September 30, 2004


DESPAIRING FOR DARFUR (Eric Reeves, 9/30/04, In These Times)

While there is growing attention to ongoing genocide in Darfur, this has not translated into either a meaningful international response or an accurate rendering of the scale and evident course of the catastrophe. [...]

Current humanitarian requirements for Darfur dictate that the international community provide 40,000 metric tons per month of food and critical non-food items such as medicine, shelter and water purification supplies. However, there isn't half the transport and logistical capacity to meet this monthly need, which is likely to grow for the foreseeable future. (Further, breaks are predicted in the food "pipeline" – a shortfall in food supplies can be predicted on the basis of present resources and projected need.) Rich nations such as France, Italy, Japan, Saudia Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates have shamelessly failed to substantially support to the aid effort.

With a woefully inadequate AU force, a meaningless U.N. resolution, and much bombast from various nations trying to substitute unctuous talk for concrete action, the future of Darfur is bleak. As the catastrophe accelerates, the international community has yet to make a meaningful response and the news media has yet to comprehensively render the genocidal realities. Our failure could not be greater.

Noticeable here is the dog that's not barking--the complete absence of any mention of the Administration. This is, of course, a result of the fact that the Administration is leading the struggle the author calls for, a struggle which the Left has been shamefully quiet about rather than join with George Bush and justify the idea of humanitarian intervention. So they wait for France and the UN and the rest of the unreliables while people die in Darfur. There's an important lesson here, but it's being taught at too high a price.

Posted by Orrin Judd at September 30, 2004 3:32 PM

Comin' around, are you, Orrin?

How many times has this lesson been given since 1935?

Even getting a driver's license, you only get so many attempts before they put you on the shelf.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at September 30, 2004 3:53 PM


No. We're taking care of it, but without the help of the Left.

Posted by: oj at September 30, 2004 4:02 PM

It would seem the UN has some number of acceptable deaths each week, each month, each year. We don't know what the figure is, because their threshold has never been reached.

However, should a member nation decide that the threshold is much lower, it will be chastised by Kofi Annan.

Send him to Darfur with the first C-130.

Posted by: jim hamlen at September 30, 2004 4:12 PM

Send a battalion of the Egyptian Army,(it was their responsibility up until 1946) up against the Janjaweed; drop arms and food in the SLA and
its allies; is that so hard to do.

Posted by: narciso at October 1, 2004 12:01 AM

The Egyptian Army would merely aid in the genocide. How tough is it to understand that we are in a 'clash of civilizations.' Wherever you look around the world, it is Muslims murdering other people, even other Muslims. Until this Death Cult of the Moon God is driven back to Arabia and the Black Stone of Qa'aba is turned into radioactive glowing black gravel, there will be no peace and there can be no peace. It is us or them, and no amount of equivocation and wishful thinking changes that reality.

It is a waste of time to wait for the UN or the French to do anything about the genocide.

Posted by: Bart at October 1, 2004 6:41 AM


They're pikers compared to us. How many westerners died at the hands of other Westerners in the 20th Century? yet you consider your civilization great, no?

Posted by: oj at October 1, 2004 7:17 AM

The comparison is utterly inapposite. Only now do Muslims have the technology to engage in the kind of genocide which European Christendom is noted for. As you no doubt know, the West has frowned on genocide for some time now. OTOH, it is abundantly apparent that Islam from Timor to Judea and Samaria, to NYC does not.

There is not a single place where Islam borders another society where there is not an ongoing terrorist assault or where there was not one in the recent past. Those are facts, not your pious wishes.

Posted by: Bart at October 1, 2004 8:44 AM


Genocide? They've killed a few thousand. That's a day in the camps or the gulag. That they have the technology and do not behave as barbaric as the West did is suggestive.

Posted by: oj at October 1, 2004 9:43 AM

If they had the organizational skills to create concentration camps or a gulag system, they would.

It's not that they're merciful, it's that mercifully, they're incompetent.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at October 1, 2004 11:05 AM


You're the first person ever to call the Russians organized and competent.

Posted by: oj at October 1, 2004 11:08 AM

Second after Solzhenitsyn, I think

What was the title of his book?

Posted by: Harry Eagar at October 1, 2004 2:21 PM


He said they passed up the chance to be organized and competent along the Stolypin model:

Posted by: oj at October 1, 2004 2:31 PM


That whole Southern Sudan thing for about the last 4 decades has eluded your attention then?

What about East Timor, where Muslims have murdered about 40% of the Christian population, or Ambon where Muslims murder Christians regularly with Indonesian government approval, or the murders of the Chinese business community in Indonesia and Malaysia?

Islam as a religion is about one thing and one thing only and that is murdering non-believers. Until we in the West understand this as people like Charles Martel and Rabbi Meir Kahane (OBM) did, we will be nothing more than targets for the jihadniks.

Posted by: Bart at October 1, 2004 2:41 PM


Those are simple national border questions, we went through them all too: ask an Indian, a Maori, an Aborigine, etc. There aren't many instances of a Muslim majority simply murdering its integrated non-Muslim population.

Posted by: oj at October 1, 2004 2:52 PM

Here's a simple way of looking at it: you can bet 100,000 in a futures market ending on the first day of the 22nd century, who do you bet has more blood on their hands:

(1) Muslims killing their internal populations, or

(2) Germans and French murdering their Turks and Algerians?

Posted by: oj at October 1, 2004 2:54 PM

There aren't too many cases of Muslims murdering non-Muslims other than border wars?

Armenians, Serbs in Bosnia, Serbs in Kosovo, Macedonian Christians, Christians in Mindanao, Buddhists in Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia, Christians in Southern Sudan? Where are the border issues in any of those areas?

As for your bet, one can only hope the Europeans will understand that they will have to do whatever they need to do in order to survive, no matter how much it offends the wet noodles among them. If it requires murdering every Muslim on the continent, that is a small price to pay and no one of any intrinsic value would be killed, no culture worthy of preservation would be harmed.

Posted by: Bart at October 1, 2004 4:22 PM

Name some integrated non-Muslim populations in predominantly Muslim countries.

Bart could have added Bahais in Shia Iran.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at October 1, 2004 5:02 PM

Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, etc. all have them. They're mostly dying off, not being killed.

Posted by: oj at October 1, 2004 5:34 PM


You make the point precisely. It is the secular West that is genocidal.

Posted by: oj at October 1, 2004 5:39 PM

In all those states, the minorities are being exterminated by the Muslims.

You'll have to come up with some other examples. Those don't do the job

Posted by: Harry Eagar at October 2, 2004 3:20 PM

Not exterminated, defeated.

Posted by: oj at October 2, 2004 3:50 PM