bothered by the US backing of other groups?
> Why do you think there are 'anti-US' nations in the third world? Do they hate freedom?


What are you talking about? Akiboy is an Indian living in Dubai and he is referring to China backing anti US regimes. And yes, the regimes in NK and Iran "hate freedom." If there was freedom in NK and Iran, where do you suppose Dear Leader and the Mullahs would be?


----------



## iegeee

To be honest, I dont think a diplomatic solution will solve anything in Sudan. The Sudanese President and his followers share a passion to achieve their goal. They only want to preserve and prosper Arab people only. I think an actual military solution taking over the leadership is what is needed. I know that US and UN are already in other war fronts but that doesn't change the solution of the problem. I think more horrors are happening in Africa than in Afghanistan or Iraq. According to the leadership in those countries, they just want westerners out of their land. They are actually fighting against us as Americans and not us as defenders of the Iraqi people. 
In Africa, they want to remove the black African people of Sudan. They literally want to annihilate all. It not like people can change their mind. Sudanese leadership have a common goal and will not stop unless stopped. I think this is one of the few occasions in world history that a military force needs to be activated to stop what is going on. There is no other option but war. These people are murderers and have no sympathy for the families they are breaking and the lives they are ruining. 
I know Bush has tried to handle it but hes trying to avoid primary AMERICAN involvement. I understand it, its not like he doenst care. The position the US is in we dont need another war front. Especially if it might be guerrilla warefare once again. What I do know is that it has to be a UN effort. As human beings with power to end such a thing must execute to preserve life. We may all be different, speak different but we all want the same things, and thats peaceful life.


----------



## Gunny

iegeee said:


> To be honest, I dont think a diplomatic solution will solve anything in Sudan. The Sudanese President and his followers share a passion to achieve their goal. They only want to preserve and prosper Arab people only. I think an actual military solution taking over the leadership is what is needed. I know that US and UN are already in other war fronts but that doesn't change the solution of the problem. I think more horrors are happening in Africa than in Afghanistan or Iraq. According to the leadership in those countries, they just want westerners out of their land. They are actually fighting against us as Americans and not us as defenders of the Iraqi people.
> In Africa, they want to remove the black African people of Sudan. They literally want to annihilate all. It not like people can change their mind. Sudanese leadership have a common goal and will not stop unless stopped. I think this is one of the few occasions in world history that a military force needs to be activated to stop what is going on. There is no other option but war. These people are murderers and have no sympathy for the families they are breaking and the lives they are ruining.
> I know Bush has tried to handle it but hes trying to avoid primary AMERICAN involvement. I understand it, its not like he doenst care. The position the US is in we dont need another war front. Especially if it might be guerrilla warefare once again. What I do know is that it has to be a UN effort. As human beings with power to end such a thing must execute to preserve life. We may all be different, speak different but we all want the same things, and thats peaceful life.



Bush hasn't tried to handle shit.  Neither has the UN.  How long has this been going on?

Face it, when they're completely wiped off the face of the Earth, there won't be a problem.  While we just sit and watch it happen.  If we should be ashamed as a nation for ANYTHING, this is it.


----------



## Neubarth

iegeee said:


> To be honest, I dont think a diplomatic solution will solve anything in Sudan. The Sudanese President and his followers share a passion to achieve their goal. They only want to preserve and prosper Arab people only. I think an actual military solution taking over the leadership is what is needed. I know that US and UN are already in other war fronts but that doesn't change the solution of the problem. I think more horrors are happening in Africa than in Afghanistan or Iraq. According to the leadership in those countries, they just want westerners out of their land. They are actually fighting against us as Americans and not us as defenders of the Iraqi people.
> In Africa, they want to remove the black African people of Sudan. They literally want to annihilate all. It not like people can change their mind. Sudanese leadership have a common goal and will not stop unless stopped. I think this is one of the few occasions in world history that a military force needs to be activated to stop what is going on. There is no other option but war. These people are murderers and have no sympathy for the families they are breaking and the lives they are ruining.
> I know Bush has tried to handle it but hes trying to avoid primary AMERICAN involvement. I understand it, its not like he doenst care. The position the US is in we dont need another war front. Especially if it might be guerrilla warefare once again. What I do know is that it has to be a UN effort. As human beings with power to end such a thing must execute to preserve life. We may all be different, speak different but we all want the same things, and thats peaceful life.




Actually the conflict is not racial so much as it is religious. The ruling Arabs (Arabic speaking) who are strongly of Black blood lines, are Islamic (with the majority followers of Radical Islam. There was a reason why Osama bin Ladin lived among them.) 

The Black tribal people are mostly Christian.  The Islamics are effectively driving the Christians out of the country or killing them. 

Shades of the Russian pogroms against the Jews!

The US has strongly spoken out against the genocide in Darfur and in Southern Sudan.  We have been instrumental in getting UN resolutions passed that try to place troops in Sudan. This has been going on for six years now.  The Red Chinese veto the resolutions and thus no troops go to the Sudan to save the lives of the Christians.  There was so much pressure brought to bear on the Chinese  just prior to the Olympics that they finally relented and agreed to UN troops in Sudan if the Sudanese government agreed. The Chinese wanting the Olympics to be successful got the Sudanese government to agree to a token force that is not sufficient to protect more than two or three villages. In essence the UN is totally ineffective. Where the UN is not present, the murders and rapes continue.


----------



## Neubarth

Gurdari said:


> You sound like you would be bothered by the US backing of other groups?
> Why do you think there are 'anti-US' nations in the third world? Do they hate freedom?


Actually, China's position was a financial one. They have lots of contracts with the Government of the Sudan and do not want to lose their customer.


----------



## strollingbones

Gunny said:


> Bush hasn't tried to handle shit.  Neither has the UN.  How long has this been going on?
> 
> Face it, when they're completely wiped off the face of the Earth, there won't be a problem.  While we just sit and watch it happen.  If we should be ashamed as a nation for ANYTHING, this is it.



what a conundrum...allow muslims to kill black christians or take a stance on it....it is mass killing pure and simple....something this world ...or should we say the white world vowed to never allow again but has allowed time and time again....

i have to agree with the shirtless guy...it is more religion that is the sad thing..christians all over the world have not raised up their voices and called for intervention in this country....any religion should be calling for an end to the massacres


----------



## Gunny

strollingbones said:


> what a conundrum...allow muslims to kill black christians or take a stance on it....it is mass killing pure and simple....something this world ...or should we say the white world vowed to never allow again but has allowed time and time again....
> 
> i have to agree with the shirtless guy...it is more religion that is the sad thing..christians all over the world have not raised up their voices and called for intervention in this country....any religion should be calling for an end to the massacres



I partially agree.  It's about religious intolerance on the part of the Muslims.  

I think EVERYONE, Christian or not, should be calling for an end to this.   The WESTERN world vowed to never let it happen again.  

This isn't about whites and blacks.  It's about Sudan having nothing anyone else wants.  No one wants to piss off China.  Who cares?  What're they going to do?  Put am embargo on our cheap-ass WalMart Christmas decorations?


----------



## Sunni Man

Neubarth said:


> Actually the conflict is not racial so much as it is religious. The ruling Arabs (Arabic speaking) who are strongly of Black blood lines, are Islamic (with the majority followers of Radical Islam. There was a reason why Osama bin Ladin lived among them.)
> 
> The Black tribal people are mostly Christian.  The Islamics are effectively driving the Christians out of the country or killing them.
> 
> Shades of the Russian pogroms against the Jews!
> 
> The US has strongly spoken out against the genocide in Darfur and in Southern Sudan.  We have been instrumental in getting UN resolutions passed that try to place troops in Sudan. This has been going on for six years now.  The Red Chinese veto the resolutions and thus no troops go to the Sudan to save the lives of the Christians.  There was so much pressure brought to bear on the Chinese  just prior to the Olympics that they finally relented and agreed to UN troops in Sudan if the Sudanese government agreed. The Chinese wanting the Olympics to be successful got the Sudanese government to agree to a token force that is not sufficient to protect more than two or three villages. In essence the UN is totally ineffective. Where the UN is not present, the murders and rapes continue.


You are close Neubarth, but here is the full story.

All of the Sudanese used to get along fine. 

Muslim north and mainly christian south.

Then large oil reserves were found in the southern part of the country.

Certain nations and oil companys pursuaded the southern people that they need to break away and form their own country. Then they would recieve all of the oil money.The people were then supplied with money and weapons, and the south waged war against the Sudanese government. 

These southern rebels attacked the legitimate government of Sudan. Now the Sudan forces are trying to wipe out all of the rebel's home bases and villages. Dufur is a rebel stronghold and needs to be brought under government control by what ever means are necessary.


----------



## Gunny

Sunni Man said:


> You are close Neubarth, but here is the full story.
> 
> All of the Sudanese used to get along fine.
> 
> Muslim north and mainly christian south.
> 
> Then large oil reserves were found in the southern part of the country.
> 
> Certain nations and oil companys pursuaded the southern people that they need to break away and form their own country. Then they would recieve all of the oil money.The people were then supplied with money and weapons, and the south waged war against the Sudanese government.
> 
> These southern rebels attacked the legitimate government of Sudan. Now the Sudan forces are trying to wipe out all of the rebel's home bases and villages. Dufur is a rebel stronghold and needs to be brought under government control by what ever means are necessary.



You're just flat-ass dumb.


----------



## dilloduck

Sunni Man said:


> You are close Neubarth, but here is the full story.
> 
> All of the Sudanese used to get along fine.
> 
> Muslim north and mainly christian south.
> 
> Then large oil reserves were found in the southern part of the country.
> 
> Certain nations and oil companys pursuaded the southern people that they need to break away and form their own country. Then they would recieve all of the oil money.The people were then supplied with money and weapons, and the south waged war against the Sudanese government.
> 
> These southern rebels attacked the legitimate government of Sudan. Now the Sudan forces are trying to wipe out all of the rebel's home bases and villages. Dufur is a rebel stronghold and needs to be brought under government control by what ever means are necessary.




at least find a link or something


----------



## RodISHI

Gunny said:


> Hell, I finally found an issue I agree with Obama on.  Will wonders never cease?


is there a link anywhere one can read his policy on this Gunny?


----------



## Sunni Man

Sudan&#8217;s southern rebels kill 25 civilians: monitors
Thursday 26 August     

NAIROBI, Aug 25 (AFP) &#8212; Southern Sudan&#8217;s main rebel group, in peace talks with the government, killed 25 civilians including women and children in a June attack in Western Upper Nile province, an international monitoring team said in a report seen by AFP on Wednesday.

The attack on June 4 and 5 was carried out by rebels of the Sudan People&#8217;s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A), despite having signed an agreement to protect civilians from harm, the Civilian Protection Monitoring Team (CPMT) said.

"On or about June 4, 2004, twenty-four civilians working as charcoal makers were massacred by members of the SPLM/A in a village on Akrwa Island, approximately 15 kilometres (about nine miles) south of Kaka," in Western Upper Nile province, said the report said dated August 15 and issued on the CPMT website.

The SPLM/A killed another person on June 5, the report said, without giving the motive of the attack.


----------



## RodISHI

darfurwatch.com


coalitionfordarfur.com


----------



## Sunni Man

Sudan: Fighting resumes between army and former southern rebels in oil-rich town of Abyei
The Associated PressPublished: May 20, 2008

KHARTOUM, Sudan: Sudanese soldiers battled former southern rebels Tuesday in the oil-rich region of Abyei despite a five-day old cease-fire, U.N. and southern officials said.

The United Nations has pulled most of its civilian staff from the town, which lies just north of the disputed boundary line between north and south Sudan, and remains contested despite a peace accord in 2005 that ended a 21-year civil war. Some 400 peacekeepers remain in the town.

The Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General for Sudan, Ashraf Jehangir Qazi, and the United States, the guarantors of the 2005 peace accord, have both expressed deep concern over the renewed hostilities in Abyei.

"The roots of this current violence are intimately tied to the inability of the parties, after almost three years, to implement the Abyei Protocol of the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement," the US embassy in Khartoum said in a statement which also called for an immediate end to the fighting.

Clashes erupted there last week between Sudan's Arab-dominated army and the Sudan People's Liberation Army, an ethnic African militia &#8212; making Abyei a flashpoint that could wreck the fragile peace. The civil war left an estimated 2 million people dead.

Today in Africa & Middle East
Britain to begin Iraq withdrawal in MarchFugitive Sunni leader thought to have been captured or killed in SyriaCampaigns get under way for provincial elections in IraqThe U.N. says between 30,000 and 50,000 people have been displaced by the recent fighting. SPLA officials say the town's market and only bank were burned, and the town has been virtually deserted. The number of casualties are difficult to determine because of the continued violence.

SPLA forces approached Abyei early Tuesday morning and began shelling the town, a U.N. official who oversees troops in the area, Ravi Padan, told U.N.-operated Miraya radio. He said the battle lasted three hours before Sudanese soldiers pushed back the rebels.

Sudan: Fighting resumes between army and former southern rebels in oil-rich town of Abyei - International Herald Tribune


----------



## dilloduck

RodISHI said:


> darfurwatch.com
> 
> 
> coalitionfordarfur.com



OK --let's get it straight here--Which countries are messing with Sudan's internal affairs ?


----------



## Sunni Man

Gunny said:


> You're just flat-ass dumb.


You are the dumb one Gunny!!

The legitimate government of Sudan has been attacked by rebel terrorists for years. Because the rebels want to control the oil regions.

The Western media has taken the side of the terrorists against the legal government of Sudan because they are Islamic.

So now Gunny you are on the side of a known terrorist organization!!


----------



## Sunni Man

dilloduck said:


> OK --let's get it straight here--Which countries are messing with Sudan's internal affairs ?



In recent years, a significant amount of foreign-based oil drilling has begun in Southern Sudan, raising the land's geopolitical profile. Khartoum has broken much of the Sudan into blocks with about 85% of the oil coming from the South. Blocks 1, 2, and 4 are controlled by the largest overseas consortium, the Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company (GNPOC). GNPOC is composed of the following players: CNPC, the People's Republic of China, with a 40% stake, Petronas (Malaysia), with 30%, ONGC India, with 25%, and Sudapet of the central Sudan government with 5%[citation needed].

The other producing blocks in the South are blocks 3 and 7 in Eastern Upper Nile. These blocks are controlled by Petrodar which is 41% owned by CNPC of China, 40% by Petronas, 8% by Sudapet, 5% by Gulf Petroleum and 5% by Al Thani[citation needed].

Another major block in the South, called Block B by Khartoum, is claimed by several players. Total of France was awarded the concession for the 90,000 square kilometre block in the 1980s but has since done limited work invoking "force majeure". Various elements of the SPLM handed out the block or parts thereof to other parties. Several of these pre-Naivasha deals were revoked when the SPLM came to power. One company, Jarch Management Group, Ltd., claims that the Government of Southern Sudan has since accepted its pre-CPA contracts

Southern Sudan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Sunni Man

All of the nations of these foreign oil companys have been supplying weapons to the Sudan People's Liberation Army to fight the legal government of Sudan.

The SPLA rebel's should be listed as a terrorist organization by the West.

It's funny how none of this is told on the US or Western media. How Sudan's civilian citizens have been attacked and murdered even in the capital city.

Our media paints this a war of muslim north against the innocent christian south. When in fact the christian southern rebels were the ones who went north in the beginning and slaughtered the people of the north. 

The war is 100% about oil and Not about religion as the American people have been led to believe by the media.


----------



## RodISHI

dilloduck said:


> OK --let's get it straight here--Which countries are messing with Sudan's internal affairs ?


I don't know I just posted the watch sites. The second one is a blog about a person who has been there. I have read the stories as they have came out and a few request for help from missionaries that are over their working or their reports when the churches were being burned with the people in the buildings.


----------



## we_ourselves

People on the board seem to be confusing the Black population of the southern Sudan who took part in the SPLA resistance, and the Black population of Darfur.  Darfur's Blacks have been predominantly Muslim for the last 600 years, and Darfur was an independent sultanate for hundreds of years, until it was conquered by the Egyptians.  When the British conquered Sudan, they incorporated Darfur into it.  

As I see it, the rebellion in the south came in response to attempts by Arabs to dominate the country and seize Blacks' oil wealth.  The uprising in Darfur came partly in response to the instability that this war occasioned and to the government's overall brutality, but I think the main issue is drought/desertification.  As Arab herders ran out of water for their cattle, the government encouraged them to drive their cattle into Darfur, to create a condition of instability which would reinforce the "need" for a dictatorship.  Chad responded by allying itself with the native people of Darfur in hopes of destabilizing the Sudanese regime.

Imperialist intervention is not the answer--in fact, it's the conditions of debt slavery imposed on countries like Sudan and Chad by imperialism that create unavoidable ethnic and religious conflicts.  I propose that the U.S. seek a long-term solution by immediately canceling Sudan's and Chad's foreign debts while seeking an end to China's support for Sudan as part of a comprehensive negotiated solution that resolves outstanding issues such as the U.S. military presence in Chinese territorial waters.


----------

