Surprise - UN Does Nothing Against Sudan Slaughter of Primitive Tribe

[jbg]

I just watched about the most gut-wrenching video I've ever seen. The Nubian Tribes, apparently Christian, live in the Nubian Mountains of Sudan. A news article (link to article) with incorporated video(link to video) details the atrocities. The government has been bombing to prevent the delivery of vaccines and medical supplies. The government has been randomly bombing and strafing the people so that they regularly flee into caves to avoid dismemberment.

Where are the U.N. reports? Where are the repetitive thread (Sample #1 Link) or (Sample #2 Link)?

Where's the outrage? Why is one left-wing, but thankfully balanced New York Times reporter the only one taking up the outcry? Worse, where's the U.N. on this? They're sending only a trickle of vaccines in since Sudan doesn't want these people vaccinated. This is ethnic cleansing and apartheid.

Edited July 13, 2015 by jbg

[Shady]

They only care when Jews do something.

[jbg]

They only care when Jews do something.

My own theory is that most anti-Zionism is re-labelled Jew-hatred.

[dre]

My own theory is that most anti-Zionism is re-labelled Jew-hatred.

Your theories are not worth piss in a wind storm.

[Bryan]

My own theory is that most anti-Zionism is re-labelled Jew-hatred.

Your theory is garbage.

[BubberMiley]

I like fast forward threads like these that don't waste any time getting to the point.

[jbg]

My own theory is that most anti-Zionism is re-labelled Jew-hatred.

Your theories are not worth piss in a wind storm.

Your theory is garbage.

I like fast forward threads like these that don't waste any time getting to the point.

I give up then. Why are atrocities that are objectively far worse than any of Israel's garner no outrage? If my theories are, to quote DRE "not worth piss in a wind storm" or to quote Bryan "garbage" what are your theories? And Bubber, what is a "fast forward thread"?

[Big Guy]

"For those who believe, no truth is necessary. For those who don't believe, no truth is acceptable"

There are posters on this board who believe that Zionists want to attach any reference of Israel to the Jews - You talk about Israel then you are talking about the Jews. You criticize Israeli policy or Israeli actions then you are criticizing Jews and are therefore Anti Semitic.

There are posters on this board who view Israel as a nation that is composed of a number of religions and cultures including the resident Palestinians. These posters criticize what the government of Israel policies and actions are. They see this as a legitimate criticism of any nation based on what it does.

I have watched the two sides argue here for the last two years without any change in attitude from either side.

So be it.

But after a while, the same argument followed by the same counter argument, by the same posters on both sides becomes a waste of reading time.

Why are you bothering?

[sharkman]

Because innocent people are being murdered, or does that not matter anymore? Unless they are blacks being abused by cops(whoops, make that WHITE cops) then the MSM doesn't care. Wait, are any of these Nubians gay? Maybe they could play up the gay angle to get coverage?

[BubberMiley]

It might not be so much that they don't care but that it's happening in an inaccessible place and so it has gone undetected. The MSM is not omnipotent and it has increasingly deteriorating supplies of money to do on-the-ground reporting when all the money is in news aggregating.

[Moonlight Graham]

Surprise - UN Does Nothing Against Sudan Slaughter of Primitive Tribe

What have they ever done recently to stop any actions by Israel?

Where are the U.N. reports?

Plenty of coverage on the UN website of this, go search it. As for "reports", I'd say it's difficult to do an investigation since it's a very difficult and dangerous place to access for UN fact-finding missions. But overall, the UN has been quite active in covering conflict in the Sudan/South Sudan regions. I'd also remind you that peace-keepers can only enter a country with the permission of said country. They're also peace-keepers, not peace-makers.

Where's the outrage? Why is one left-wing, but thankfully balanced New York Times reporter the only one taking up the outcry?

There's actually 2 reporters who wrote that article, and they aren't the only ones. But the reason these African conflicts get less coverage by media and less help from Western governments is because most of the continent is of little strategic political/economic importance to the West. The same reason why Israel is the #1 recipient of U.S. foreign aid money.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Moonlight Graham

[Argus]

Your theory is garbage.

Why so? I generally consider anyone who uses the term Zionist in a pejorative or accusatory fashion to be an anti-Semite.

[Bryan]

Why so? I generally consider anyone who uses the term Zionist in a pejorative or accusatory fashion to be an anti-Semite.

Then your general consideration is diametrically opposed to reality.

[Argus]

It might not be so much that they don't care but that it's happening in an inaccessible place and so it has gone undetected. The MSM is not omnipotent and it has increasingly deteriorating supplies of money to do on-the-ground reporting when all the money is in news aggregating.

I have posted before, my opinion that Israel is a favorite of the media largely because it's a free and safe society with five star hotels at the ready. Most of today's so-called journalists appreciate all the comforts of home, yet with this grotty, violence plagued place within easy driving distance. They're safe there, since the Palestinians have no interest in harming them, can get some nice bloody video, and be back at the hotel pool bar by lunch.

Going into the dangerous wilds of Sudan is something completely different. No air conditioning, no safety either from the government or anyone else, and you're not guaranteed attention anyway. Where's the ratings? Plus you don't have dozens of governments (the Islamic bloc) willfully pushing propaganda on how horrible Sudan is. Quite the contrary, in fact, since they're a fellow Muslim country, the Islamic bloc defends them.

[Argus]

Then your general consideration is diametrically opposed to reality.

I doubt it. You can find some of Israel's policies wrong headed or even stupid without delving into "Zionism". No, the people who use the term are not simply ordinary people who don't like Israel's current policies. Most of them are extreme ideologues and virulent anti-Semites.

[jbg]

It might not be so much that they don't care but that it's happening in an inaccessible place and so it has gone undetected. The MSM is not omnipotent and it has increasingly deteriorating supplies of money to do on-the-ground reporting when all the money is in news aggregating.

I get it. So the cameras are everywhere in Israel, which permits virtually unrestricted reporting. And MSM never troubles to mention that there are reports of atrocities elsewhere. Sounds good to me.

[BubberMiley]

And MSM never troubles to mention that there are reports of atrocities elsewhere. Sounds good to me.

You cited an article in the NY Times that mentioned it. That isn't the only article about it, but yeah, if a tree falls in the forest and if an atrocity happens in an inaccessible place behind rebel lines...

[Argus]

You cited an article in the NY Times that mentioned it. That isn't the only article about it, but yeah, if a tree falls in the forest and if an atrocity happens in an inaccessible place behind rebel lines...

I expect if the international media was able to get live pictures of the mass gang raping and sex slave sales of young girls by ISIS people like Trudeau and Mulcair might even feel something ought to be done about that...

[BubberMiley]

ISIS makes sure it gets press coverage by providing HD video of its atrocities. This is in the hopes of baiting foolish leaders into a quagmire that would eventually weaken the West.

[cybercoma]

My own theory is that most anti-Zionism is re-labelled Jew-hatred.

Some is, of course. However, there's many Israel supporters who condemn valid criticism of Israeli state decisions and policies as Jew-hatred, which is patently absurd.

[cybercoma]

I doubt it. You can find some of Israel's policies wrong headed or even stupid without delving into "Zionism". No, the people who use the term are not simply ordinary people who don't like Israel's current policies. Most of them are extreme ideologues and virulent anti-Semites.

Argus is right here though. Usually when someone is critical of state policies they don't need to use the word Zionism. Any time someone uses that word it raises a giant red flag about their motivations, imo.

[dre]

Where's the outrage? Why is one left-wing, but thankfully balanced New York Times reporter the only one taking up the outcry? Worse, where's the U.N. on this? They're sending only a trickle of vaccines in since Sudan doesn't want these people vaccinated. This is ethnic cleansing and apartheid.

This has been explained to you dozens of times. And each time you tuck tail and run for the hills... "ABANDON THREAD! ABANDON THREAD!". Then you bring up the same utterly retarded nonsense a few weeks later.

If you dont already know the answer to your question, then you are not even worth responding too.

[Moonlight Graham]

Why so? I generally consider anyone who uses the term Zionist in a pejorative or accusatory fashion to be an anti-Semite.

Being an anti-Zionist certainly doesn't mean you're necessarily an anti-Semite. There's Jews themselves who are anti-Zionists.

Now, as per jbg's theory, I'm sure there are some anti-semites who do cover their racism by using the term "anti-Zionism". But you can't invalidate the term "anti-Zionism" or its legitimate, non-racist sentiment just because a bunch of hateful ignorant dolts use it as a cover for their hate. You can't throw baseless accusations around and label someone an anti-semite simply because they are anti-Zionist, That's pure slander/libel and is as illegal as anti-semitism is, ironically.

[Hudson Jones]

Argus is right here though. Usually when someone is critical of state policies they don't need to use the word Zionism. Any time someone uses that word it raises a giant red flag about their motivations, imo.

I disagree because I use the word Zionism. To me, Zionism, like Wahabbism, is an ideology which is willing to do what it can in order to achieve its goal of domination. Their difference is that one is upfront about its willingness to trample all over human rights, while the other lies, twists and tries to deflect in order to cover for its atrocities. However, at the end, they both bring misery, destruction and death to others who they believe are not the same as them or play the according to their rules. They are ideologies that should be rejected as they're simply bad for humanity.

[jbg]

Some is, of course. However, there's many Israel supporters who condemn valid criticism of Israeli state decisions and policies as Jew-hatred, which is patently absurd.

Israel is subject to criticism. To the point is that critics of Israel's policies within Israel don't face death. Just try criticizing Khamememi (sp) in Iran, or Sudan's leadership in Sudan.