| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Slavery and Islam in Sudan |
| 2004-05-18 |
| There were two Herald articles of particular interest recently. The first, an op-ed by Nicholas Kristof (liberal-elite Christian-bashing N.Y. Times word-slinger) on April 15, titled "Cruel choices." The second, a smallish Rutland Herald world news article of April 19, titled "Sudan clashes force 50,000 to flee homes." Both discuss the seemingly endless strife in Sudan. Both touch upon some of the atrocities there. Both entirely sidestep the central issue in the region: Islamic expansion. Indeed, Islam is never mentioned in either article. Only an arch-liberal could perform the mental and literary gymnastics needed to write articles about a civil war without bothering to mention why there’s a civil war. This is the literary equivalent of a ham sandwich without ham, but plenty of mustard to cover up the omission (nobody will notice, right?). Sadly, Sudan has been wracked by civil war for 35 out of the last 45 years. In 1989, the National Islamic Front seized power (via fraudulent "gun control"), and in 1991 openly declared jihad on the native black population with Iranian support. Now known as the government of Sudan, this Arab group has embarked on a systematic pogrom of killing, rape, torture, engineered famine, and slavery to vanquish its southern foe - the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM). To date, over a million have died, and 4 million have been displaced in this Arab jihadist tutorial in sadistic Koran-slapping fascism. The twofold aim of the government of Sudan is straightforward: Subdue and convert the remaining black Christian and non-Muslim population under Islamic law (Shari’a) by force, and secure a sizable supply of slaves in the process. Yes, slaves. Reputable human rights groups like Human Rights Watch have somewhat quietly noted the resumption of slavery among the Arab ruling class of the north, as have Christian missionaries. It seems, however, that the United Nations and our fawning native press don’t want to deal with this dirty little Islamic secret. As it turns out, Sudan and Mauritania, both Islamic African states, have a long and ugly past in the slave trade. As the United States was putting its slave trade to death in mid-19th century, Arab slave traders were just warming up. While historians estimate that Americans imported about 10 million slaves over its history, the Arab slave trade was many orders of magnitude larger, comfortably coddled by warm and fuzzy Koranic teachings. The last two countries on earth to "abolish" slavery were Saudi Arabia (1962) and Mauritania (1980) - both Islamic. Despite these paper declarations, Mauritanians were estimated to possess over 100,000 black slaves in 2000, and the Mauritanian head of state from 1960-1978 kept slaves behind the presidential palace. The Saudis have long refused to sign U.N. treaties on slavery or human rights, or allow international scrutiny to ensure that they are free of slaves. They have long been suspected of orchestrating an elaborate international sex-slave operation, and have been openly accused by the president of Indonesia, who stated, "The Saudi people still believe in the old Islamic teaching, which is belief in slavery." (Indonesian Observer, March 2000). The grand irony of this situation is this: Liberals are supposed to be the champions for the oppressed, the under-classes, the poor. So where is the liberal outcry on these distinctly Islamic abuses? Why is the loud, lucid and accurate analysis of these issues coming mainly from Christian sources (mostly missionaries and Internet news sites)? Perhaps it has much to do with the identity of the victims - many are Christians. Like a slobbering dog with a bone, it seems the left is loathe to put down their favorite chew-toys (Christians, conservatives and Bush) long enough to mount a credible challenge to Islamic abuses, militant expansion, and attendant U.N. corruption and complicity (aptly demonstrated in the recent reappointment of Sudan to the U.N. Human Rights Commission). Like placing a child molester in charge of a kindergarten. Vladimir Lenin, the architect of all communist repression, brutality, and nearly 100 million brutal deaths, applied the term "useful idiots" to western apologists blindly sympathetic to his virulent ideology, while eager to castigate their own. Lenin’s present counterparts - militant Islamofascists and brutal dictators - must be delighted with the current efforts of our own bleating "useful idiots." |
| Posted by:TS(vice girl) |
| #2 "The Saudis have long refused to sign U.N. treaties on slavery or human rights, or allow international scrutiny to ensure that they are free of slaves." What would anyone call (except muslims, of course) a person who is forced to work 7 days a week, doing absolutely every chore in the house, taking care of 5 or 6+ brats, being beat up when the "Madam" is not satisfied and only being paid the equivalent of $160 a month? Out this amount, she/he has to pay a monthly fee (to a saudi, of course) for having the "privalege" of sponsoring her/him into the country. This is how the majority of the labor hand in this country is treated. Everytime I hear a westerner feeling sorry for a saudi assholes being discriminated, I feel like spitting on his/her face. |
| Posted by: Anonymous4617 2004-05-19 1:14:25 AM |
| #1 . . ." the United Nations and our fawning native press don’t want to deal with this dirty little Islamic secret. Like a slobbering dog with a bone, it seems the left is loathe to put down their favorite chew-toys (Christians, conservatives and Bush) long enough to mount a credible challenge to Islamic abuses, militant expansion, and attendant U.N. corruption and complicity (aptly demonstrated in the recent reappointment of Sudan to the U.N. Human Rights Commission). Like placing a child molester in charge of a kindergarten. " Ha! Nice, TS! And so very true. |
| Posted by: ex-lib 2004-05-18 10:04:38 PM |