If it looks like genocide, smells like genocide, sounds like genocide, it must be…


“Crimes against humanity with genocidal intentions”, of course.

This according to the United Nations, which displays its gutlessness even more glaringly as each day goes by. Cause calling the horrible situation in Darfur, Sudan by its rightful name would require the U.N. to actually do something, and they certainly want to avoid that:

A United Nations inquiry into the mass killing of black Sudanese in the country’s western Darfur region has refrained from calling the assassinations a “genocide” – an outcome Khartoum sought.

Instead, the UN investigators say the violence by Arab militia is evidence only of “genocidal intentions,” adding this constitutes war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The commission finds both the government and the Arab janjaweed militias “are responsible for … crimes against humanity,” including killing, rape and torture of black tribes in Sudan’s western Darfur region.

It said the attacks on villages aimed to “drive the victims from their homes,” but stops short of saying the government had a policy of genocide, saying rather that individuals had a “genocidal intent.”

[ . . . ]

Those designations fall short of the legally significant “genocide” label, which would have obliged the 15-member UN Security Council to take immediate measures under international law to stop the killing.

So what’s the U.N.’s brilliant solution to stop the violence which so far has killed more than 70,000 people?

The inquiry also says the council should use its power to have the UN’s war crimes tribunal, the International Criminal Court, prosecute people suspected in the killing.

That is likely to lead to a complicated three-way split among the Security Council’s five veto-bearing permanent members. While the United States, Britain and France support taking some sort of action, Washington opposes the ICC. Russia and China, meanwhile, have resisted taking any action. China has oil interests in Sudan, while Khartoum buys Russian arms.

This ought to destroy any delusions that anyone still had that the United Nations could protect the world. Lacking the will and the means to stop the genocide, the U.N. has taken the easy way out by refusing to call it a genocide. Like, if you don’t call it genocide, it never really happened. Or something.

{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }

1 trolr 02.01.05 at 11:19 PM

The US should cut funding to the UN or stop funding it. It’s a fraud.

Sorry OT

The two comments below were posted at IndyMedia NewJersey on the same day. The following day the “beard” post remained and “radical islam” post was removed.

It appears that the moderator doesn’t understand Western sarcasim but is concerned about the “image” of Islam.

This is the third occasion for NJIndy removing one post and leaving another. The sarcasim posts, that stayed, were always off-topic. The deleted posts addressed Muslims, quoted news sources and 2 of 3 lacked comment.

This is to advocate observance not antagonism.


Speaking of Youth, I’m graduating from H.S. next year. I have a standing argument with my mother over my beard. It’s an untrimmed beard plain and simple.[…]


From the New York Sun, Jan. 31, 2005:

Christians on PalTalk Chat Service Tracked by Radical Islamic Web Site

By Daveed Gartenstein-Ross
Special to the Sun

A radical Islamic Web site systematically tracks Christians on PalTalk.com, an Internet chat service on which a New Jersey man received a death threat two months before he and his family were murdered. The password protected Arabic Web site, at the address http://www.barsomyat.com, features pictures and information about Christians who have been particularly active in debating Muslims on PalTalk. […]


2 Sigivald 02.04.05 at 5:43 PM

Well, come on. As much as I hate to even appear to defend the UN, they did call it “crimes against humanity” and “war crimes”, and “genocidal intentions”.

They’re right that it isn’t genocide – genocide is what you have once the intentions are successfully implemented.

And you’re right that if they don’t act they’re worse than useless, regardless of the label.


3 Ikram 02.08.05 at 6:30 PM

The UN isn’t ‘they’ — it is we. Canada is the UN. The USA is the UN. There may well be a swet of people out there who are worse than useless (I call them ‘bloggers’), unless you hate all humanity, it ain’t the UN.


Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: