A Lesson For The Save Darfur Movement
Justin Higgins — Mon, 2007-06-18 07:49
Upset liberals, Hollywood nobodies, and thousands of teenagers are banding together to support a common cause, stopping the genocide in Darfur. The honest truth is, hundreds of thousands are dying in a bloody war in the Sudan, and millions more are being displaced. Because of this reality, a movement has sprung from the grassroots here in the States pushing for the government to interfere in Darfur and end the genocide. I have to wonder though, if the movement would still exist if the idiots wearing the Save Darfur t-shirts actually knew what the conflict was about. Arab militiamen, a renegade government, displaced villagers, divided factions, and Islamic terrorist leaders? It's a lot more complicated than most of these self-described humanitarians know. I also doubt the feel-good activists know the truth about the organizations pushing for intervention in Darfur. I think the movement here in the U.S. needs to get educated, and save face for their idiocy. Allow me to explain...
Darfur is a region in Sudan, roughly 90% of the size of France, which is basically a large dry plateau with some mountains. Conflict has erupted between arab militiamen, allied with the Sudanese government, and several other arab organizations such as the Sudan Liberation Movement and the Equality and Justice Movement. Amongst those in the Save Darfur movement, the SLM and EJM are considered the good guys, and the arab militiamen, known as the Janjaweed, are considered the bad guys. During their fighting, hundreds of thousands of innocent people have died, many at the hands of the Janjaweed, and millions have been displaced. That's the short version, and the version many are being sold on.
The first thing you need to know is who is selling the watered down and factually inaccurate version of what's happening in Darfur. Let me introduce you to the group leading the charge, Amnesty International. 
The folks at Amnesty run the Save Darfur campaign, along with other politically-motivated campaigns, like their running campaigns to shut down Gitmo, destroy 2nd amendment rights, and defend abortion access. A key thing to remember here is that groups like Amnesty International never operate without a political agenda. Darfur is all about being a pet cause for people that want to look like they care for the oppressed without caring about those oppressed by terrorist violence in places like Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. Amnesty can be tied directly to the International Action Center, a group founded by Communists and Socialists. Also, don't forget the new vanguards of the Left, like Code Pink and the ACLU. Amnesty International is pushing the agenda on Darfur, but what's really happening on the ground?
I sampled some discussion on some Save Darfur sites, and one comment from the Save Darfur myspace group popped out at me. The question posed in the group was actually, "What would you would do if you were President, in regards to Darfur and Iraq?" A majority of the posters are obviously anti-war, and Amnesty International's sham agenda of Saving Darfur for the sake of surrending in Iraq is apparently taking hold. This comment was actually from one of the few that supports action in both Darfur AND Iraq however. He is one of many that thinks the Janjaweed are the bad guys, and need taken out:
I'm not going to argue that the Janjaweed aren't a bad group of people. They're responsible for most of the killing, and they're Sunni radicals that actually border on being Shi'ite, according to a Wikipedia explanation. The question is, does that immediately make the other side better? One of the main groups on the other side is the Justice and Equality Movement, which has ties to a man named Hassan al-Turabi, who denies supporting the group but isn't a big fan of the Sudanese government, and has been public in the entire conflict. What's the big deal about al-Turabi?
Dr. Hassan 'Abd Allah al-Turabi (الدكتور حسن عبد الله الترابي in Arabic), is a religious and political leader in Sudan, who may have been instrumental in institutionalizing sharia in the northern part of the country.
Al-Turabi was influential in the massacre of Christians in the southern portion of Sudan in the past, and apparently he's now allied with the JEM and the other groups fighting against the Janjaweed. This is a muslim on muslim conflict with the only unfortunate bystanders being the Christians left in the Sudan. Why is it better that these groups fight each other than work together?
"Turabi sought to persuade Shiites and Sunnis to put aside their divisions and join against the common enemy. In late 1991 or 1992, discussions in Sudan between al Qaeda and Iranian operatives led to an informal agreement to cooperate in providing support-even if only training-for actions carried out primarily against Israel and the United States. Not long afterward, senior al Qaeda operatives and trainers traveled to Iran to receive training in explosives." -- 9/11 Commission Report, Chapter 2
I'm pretty sure that we have a vested interest in letting this man get involved and hopefully die in the conflict, and we also have a vested interest in letting the Janjaweed militia get slaughtered. I understand that a lot of these Save Darfur idiots want us to help those in the crossfire, but our soldiers in the crossfire might just be the thing to unite these radical muslim groups and give them a common enemy. That's the last thing we want. Sudan is a long ways away from being a terrorist training ground, because of the conflict, whereas Iraq is a heartbeat away from being a sanctuary state for terrorists, should we fail. Understand the defeatist Amnesty sub-plot yet?
If we were involved in fighting Islamofascism in Sudan, which is basically what both sides are espousing, 
I have no doubt that groups like Amnesty would be crying about our involvement. The only thing we could be doing in Darfur that would help us, would be carpet bombing both sides of the conflict. For those of you that think that's an effective solution, you obviously don't know the definition of collateral damage. There would be even more civilian deaths if we got involved. To answer the question about whether Iraq or Darfur is more important, it has to be Iraq, especially now that we're there and we've put American lives on the line. It comes down to this; The key question in deciding which conflicts the United States should get involved in is "What Do We Have to Lose?" In Darfur? A sore heart for those suffering. In Iraq? The end of an era of American military supremacy, a loss in the early stages of the War on Terrorism, and potentially a training ground for people wanting us dead. Iraq means more than Darfur.
- Justin Higgins's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Now it's "screw peacekeeping" -- Justin's original claim!
meatbra.i.n — Sun, 2007-06-24 07:47Justin Higgins has deleted this comment twice already, because he is afraid to answer the questions it asks.
"Screw peacekeeping, Darfur is a WAR and I linked wars."
And what was your claim?
"We make up almost all of UN and NATO peacekeeping forces..."
How many troops are currently serving in UN peacekeeping forces, Justin?
How many of those are US troops?
Another comment from Justin, another transparent lie
mea.tbrain — Fri, 2007-06-22 20:40"Nice job completely ignoring the evidence I linked to which shows that U.S. troops make up a majority of UN combat operations..."
You presented no such evidence, Justin.
You linked to three articles that show that there are US troops on peacekeeping missions. NOT ONE ARTICLE you have presented presents anything like a complete census of all current peacekeeping troops that have been deployed, and the percentage of those that are US troops. If you want to support your claim that "almost all" of the peacekeeping troops are US troops, nothing less is needed.
Your arguments are built on bald assertions -- no facts. Your lies are laughably easy to expose.
Nice job
Justin Higgins — Fri, 2007-06-22 19:39...completely ignoring the evidence I linked to which shows that U.S. troops make up a majority of UN combat operations, and instead focusing on the fact that I said something was irrelevent. I did back up my claim, and you're arguing semantics like your shit-for-brains head is good at.
It's over
mea.tbrain — Fri, 2007-06-22 19:08"That claim is completely irrelevent to whether or not Amnesty wants U.S. troops in the crossfire..."
And with that one statement, Justin pulls the rug out from under his argument.
Recapping
m.eatbrain — Thu, 2007-06-21 20:16Okay, boys and girls, let's summarize. Things are getting awful messy down below.
Here's the discussion so far, in a nutshell:
[1] Amnesty International advocates sending UN peacekeepers to Darfur. No one disputes this.
[2] Justin Higgins says that what AI really means is that they want US troops in Darfur.
Despite having had several days to do so, Justin Higgins has yet to provide any citation of a statement from Amnesty International that supports this claim.
[3] Justin Higgins was challenged to provide factual support for claim [2]. Instead of a statement from Amnesty International, Justin responded with a new claim: that US troops "make up almost all of UN and NATO peacekeeping forces". Justin's argument here is apparently that since "UN troops" (allegedly) equal "US troops", AI actually and specifically advocates sending US troops to Darfur. At this point in the discussion, the only support Justin has offered for his original claim (see [2] above) is this new claim.
[4] Upon being challenged to provide factual support for claim [3], Justin Higgins declares it "completely irrelevent to whether or not Amnesty wants U.S. troops in the crossfire". So claim [3] is out of the picture, by fiat of its creator.
What does that leave as support for claim [2]?
Absolutely nothing.
That claim...
Justin Higgins — Wed, 2007-06-20 22:31...is completely irrelevent to whether or not Amnesty wants U.S. troops in the crossfire, and as I showed, when WARS broke out, like Korea and the Gulf War, we do send nearly all the troops. Sudan is a WAR. Stop arguing semantics.
Focus, Justin
meatbra.in — Wed, 2007-06-20 22:30"We send troops in U.N. missions."
NO! Really?
Judas Priest on a pogo stick, Justin, START FRAKKIN' PAYING ATTENTION!
No one here has ever argued that the US does not send troops on U.N. missions. Not. One. Person.
Your claim is that US troops "make up almost all of UN and NATO peacekeeping forces". You present no evidence for your claim that US troops "make up almost all of UN and NATO peacekeeping forces". None. You apparently don't even understand that this is a claim that you've made, and that you've been challenged to support it with facts.
One troop...
Justin Higgins — Wed, 2007-06-20 22:23One U.S. troop they're requesting is putting one in harm's way in an unnecessary conflict, and the one they sent mentions sending U.N. troops. I already showed you NATO stats, I can bring up U.N. numbers too...
Contributions, Year 2000
So if you look, month by month, we're behind, but when COMBAT happens...
Korea
Gulf War
We send troops in U.N. missions. It happens.
Still not reading for comprehension
meatbra.in — Wed, 2007-06-20 22:14The page socket linked to contains not one sliver of fact that supports your assertion that that US troops "make up almost all of UN and NATO peacekeeping forces". Got any other asinine claims, Justin?
He linked...
Justin Higgins — Wed, 2007-06-20 22:08He linked this article calling for UN troops, and specifically lists the UN charter countries. Shall I pull up showing how involved we were in Korea and other UN activities too?
Huh?
meatbra.in — Wed, 2007-06-20 22:03You believe that socket did what, exactly?
I believe...
Justin Higgins — Wed, 2007-06-20 21:55socket did that already. I do pay attention and assume you do too.
Well, well, well
meatbra.in — Wed, 2007-06-20 21:53So you do know how to find facts when challenged, Justin. Amazing. Of course, you made the claim first, and only after being challenged did you bother to find any facts at all.
And let's note carefully also: You claimed that US troops "make up almost all of UN and NATO peacekeeping forces". Are you claiming that these three citations provide a complete census of all UN and NATO peacekeeping forces worldwide, and provide a complete accounting of all US troops currently participating in UN and NATO peacekeeping missions? Nothing short of complete data can provide support for your "almost all" claim.
By the way: You still have yet to provide a single sentence from Amnesty International that backs up your claim that they have specifically advocated the sending of US troops to Darfur. Where is that pesky evidence, anyway?
A Few Examples...
Justin Higgins — Wed, 2007-06-20 21:37Bah, you've made me go dig up things that most people know (common knowledge). Some examples of U.S. making up a big chunk of NATO forces...
Kosovo Force
Afghanistan
And we're even involved in Africa
It! Must! Be! So!
meatbra.in — Wed, 2007-06-20 21:11Ah. Another brilliant argument, predicated solely on the principle of Because! Justin! Says! So!
All you've done, Justin, is try to support one fact-free claim with another fact-free claim. Why should anyone assume that US troops make up almost all of UN and NATO peacekeeping forces, as you have claimed? If it's such common knowledge, it should be a simple matter to find and provide supporting data.
But you can't do that, can you, Justin? You don't even know where to start.
Any Idiot...
Justin Higgins — Wed, 2007-06-20 20:44...knows that UN and NATO forces are comprised of American soldiers, as part of the contingent, most of the time. It's assumed.
My Bad Comprehension
socketplug — Wed, 2007-06-20 19:21I stand corrected. Yes you seem to be correct. Amnesty International is calling for a UN or NATO peacekeeping force, but the troops could be from any country or countries.
Justin: please provide evidence or retract or qualify the claim.
Read for comprehension
meatbra.in — Wed, 2007-06-20 19:11Neither Cao nor Justin have provided anything that substantiates Justin's original claim: that Amnesty International specifically advocates sending US troops to Darfur as part of a UN or NATO peacekeeping force.
Argh Meanbrain!
socketplug — Wed, 2007-06-20 19:03Okay, so Justin himself hasn't provided the link but Cao quoted it and I found the actual article that says (under the heading "Join Us"), "All are welcome to join us on Sunday 17 September 2006 as we call for the immediate deployment of a strong UN peacekeeping force to protect civilians in Darfur".
Is this not enough? Are you trying to make the specific point that Justin asserts things without substantiating them? Okay, point well taken. Can we end this topic and move on to something else like his statement that "[Republicans] want to protect social security and secure benefits for future generations"?
Keep lying, Justin
meatbra.in — Wed, 2007-06-20 17:43False.
You have yet to provide a single sentence from Amnesty International that backs up your claim. Are you able to provide substantiating evidence, or not?
This question...
Justin Higgins — Wed, 2007-06-20 17:29...has already been answered.
Still waiting for substantiation
meatbra.in — Wed, 2007-06-20 17:27Justin:
Two days ago you stated that Amnesty International specifically advocates sending US troops to Darfur as part of a UN or NATO peacekeeping force.
You have yet to provide any factual evidence that would substantiate this claim. Are you able to provide this evidence, or not?
Re: Wrong claim
socketplug — Wed, 2007-06-20 07:15Ah, I see your point. Then why the heck am I doing Cao's work?! ;)
Wrong claim
meatbra.in — Wed, 2007-06-20 05:01No apologies necessary. I had no doubt that the article existed. Cao simply didn't link to that article.
I haven't said that there's anything wrong with sending troops to Darfur. I haven't said there's anything right with the idea, either. What I've said is that Justin has not provided factual support for his specific claim: that Amnesty International specifically advocates that the US "send troops as part of a UN or NATO peacekeeping force" to Darfur.
Citing calls from Amnesty International to send UN peacekeeping troops doesn't support this claim. It simply reveals that neither Justin nor Cao understand that if they intend to provide evidence for a claim, they have to provide evidence for that claim, not some other claim that isn't in dispute.
Sorry
socketplug — Tue, 2007-06-19 22:31Sorry Meanbrain, I hate to do this to you, but I found the actual article Cao (I was a little ticked at first because I thought Cao was lying) should have posted using the following Google search 'amnesty "Global Day for Darfur" "UN to protect civilians"' (phrases found in the original quote).
But I have to ask this (and my apologies for not really following the Darfur situation or the debate between Justin and Meanbrain that closely): what is wrong with sending in US (and other countries') troops as part of a UN mission to help protect civilians?
Stay on topic, please
meatbra.in — Tue, 2007-06-19 21:56The New York Magazine article that Cao linked to has nothing to do with Darfur. It's about her Jack Idema fetish. Was she was saying something about "fallacious arguments"? Maybe she should do something about that beam in her own eye before she starts sniping about the mote in somebody else's...
The quote she provided -- wherever it came from -- says nothing about sending US troops to Darfur. That was Justin's claim... and thus far, he hasn't provided a sliver of evidence for it.
And I said this where?
meatbra.in — Tue, 2007-06-19 21:47"I'd like to know where the meatybrained idea comes from that Amnesty International is not calling for UN peacekeeping forces."
I'd like to know where Cao saw me state that Amnesty International is not calling for UN peacekeeping forces. Point out where I said that, Cao.
What we are discussing is Justin Higgin's assertion that Amnesty International wants US troops in Darfur. So far, he hasn't been able to supply a single shred of evidence to support that claim.
We call for immediate deployment of a strong peacekeeping force
caoilfhionn (not verified) — Tue, 2007-06-19 20:56Join us
All are welcome to join us on Sunday 17 September 2006 as we call for the immediate deployment of a strong UN peacekeeping force to protect civilians in Darfur.
That's what Amnesty International said, meaty, on their own website, and since you're so clueless, I even provided a link for your lazy ass. Now if you can prove that they didn't say, it please share that with us, I'd like to know where the meatybrained idea comes from that Amnesty International is not calling for UN peacekeeping forces.
I thought the post was brilliant, I don't fantasize about brains
caoilfhionn (not verified) — Tue, 2007-06-19 20:52Why do they have to state it for it to be true, meaty? Why is it that people have to abide by your rules and do as you say, meaty? Gee, you are the most totalitarian of commenters I've ever seen.
Not to mention the most idiotic. Your fallacious arguments and your semantic nit picking doesn't take away from the fact that Amnesty International doesn't give a damn about terrorists and is more interested in US PEACEKEEPERS NOW
I think that pretty much says it about Amnesty International's pushing for peacekeepers in Darfur.
Surely Ogre will have the answer
meatbra.in — Tue, 2007-06-19 16:54Actually, Ogre, the fact is that Justin has made a claim for which he has yet to produce a single shred of evidence. He seems stumped by this simple task. Perhaps you can lend him a hand.
Where, exactly, does Amnesty International (repeat, Amnesty International) state that they want the US to send troops as part of a UN or NATO peacekeeping force?
What Justin said
meatbra.in — Tue, 2007-06-19 16:52"Weather it is AI or SD, they are calling for the U.S. to either send in or convince others to send in peacekeepers."
That wasn't Justin's claim, now was it?
"Are there any actuall disagreements with Justin's position on this issue, or are you all participating in baseless hissy-fits?"
I do disagree with Justin's position. His position is that he can make things up out of thin air, post them as facts, and expect to be believed. I'm here to help Justin understand how the real world works.
Meatbrain & "facts"
Ogre (not verified) — Tue, 2007-06-19 07:41Keep in mind when talking with meatbrain that when he uses the word "facts," what he really means has nothing to do with the currently reality in which you and I live. Instead, he has constructed a completely alternate reality inside his brain. You have no way of knowing what exists in that reality except when he tells you. And anything he tells you is absolute and completely truth -- to him, but seldom to anyone else on the planet. Trust me, you're wasting your time even talking to this person because they honestly do not comprehend anything related to reality.
Twinkletoes dances on
meatbra.in — Mon, 2007-06-18 22:14"We Make Up almost all of UN and NATO peacekeeping forces..."
My, my, you are just full of unsupported claims tonight, bubba. Where do we find the figures on the troops that constitute UN and NATO peacekeeping forces, so that we may check this assertion against reality?
"...and even when don't (in certain operations), we fund a majority of them."
Your original claim was that Amnesty International stated that they want the US to send troops as part of a UN or NATO peacekeeping force. You said nothing about funding. But since you can't produce evidence for the first claim, it's time to start churning out new ones. You dance divinely, Justin.
"By defending Amnesty and Save Darfur, which are under the same flagship, you're defending a lax view on terrorism."
Remember kids... when you ask Justin to produce evidence for his claims, you're really "defending a lax view on terrorism". NEVER ASK JUSTIN ANY QUESTIONS! IT'S UNPATRIOTIC! (cue "God Bless America"...)
You claimed they were one and the same organization, Justin. Which is it? Same organization, or just "same flagship" (whatever that means)? And you haven't yet produced any evidence at all that Amnesty International (repeat, Amnesty International) has stated that they want the US to send troops as part of a UN or NATO peacekeeping force.
"This is my site, I don't evade shit..."
The facts demonstrate that you do. Where, exactly, does Amnesty International (repeat, Amnesty International) state that they want the US to send troops as part of a UN or NATO peacekeeping force?
"...and if you don't answer my questions, your comments will all hit the trash bin here where they belong."
You haven't asked me a single question in this thread, Justin. Ask me one now. I'll answer it.
And you know that I mirror this page every time I post a comment, don't you? Every time you delete a comment, I get another piece of evidence that you are unwilling to discuss your assertions. And I will happily publish that evidence.
"This is MY domain, get out, unless you're willing to take the heat for your idiocy and semantics-arguing."
Thanks, but no. I'll stay. Your dance moves are quite entertaining.
Amnesty International
Big Dog (not verified) — Mon, 2007-06-18 22:00Is that what Bush and the idiots in Congress are called by all the Mexicans who are illegally entering this country?
That is my new name for Congress, Amnesty International.
Mexico will not have an Olympic team in the next games. Any Mexican who can run, jump, or swim is in the US.
-
Matt-A (not verified) — Mon, 2007-06-18 21:55You people are worrying too much about irrelevent details. Weather it is AI or SD, they are calling for the U.S. to either send in or convince others to send in peacekeepers. Are there any actuall disagreements with Justin's position on this issue, or are you all participating in baseless hissy-fits?
We Make Up...
Justin Higgins — Mon, 2007-06-18 21:42...almost all of UN and NATO peacekeeping forces, and even when don't (in certain operations), we fund a majority of them. By defending Amnesty and Save Darfur, which are under the same flagship, you're defending a lax view on terrorism. This is my site, I don't evade shit, and if you don't answer my questions, your comments will all hit the trash bin here where they belong. This is MY domain, get out, unless you're willing to take the heat for your idiocy and semantics-arguing.
Amnesty international is
Sonnabend (not verified) — Mon, 2007-06-18 21:41Amnesty international is part of the problem, not part of the solution.AI doesnt have to ask...its a given.
Now piss off back to your own little blog, meatybites.
Translation
meatbra.in — Mon, 2007-06-18 21:32Let's be clear about this, Justin: You are going to continue to deliberately and dishonestly conflate Amnesty International and Save Darfur, pretending that they are one organization when in fact they are two separate organizations. You are also going to continue to deliberately and dishonestly ignore the actions that Amnesty International itself has urged to halt the crisis in Darfur.
And of course, you evaded the question: Where, exactly, does Amnesty International (repeat, Amnesty International) state that they want the US to send troops as part of a UN or NATO peacekeeping force?
I'm going...
Justin Higgins — Mon, 2007-06-18 20:59...to continue undistinguishing Amnesty and their child organization Safe Darfur.
Now for the hard part...
meatbra.in — Mon, 2007-06-18 20:38And where, exactly, does Amnesty International (repeat, Amnesty International) state that this is what they want the US to do?
I had written the qouted
Anonymous (not verified) — Mon, 2007-06-18 20:04I had written the qouted comment on myspace without proper information on the subject. Yes I do support intervention in Darfur but, I also support intervention in all genocides, as our leaders after World War II had sworn for a genocide to happen again. As per al Turabi and his supporters (not civillian) they should be captured or killed, not negotiated with.
In our war on terrorism and in Iraq we should stop fighting like pussies and get agrresive.
Send troops..
Justin Higgins — Mon, 2007-06-18 19:55..as part of a UN or NATO peacekeeping force, effectively putting troops needlessly in harm's way.
Clarify, please
meat.brain — Mon, 2007-06-18 19:33What, exactly, are you claiming that Amnesty International advocates that the US do in Darfur?