Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

JohnM

Algeria, Mali, Nigeria...time for the UN to show its strength?

71 posts in this topic

Apparently the Algerian terrorist group is linked to one of the terrorist groups that the UK is clandestinely supporting (albeit politically rather than financially) against Assad in Syria.

Just like we supported Sadaam Hussain when we were more worried about Iran than Iraq.

The British public gets told what they want us to hear.

We did not support Saddam Hussein. The USA sent him reconnaisance pictures of Iranian positions but did not give him any arms. We gave no intelligence and sold arms for cash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Western world (UN) left it to the African Union to stop human rights abuse against Christians by the Sudanese government. The AU force was useless as none of the African states wanted to upset Sudan. The poor Darfuri Christians still got displaced, tortured, raped and killed by Moslems.

If the Christian West is to do anything in Africa, it should restrict itself to protecting Christians against muslim atrocities.

Incidentally, I have no religion.

I think you are a little confused here. Sudan was primarily a conflict between the Muslim Arab north and the black African Christian and animist south but Darfur is an exception to this.

People in Darfur are black African Muslims, which is why they didn't end up as part of South Sudan. It's a very nasty conflict but it is not a religious conflict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just re-read my post. I wasn't pointing a finger. I was asking a question. So given the interpretation of the UN as a talking shop, how far up their agenda do you think the situation in Africa is? I mean to say, this is not just any conflict...the rise of militant Islamic fundamental terrorism seems to me to be more than trivial and more than local.

Still, if the UN isn't the right forum, what is? Unless there really isn't a problem at all?

As is the Islamist issue doesn't become a war between NATO and Russia or NATO and China then the UN will have done what it was designed to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We did not support Saddam Hussein. The USA sent him reconnaisance pictures of Iranian positions but did not give him any arms. We gave no intelligence and sold arms for cash.

When I worked for a local government waste disposal unit, we bought two heavy duty artic units ... originally built by a British company for hauling tanks across the desert. These had been supposedly built for supply to Saddam Hussein's regime under a government contract. However, the contract had got cancelled by HMG for political reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are a little confused here. Sudan was primarily a conflict between the Muslim Arab north and the black African Christian and animist south but Darfur is an exception to this.

People in Darfur are black African Muslims, which is why they didn't end up as part of South Sudan. It's a very nasty conflict but it is not a religious conflict.

As I understand it, a lot of Christians were either driven or fled into the Darfur desert because that's where the UN paid for refugee camps which the African Union was supposed to police and protect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As is the Islamist issue doesn't become a war between NATO and Russia or NATO and China then the UN will have done what it was designed to do.

Not convinced. As posted earlier,, does this not apply?

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

  • to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
  • to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
  • to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
  • to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I worked for a local government waste disposal unit, we bought two heavy duty artic units ... originally built by a British company for hauling tanks across the desert. These had been supposedly built for supply to Saddam Hussein's regime under a government contract. However, the contract had got cancelled by HMG for political reasons.

Yeah, we sold them to the Iraqis then pulled the plug. Selling arms doesn't necessarily constitute "support". Most Iraqi weapons came from the USSR, Saddam was in the Soviet camp. A fact rarely mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not convinced. As posted earlier,, does this not apply?

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

  • to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
  • to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
  • to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
  • to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

It does but it applies to conflict between states not internal conflicts. The UN has never had much of a part to play in internal conflicts, quite deliberately, since this was the trigger for World War One.

There is a vague obligation to prevent genocide (not defined clearly) and an obligation to help refugees (not all countries signed up to this) and then an undertaking to try to alleviate the effects of war (Peace Monitors etc). At no point is there any right to intervene in the internal affairs of other states, in fact, it is prohibited unless specifically authorised by the UN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand it, a lot of Christians were either driven or fled into the Darfur desert because that's where the UN paid for refugee camps which the African Union was supposed to police and protect.

Who would flee to Darfur? Why would Sudanese forces drive anyone to an area whose status is already contested?

Even if anyone had, why would they stay there rather than return to the independent state of South Sudan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who will save us from militant Islam terrorists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who would flee to Darfur? Why would Sudanese forces drive anyone to an area whose status is already contested?

Even if anyone had, why would they stay there rather than return to the independent state of South Sudan?

I'm guessing that Nuba Christians were driven there. I just remember seeing a harrowing newspaper article about a widowed Christian woman and her associates in of the camps. At that time, there was no South Sudan.

http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article45244

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing that Nuba Christians were driven there. I just remember seeing a harrowing newspaper article about a widowed Christian woman and her associates in of the camps. At that time, there was no South Sudan.

http://www.sudantrib...hp?article45244

The Nuba are mostly Muslim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I merely ask the question on the basis that there seems to be growing instability in the region and that if no one does anything, then nothing will be done. If you are happy with that, then fine.

And I merely ask the question as to what sort of strength they need to show. If it is military force you are thinking of, where will that come from? If it is some other sort of strength what do you have in mind, and how will the UN - an organisation made up of member states - deliver it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Nuba are mostly Muslim.

From Wikipedia:

The majority of the Nuba living in the east, west and northern parts of the mountains are Muslims, while those living to the south are either Christians or practice traditional animistic religions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've not said otherwise; just that the Sudanese victimised Christians and the African Union did little to stop it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I merely ask the question as to what sort of strength they need to show. If it is military force you are thinking of, where will that come from? If it is some other sort of strength what do you have in mind, and how will the UN - an organisation made up of member states - deliver it?

to be honest, I have no idea. That's why I raised the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who would flee to Darfur? Why would Sudanese forces drive anyone to an area whose status is already contested?

Even if anyone had, why would they stay there rather than return to the independent state of South Sudan?

Not saying it has happened in Sudan, or anywhere really, but it has been alleged (largely by Greek Cypriots, I think) that Turkey shipped a load of its people to Cyprus in order to shift the demographics so that any future settlement would be skewed in their favour. It was also alleged that these 'forced migrants' were largely unwanted in Turkey anyway. So that could be a possible reason to drive some people to a disputed area. It would mean that, if a settlement is ever reached, there would be a large Sudanese population there and Darfur would be ceded to Sudan rather than, say, South Sudan or Chad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I know that but the obvious point is that black South Sudanese Christians would make Darfur less pro-Sudan not more. It makes sense to ship your people into contested areas but makes none to force the people you are fighting there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of Mali, apparently the UK is about to show its strength there ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mali, apparently, was one of the 22 countries in which British forces had not previously been active.

Oh dear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - June 2017

League Express - Mon 17th July 2017