well, all of the major groups targeted in the Holocaust still exist, even Communists and Roma. Can’t say that about many Native American nations, or the Tasmanians, or some others.

35:
Well, okay — but why are you defining genocide as “an act of violence that TOTALLY wipes out a group of people”? That seems radical.
By that logic, too, the injustices in Darfur don’t consitute genocide either, since there are still SOME African Darfurians around.
My point — with which you seem to agree — was that the Holocaust and the atrocities in the Sudan might be comparable, but that it’s a little ridiculous to modify the Holocaust as an “attempted” ANYTHING, when compared to the smaller-scale destruction being waged in Darfur.

“Culture of life,” my ass.

jewbaka,
Ponder the gap between Republican Party rhetoric and the Bush administration’s relationship with Khartoum, and you’ll get it.

Mmm, Sudan and the Jews don’t really have a common antagonist. The government of Sudan is pretty much compliant in these massacres. Their enemies are the people of Darfur. The Janjaweed militia they are using to commit these heinous crimes is not the same as the various armies and paramilitary terror groups surrounding Israel. Yes, ethnically they are of Arabian descent and religiously do belong to Islam. However, that is where the similarity ends. They are not Middle Eastern, rather they have adopted many Sudanese traits into their cultural ways. Further, they do not belong to the same Arab tribal communities that exist in the areas surrounding Israel, such as Syria. Thus, they are ethnically Arab, religiously Muslim, yet culturally North African and pertaining to unique tribal communities.
Aside from lip-service anti-Israel rhetoric, I don’t think they think of Israel very much since they seem to be concerned at the moment with raping and pillaging Darfur. On the other hand, the peoples of Syria have long been concerned with the Israeli-Arab and Israeli-Palestinian axis as, aside from easily exploitable religious concerns, they make nifty detractions from the terrible conditions imposed by the dictatorial government system.
Israel then doesn’t really fit into this aspect of global-relations, and the merits of fighting for this cause should largely depend on your own perspectives of the various moral implications involved.
Not bashing on you, my man, you just have to be careful and choose with whom you wish to fight wisely.

That may be, although we would have to look at the record of government propaganda that use the term Zionist, the general population’s concept of Jews, the impact thereupon, the problems within government-populace interaction, and how promoted hatred detracts from these problems, as well as whether the hatred against the people of Darfur currently fills this position to be certain.
However, before you can equalize all things and include it within a pro-Israel context you must ask yourself:
1)How active has Sudan been in decrying Zionism and/or promoting antisemitism as of late, (say this year)
2)Is this more or less than those who pose an immediate strategic threat to Israel, say Syria
3)Are they more or less concerned with the Jews and Israel than the unfortunate people of Darfur upon whom their attention is now concentrated
4) Are they quite influential concerning Israel and do they have a great deal of leadership ‘credit’ to promote their ideas?
5) Are they deeply involved and active within the ALOIC or are they, like many members, merely there to pay lip-service to the dying ideological system that is Pan-Arabism, (like Morroco for instance)?
6) Given that Indonesia (and its infamous 2002 ‘Jew-hunts’ at the airport) is an active member of the ALOIC, and poses absolutely no threat to either Israel or the Jews depite many a cleric’s desire, and given that countries like Syria and Egypt, also active members of the ALOIC, are now gearing up for war against Israel and hence pose an immediate strategic threat, is the government of Sudan more like the former or the latter? If the latter, should we devote as much energy to Sudan as we do to these other countries?
If you can answer yes to all the above, then you can probably include Sudan within an Israeli activist system of thought. If not then you probably have to let the issue stand on its own merits. Lots of people hate us, consider France, and many want us destroyed, consider the AUT, but, although I’m not saying I have all the answers, I’m just saying that with limited resources whom we fight is almost as important as how we fight.

It is a flawed premise indeed, which is why I do not advocate it and am arguing to consider the issue of Sudan and the Arab Israeli conflict as two seperate issues and hence do not, as some have argued, have much of a common thread (i.e. the “common enemy” comment above).
I assert nothing other than the above, and am merely questioning just how obvious and integral a part of a multinational Arab establishment the government of Sudan really is, since this seems to be advocated by some as a strong reason for Jews to rally behind the people of Darfur as opposed to the many other, far more obvious, reasons such as documented group murder and rape. That is why I brought up those questions, as a means of guaging just how part of this Arab-Muslim establishment Sudan can be considered. I believe that, while considering itself Muslim, and definately majority Sudanese Arab, the government and peoples of Sudan do not concern themselves much with Israel or the Jews, unlike other Arab countries. While belonging to the ALOIC in name, they are not great contributers to UN dialogues. Instead, Sudan has a troubled history with its neighbours, including Egypt, and is largely inward facing, due to numerous civil wars and internal African-Arab and Arab-Arab tribal conflicts. A notable example is the 1983 civil war sparked, in large part, by the attempted institution of Sharia law over the entire country.
If you are advocating that the “common enemy” is the demonization of a people by an authoritarian regime for the benefit of political subterfuge, then I fully agree but would caution that the true reasons behind this, as with anything else, are likely far more complex than the information we are receiving via the media.
My strong beliefs in Zionism and the cultural viability of the Jewish people is not a part of this argument at all.

Axl I really wasn’t interested in the finer points of the origins or bloodlines of the Sudanese people. The intent of my grammatical nightmare of a comment was to try and draw attention to the big picture…. THe threat to all, especially the Jewish people from radical Islam it manifests itself in many forms and in many areas of the globe, and often have internal conflicts with each other, although almost completely united in their hatred of Israel AKA the JEwish People. We should stand united in our condemnation of such actions, and we should also stand united in our response (militarily) wherever/whatever form it takes shape in (e.g. Janjaweed, Hizballah, Hamas, Al Aquasam, etc). That is the only response they understand, as history has proven time and time again. I am curious as to how many of you would support outside military action in Sudan??? Or do most of you prefer instead to rally around (not that theirs anything wrong with that at all) and make cool signs with hip slogans to show your contempt for the Sudanese Govt (whoopdedoo)

DiGiTaL: “I am curious as to how many of you would support outside military action in Sudan??? Or do most of you prefer instead to rally around (not that theirs anything wrong with that at all) and make cool signs with hip slogans to show your contempt for the Sudanese Govt (whoopdedoo)”
Support who’s military action in Sudan? The US? Sorry, we’re busy with Afghanistan, Iraq, the Balkans and Korea. And please don’t fall into the stupid and lazy cartoon “cops’n’hippies” pseudohistorical bullshit. Speaking of the Balkans, where were you when Clinton and Blair took down Milosevic? Are you old enough to remember Trent Lott quoting “give peace a chance,” and Republican congressional delegations negotiating with Russia while American troops were engaged in Yugoslavia (and our British allies faced down Russian troops)? If anyone has been inconsistent regarding a wise and prudent use of the military in our time, it is your conservative heroes.
Meanwhile, back in the jungle, the African Union is supposed to be the outfit to support, according to President Bush. Of course, by now about the only kids our Commander in Chief even has left to deploy these days are his own. So, when are you signing up?

Be serious, please. Democrats voted in big numbers for the invasion of Iraq based on what no one even denies anymore as “fixing facts and intelligence around the policy.”*
On the other hand, we have Republican leadership on record setting standards for treasonous grandstanding while NATO kicked over Milosevic.**
How you manage to accuse Democrats of some sort of partisan hackery is historical revionism worthy of Ernst Zundel.
[Links to follow]

What about the Jewish-run Russian Revolution that killed tens of thousands of Christians. You clowns are in no position to feel sorry for yourselves! And to top that one off,–are in no position to be the judgemental police force of any crime or attrocity! See my comments on the Halocaust,–in your Halocaust section dated 5-17 and early morning 5-18-05.
If what you say is true about the mass executions in Sudan, I pray for the victims!
But in your cultures’ case,–you have been behind too much corruption and evil throughout the ages to be trusted and believed by anybody but your selfish selves!