The Student Room Group

Why don't we just ARREST the most evil war criminal on the planet

Scroll to see replies

Original post by I Persia I
I think the people of Sudan unanimously agree that George Clooney is a better actor than Sean Penn.

It's what the people of South Sudan fought their battle of Independence over, in fact. Clooney vs Penn.
Original post by No Man


I'm not sure of your point.. obviously it's not Saudi Arabia, but it's got as much as Norway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_proven_oil_reserves
Reply 42
Original post by sabre2th1
So he hates the Nuba people because they are Black even though the majority of them are Muslim (Wikipedia)?


Arab Ganjaweed are still wielding their sword of Jihad on Sudan. over 2 million people are estimated to have been killed in the Sudan Genocide.

Black Christians are targetted and black muslims too sometimes.
Original post by HoneyFlux
er, omar al bashir is not the best president in the world, but he definitley is not what the media depicts. The war between the north and the south was mainly because of the southerners. They had a different culture, different language, and lets face it Sudan was the biggest country in Africa [it could fit the 6 largest european countries into it!]. since sudan is so poor, its hard for the goverment to manage funding for the whole region, so they could only build step by step and help grow the capital city Khartoum first! ive been to khartoum, and its getting better, but needs SO much work, its unreal!. How can they help those who live so far away when they cant even help those outside their doorstep.

So obviously the rest of the people outside the capital felt neglected, and wanted to their own country, since they felt they had nothing in common with the north and werent looked after right. Omar Al bashir did not want a split!, he wanted a united Sudan, but the people have spoken. The northerners didnt mind, but preferred to stay united. And the southerners ALL wanted to separated, so much to everyones shock, Omar Al Bashir AGREED. Cause he knew he couldnt take care of them, and the differences were at large, so what was the point in forcing people to be under his law, if they didnt want it. Everyone in the north and South were happy with the decision. And still are. The whole oil thing is obviously a problem, but i really dont think this is Bashirs doing. This is just rebel armys who have nothing better to do than to go and kill and rape for the fun of it. There is no hidden agenda,. Both parties have signed contracts, and set strict rules. what you see going on in sudan is more of a Tribe vs. Tribe kinda fight for territory.

Dont believe the media hype. Just cause you saw a footage of george clooney in the nuba area with poor african kids running away from something, doesnt mean 'Omar Al Bashir' is behind all this. there are so many rebel groups, and who knows what they are fighting for. Fighting over that village which sits on the border is pointless, and doesnt mean either of them will get the oil. Cos the Oil was found by the northerners with their machines, and even though its in the South it needs to go through the North in order for them to outsource.

If we're going to go labelling people such as Bashir, and kony as war criminals, then Bush should be right up on that list too.


You've managed to miss out the decades of civil war in your summary there.. impressive.
Original post by talon1579
I'm not sure of your point.. obviously it's not Saudi Arabia, but it's got as much as Norway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_proven_oil_reserves


Oh, so Britain and America have been wasting all their time in the Middle-East when they could've just invaded Norway?

Granted it's not a LOT of oil, but I'm sure they'd put up a lot less resistance than terrorists and genocidal despots.

___________________________________________________________________

In all seriousness, however, if we arrested that one genocidal despot, we'd have to do the same for all the others, because the vast majority of them are almost as or just as bad. There are simply too many of them.

It's not pleasant that we sit idly by and do nothing when thousands are dying because of situations like this, but it's just not practical to go stomping in and arrest him. For one, nobody has the money. Also, the UN would bitch and moan their way out of sanctioning anything significant as they almost always do. Not to mention the fact that neither America nor Britain is in any shape for another war/liberation/synonym, which is probably how it would end up.
Reply 45
Original post by talon1579
You've managed to miss out the decades of civil war in your summary there.. impressive.


well i thought it was understood. the reason of the civil war was because of the difference in culture/religion/language etc...the reason it was going on for so long is because bashir did not want to have a split. But the south were getting restless..so they have been fighting. but let me tell u this...in the south and darfur...yes there are attacks or rape etc..and yes it is a mix of tribe men and or bashirs sudanese army. but bashir never orders to kill civilians, or rape them. when they do so, it is them as a group or individuals. as well as that sudans civil war was like 20-something years (if i can remember!?) when you are in khartoum, you dont see people shooting, its not a 'war zone' and never has been. they declared war, but the army is not established enough, there is no great organisational skills in the country to even carry out a war. it was a war filled with lazy reckless people. and it got the point, when both parts of sudan, realised how stupid and ridiculous it is to continue this 'war' since no one is getting any closer to what they want to achieve. thats why in the end they split 'peacefully'. i have been to sudan many times before, and i have never seen any sign of a war between the north and the south.
Original post by navarre


Al Bashir is a racist, xenophobic pshycopath- which would be fine in normal circumstances.




Pretty incriminating quote right here ha
Well guys, since you guys support the King of Bahrain, and the King of Saudi I think you should stop looking at other madmen and look at these guys first, who your governments suck up to for oil and various other benefits. You can't arrest one despicable tyrant and support another. That's retarded.
Reply 48
Original post by ShredMaster
Well guys, since you guys support the King of Bahrain, and the King of Saudi I think you should stop looking at other madmen and look at these guys first, who your governments suck up to for oil and various other benefits. You can't arrest one despicable tyrant and support another. That's retarded.


The Kings of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain aren't committing genocide. There's a big difference.
Reply 49
Original post by iwantsomemushu
we gotta get this guy first.



the guy from predator!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply 50
Original post by HoneyFlux
well i thought it was understood. the reason of the civil war was because of the difference in culture/religion/language etc...the reason it was going on for so long is because bashir did not want to have a split. But the south were getting restless..so they have been fighting. but let me tell u this...in the south and darfur...yes there are attacks or rape etc..and yes it is a mix of tribe men and or bashirs sudanese army. but bashir never orders to kill civilians, or rape them. when they do so, it is them as a group or individuals. as well as that sudans civil war was like 20-something years (if i can remember!?) when you are in khartoum, you dont see people shooting, its not a 'war zone' and never has been. they declared war, but the army is not established enough, there is no great organisational skills in the country to even carry out a war. it was a war filled with lazy reckless people. and it got the point, when both parts of sudan, realised how stupid and ridiculous it is to continue this 'war' since no one is getting any closer to what they want to achieve. thats why in the end they split 'peacefully'. i have been to sudan many times before, and i have never seen any sign of a war between the north and the south.


You have got to be joking me.

The reason why everything seems all nice and peaceful in Khartoum is because al-Bashir's forces are killing thousands in other parts of the country. As for al-Bashir never ordering the deaths of people, that is absolute nonsense- he's ordering a man made famine in the south, for pete sake. How is ordering a famine anything short of mass murder?
I was expecting "the most evil war criminal on the planet" to be Bush and others of his kind....
Because he's busy signing books in Waterstones.............. oh- not Tony Blair??
Original post by VeniViciVidi
Make a video called 'Bashir 2012'
Upload to youtube
????
Profit


You forgot "Run around wildly in the nude in public" after "????"
Original post by HoneyFlux
well i thought it was understood. the reason of the civil war was because of the difference in culture/religion/language etc...the reason it was going on for so long is because bashir did not want to have a split. But the south were getting restless..so they have been fighting. but let me tell u this...in the south and darfur...yes there are attacks or rape etc..and yes it is a mix of tribe men and or bashirs sudanese army. but bashir never orders to kill civilians, or rape them. when they do so, it is them as a group or individuals. as well as that sudans civil war was like 20-something years (if i can remember!?) when you are in khartoum, you dont see people shooting, its not a 'war zone' and never has been. they declared war, but the army is not established enough, there is no great organisational skills in the country to even carry out a war. it was a war filled with lazy reckless people. and it got the point, when both parts of sudan, realised how stupid and ridiculous it is to continue this 'war' since no one is getting any closer to what they want to achieve. thats why in the end they split 'peacefully'. i have been to sudan many times before, and i have never seen any sign of a war between the north and the south.


There's no war in Khartoum, that's capital hundreds of miles to the north of the war. So you saying this didn't happen? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sudanese_Civil_War. And to reudce the war to different in culture/religion is bull****, as a lot crosses the border - its not as simple as muslim arab north and christian black south, despite the media's best efforts. Look I'm not professing total expertise but I've been studying it at uni for the past year under a professor who's spent the past 3 years there and advises the foreign office on the situation.
Reply 55
Original post by talon1579
There's no war in Khartoum, that's capital hundreds of miles to the north of the war. So you saying this didn't happen? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sudanese_Civil_War. And to reudce the war to different in culture/religion is bull****, as a lot crosses the border - its not as simple as muslim arab north and christian black south, despite the media's best efforts. Look I'm not professing total expertise but I've been studying it at uni for the past year under a professor who's spent the past 3 years there and advises the foreign office on the situation.


no, im not denying that it didnt happen. of course it did. and yes it is as simple as 'arabs/muslims vs christians/africans'...that is basically why it started. the south wanted independence, and the north wanted to stay united. that was basically it. there was not enough resources or knowledge or the right people to know how to help those in the south to overcome their poverty. so years just drag on by with this 'war'...and as the articlee says, it is in the nuba areas where it has been most impacted. now that the north have given the south what they were supposedly fighting over for all these years...they cant let it go..and instead want everything. cos they realised now the south really have no hope at all, UNLESS they cooperate with the north (cos of the oil)...so even though the south think they've won, because they gained independence, in actual fact, its the north who have gained more. They now dont have the pressure anymore of having to take care of the south, but they can still get access to the oil [because it was the North who found it, with their money/machines/people etc]..and that was what was signed inthe contract, that the north gets most access to the oils, even if they are in the south. and now the south after the whole celebration of independency, they realised they got themselves a **** deal, and they want to try and get anything they can out of it. ie. rebels now going attacking villages/oil plantation areas on the borders which are geographically belonging to the north. Now the north will strive, with all the links they have with China and the arab states and what not. While now who is going to take care of south sudan?. no one. no one will make deals with south sudan either (not even for oil, cos all deals need to be made by the north, cos it gets outsourced in Port sudan, in the north). just sayin..
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 56
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't intervention abroad generally down to what benefits it creates for the intervening parties? Not solely for the interests of the people of a country. (Afghanistan - to prevent terror training camps and destroy poppy fields. Iraq - find *WMD's*, kill a dictator and get more control over oil).

Obviously some sort of U.N sanction should be put in place, but us or the Americans couldn't afford to just go sending people in there to sort out some more mess. Though I'm sure it would be going through some minds if there was some sort of benefit such actions would incur.
Original post by VeniViciVidi
Make a video called 'Bashir 2012'
Upload to youtube
????
Profit


He'll only end up spanking it in San Diego...
Original post by HoneyFlux
and yes it is as simple as 'arabs/muslims vs christians/africans'...that is basically why it started. the south wanted independence, and the north wanted to stay united. that was basically it.


It isn't. "Northern" Sudan is nearly 100% Muslim, but is only 30% black Africans, not Arabs. South Sudan's demographics are harder to pin down, but its no more than 20% Christian, with almost as many Muslims and the vast majority being of indigenous African religion.

Allow me to quote Professor Justin Willis of Durham University. If you have jstor access, go here http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/1581853, but i'll paste an excerpt here:

each of these books makes the
point that the country's long, and multiple, civil wars are not simply
the result of religious conflict. In doing so, they all draw on a wider
literature, developed over the last two decades, which has argued that
Sudan's conflicts are not between Muslim and Christian, and they do
not simply set north against south. Rather, these are the multiple manifestations
of a different divide-between those who occupy the physical
and political centre of the post-colonial state, and those who live
on its margins.Those at the centre-who have come to be routinely
characterised as 'the riverain Arab elite'-dominate the state and monopolise its resources; those who live on its margins-whether they are
westerners, southerners, non-Arabs or rural people generally-struggle
against chronic exclusion
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 59
Original post by talon1579
It isn't. "Northern" Sudan is nearly 100% Muslim, but is only 30% black Africans, not Arabs. South Sudan's demographics are harder to pin down, but its no more than 20% Christian, with almost as many Muslims and the vast majority being of indigenous African religion.

Allow me to quote Professor Justin Willis of Durham University. If you have jstor access, go here http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/1581853, but i'll paste an excerpt here:


what do you mean by 'black africans'...they are all black. and they are all africans. it doesnt matter if youre from the north or south. but a lot of the muslims say they are arabs first before they say they are africans. For instance, egypt is in Africa, but you dont get people telling Egyptians 'you are africans', although geographically speaking they are. The north arabs of sudan, felt they shouldnt be seen as 'africans' only because being arab has becoming a big way of their lives. the culture difference between the north and south, is EXTREME. However, there is no discrimination between christians or muslims. its more a way of life. And the 30% black africans you talk about, are from the south who come up to the north for a better job. You will never really here of Northern arabs going down to the south. And yes there are muslims in the south. but i said, they have their own languages, different dance, different food, different clothes, rituals etc the list goes on. The only thing thats been combining both parts was the fact that they were all sudanese. Al bashir, wanted an arab sudan. Not an African Sudan. if that makes sense. But you never see Muslim sudanese speaking ill of christians. its not just the one difference, its is everything.

Quick Reply

Latest