IN THE COMMENTS: mesquito says:
Darfur has contracted herpes and is hiding from the ozone layer in the Amazon rain forest.
August 22, 2010
Whatever happened to Darfur?
Have you noticed that we don't notice it anymore?
IN THE COMMENTS: mesquito says:
IN THE COMMENTS: mesquito says:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
27 comments:
Darfur has contracted herpes and is hiding from the ozone layer in the Amazon rain forest.
Short answers?
The bad guys are Muslims.
They have run out of people to kill
The Won put a lightweight in charge
The press are giving The Won a pass
It's not Bushes fault anymore
Of course, we are too busy demonizing Israel for stopping a ship to care about genocide when it is done by... Muslims.
The world is a violent, brutal place. We don't have the people or the resources to be the world'd policeman, and it's pure hubris to think that we do. The only way to stop this kind of genocide is to go in and remove the current regime by force, and we are not going to do that. Even if we did, would the liberated Darfurians rule themselves in some equitable Jeffersonian way? The likelihood of that is about the same as the Darfurians landing a man on the moon. If they were in power, they would probably be doing the same thing to the Arabs that the Arabs have been doing to them. Like the Hutus and Tutsis, the Serbs and Albanians, etc., there are just places where it is a waste of time, money and American lives to try to intervene. They're going to go on killing each other, which is sad, but there's really nothing we can do about it. And as for do-gooders going over and trying to help, well, you saw what happened to those eye doctors and their team in Afghanistan. When you're trying to help howling barbarians, you're taking your life into your own hands.
I think the article got it wrong. Although it blames Obama for appointing a special envoy who wants accommodation, I think the real issue is that Sudan no longer fits the narrative of Bush Jr. as the worst President ever.
Now that its Obama's failure no one in the liberal press wants to talk about it. And conservative news organizations never believed Sudan was a Bush "failure" so they don't push it as an Obama one.
The same thing that happened to the anti-war movement and the homeless people and other stories that are only stories when Republican is president.
Darfur is only Christians being murdered by Moslem enslavers. So why would a good Moslem want to stop that? Hillary is sure that all important evil in the world is really Global Warming Deniers. Al Gore, Obama and her say so. They have no time for posturing about ethnic cleansing of Christians by our Moslem friends .
Africa: who cares?
I no longer pay any attention to Africa. It's a lost continent. Let it go. Africans have no one to blame but themselves.
Cut off all foreign aid and pull out the charities. Let the Africans decide if they want to disappear or flourish.
Adios Africa.
This is no different from Rwanda when every sentient person knew that genocide was underway. Except for the U.S. government led by Clinton who later confessed he would have acted had he known. If only he had known.
Darfur had something to do with Bush didn't it? He caused it by saying something that offended.
Michael said...
Darfur had something to do with Bush didn't it? He caused it by saying something that offended.
Bush wouldn't invade Sudan because there was no oil and the victims were black.
Obama wouldn't invade Sudan because...
Thanks, Professor!
(I am inordinately proud of that.)
I bet the Sudan gets to be on the UN human rights counsel in a few monhths.
I bet the movie Hotel Rwanda is on most DVD remainders list and noone buys a copy. I bet Don Cheadle even forgets he was in the movie.
This, like all other human rights abuses go down the memory hole so long as Obama is in power, and would otherwise be called upon to do something. If it's out of sight, it's out of mind. Just like OBama renewing much of what the left found so abhorrent in Bush's war on terror (ie illegal wiretapping, drone attacks, illegal renditions etc etc etc.) now is met with crickets and tumbleweeds rolling through abandoned towns.
rdkraus wrote:
The same thing that happened to the anti-war movement and the homeless people and other stories that are only stories when Republican is president.
Remember Cyndi Sheehan? When she was a weapon to be used against Bush because her son died in Iraq she had absolute moral authority and thus the media had to hype her story. Once she served her purpose she's some crazy bitch who won't shut up even though since no cameras are on her noone can hear her scream. Did the war end? Are there no mothers who's son died in Afghanistan with absolute moral authority who want us out of Afghanistan and therefore we need to run article after article about her moral crusade against war.
The media is under different management now, and the tone is now changed.
The libs and the media (which is largely lib) gin up this fake outrage and act out political theater very effectively. But at heart they are plastic people with no moral core. So yeseterday's cause du jour is todays forgotten story.
Congo dwarfs Darfur in every ghastly statistic. It is the worst war since WW2, possibly killing 5 million people.
Ever hear of it?
We heard about Darfur for the same reason A-stan was suddenly The Good War. Once the Petraeus Doctrine worked, Iraq was no longer a club to beat Dubya and Darfur became another Rwanda.
Interesting that the Lefties say they love black people so much, but only care about blacks if there is a racial angle to be used. Just as they didn't care about yellow people killing yellow people after the US left 'Nam, so they don't care about black people murdering black people in Africa, especially when there's a Lefty in the White House who might be otherwise expected to want to do something about it.
they don't care about black people murdering black people in Africa
Or in the US, for that matter.
What becomes important in the media has no correlation with what is important in reality.
The worst example is the "war" between Israel and Palestine. It has killed about 5000 people in the last ten years.
In Congo millions have died in the same time.
Which is endlessly talked about?
Really, if you want a good picture of what is actually happening you must ignore international media coverage. At least, ignore their priorities and look for what's buried beneath.
It's almost like doing intelligence analysis. In effect, you must undo the filtering that media uses to present their view of the world.
"They have run out of people to kill.."
Sadly.
Also, Burma. Same story.
But it's all OK. Several years from now the International Court in Europe will put the leaders on trial for war crimes.
Thus having "done something."
Or Bosnia
or Aceh
or Georgia
or the Uighurs
or Basque separatists
or Alderaan
For that matter, whatever happend to George Clooney?
Have you noticed that we don't notice him anymore?
Mere coincidence, I think not.
Did anyone *ever* really care about Darfur? Has it ever elicited anywhere near the level of outrage from the UNHRC, or the likes of C-fudd and fls, that they reserve for Israel trying to defend itself from terrorists? The left has always been jim-dandy with bloody oppression and outright genocide as long as they can't blame on it the US or da Joooos (Pol Pot, Rwanda etc. ad nauseam).
Did anyone *ever* really care about Darfur? Has it ever elicited anywhere near the level of outrage from the UNHRC, or the likes of C-fudd and fls, that they reserve for Israel trying to defend itself from terrorists? The left has always been jim-dandy with bloody oppression and outright genocide as long as they can't blame on it the US or da Joooos (Pol Pot, Rwanda etc. ad nauseam).
I think the only reason they cared about South Africa was because they saw it as a reflection of America. It fed on their white guilt, and since black people were oppressed by white people, they had to show that they were beyond the racism of whites, they've so long been emphasizing as the root of all evil in the world. If South Africa was Asian, they'd give to shits. It's always about the liberal, and almost never about the actual question of human rights.
Same thing with Israel. Why the assault on Israel and the avoidance of any questions dealing with the Congo or Darfur or Somalia? Because Jews are by and large white, and because Israel most resembles the US of all the states in the ME. And libs hold the same view of America as the Palestinians do. Amerikkka is the great satan, and Israel is the lesser Satan. And because a lot of them just don't like jews.
There should be a rule though. THe louder you hear libs scream about some far off country and their human rights abuses, the more likely it is that htey are talking about Israel or there is a republican in the white house.
The UN has passed a resolution.
Hang in there for just a few more years, Darfur.
Help is on the way...
tradguy,
I know it's kind of hard to keep track of African atrocities w/o a scorecard, but please try: the Southern Sudanese--who are enjoying a perhaps-temporary respite from the armed attention of the Northerners--were primarily Christian; the Darfurians are Muslim.
Who forgot about Darfur? Oh, the people who never cared about Darfur in the first place? Right, what a shock.
People who are into identity politics only care about certain identities when they can be used for votes. Otherwise, not so much.
Just a late note in light of Savan's supposed outrage at Franklin Graham. Franklin Graham cares about Darfur.
Knows where it is. Left his t-shirt -- and more -- with some kids, so to speak.
Leslie Savan (8/25) doesn't know this or care. About Graham or Darfur.
Post a Comment