Saturday, March 25, 2006

The Oregonian on Killing Muslims

The fact is, a farm village full of African Muslims can be destroyed by the Janjaweed militias in the time it takes to read this editorial.
. . .
If America seeks to effect change in the world, as it clearly wishes to in other regions, what higher calling can it hear than the voices of dying Muslims in Darfur?
(America cannot turn away from Darfur, The Oregonian, March 24, 2006)


Will someone please tell The Oregonian that the people killing "African Muslims" in Darfur are African Muslims. The villagers attacked are being killed for political, ethnic, and economic reasons--not because they are Muslims.

Just as The Oregonian seems to misunderstand the underlying causes of the current genocide in Sudan (a previous one involved African Christians and animists), it doesn't understand how to effect a solution.

The White House has drawn a circle around the number of $123 million, considering it a sufficient contribution to peace and stability in Darfur. (The White House has proposed $161 million for peacekeeping in all of Sudan, including the troubled South, far from Darfur.)

This is not enough. The White House has misplaced its priorities.
. . .
The administration has called for the United Nations and for NATO to take a larger role in Darfur, and nobody should argue otherwise. But the United States alone has the immediate means to make a difference in Darfur, saving lives that would almost certainly be lost otherwise.
. . .
It must provide more money for peacekeeping immediately. It would be the logical next step following a House committee's recent passage of the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act, which would enforce an embargo on certain Sudanese trade and visitation, encourage negotiation and support the role of NATO. The Senate has passed a comparable bill.

Words aren't enough for Darfur. The time for action is now.
[emphasis mine]


What action? A bit more money? A mild embargo? Support what role for NATO?

Interestingly enough, Nicholas Kristof gives more credit to President Bush for active concern than "most other world leaders, and more than many Democrats."

The UN has had close to zero impact on this crisis. Same for France, Germany, Russia, China--which are not stretched in other conflicts. They were also non-participants on taking down the guy responsible for murdering tens of thousands of Muslims in Iraq. Some of them even earned big bucks helping Saddam game the Oil-for-food program.

What is needed is actual military intervention. But, the only countries which seem to have any interest in military intervention to stop mass killing of Muslims are those actively participating in the Coalition forces in Iraq.

Where are all the others? On Darfur they are doing the same thing they were doing about mass killings of Muslims in Iraq.

2 comments:

Mike's America said...

The Oregonian might want to take this issue up with the student paper at OSU... what is the name? The Daily BLoviator? I forget.

Anyway, that was the paper that had to run stories having anything to do with Muslims or the war on terror past the student Muslim association.

Perhaps the campus representatives of the religion of peace can tell us why Muslims seem to kill more Muslims than all the wars the west has waged... including the Crusades.

terrance said...

Good question, Mike. But, as you know, it's not politically correct to point out that Muslims are the main threat to kill and maim Muslims.

Bad boy! Time out in the corner for you for five minutes. :-)