As with the Zionist Right generally, he makes the mistake of racializing the Sudan problems, using anti-Semitic language accusing "Arabs" of killing thousands of "black Africans."

But the "Arabs" of the Sudan are black (some are brown or lighter shades of black, but not by any means all, and anyway so are e.g. Eritreans just to the south). The Sudanese "Arabs" just speak Arabic or identify with the Arabs. It isn't a matter of US-style race, which is based on color. Moreover, the people of Darfur are Muslims and many know Arabic. So the massacres in Darfur are not about "Arabs" versus "black Africans." They are between two groups of Muslim black Africans.

He shows pictures of two Sudanese and defies «anyone to tell me which is the "black African" and which the "Arab" Janjawid in these pictures.»

No, I actually said what I meant to say. The following is just an outline. I don't think it's necessary to go into enormous detail about Sudan and it's history, problems and ethnic and social complexity, but I'm going to give an outline, so please forgive me if it's a bit superficial. If any of you are really interested, go and read some stuff about Sudan!

First, I am not denying that violence, ethinic strife, something close to civil war and massacres have occured in and are occuring in Sudan. It's the scale and nature of the violence that concerns me. I don't believe there is strong evidence of 'genocide' in Sudan.

I know what the word 'genocide' means. What concerns me, is that it's being misused here, and I don't believe this helps the situation at all. I think we in the West increasingly misuse the word to bran regimes we do not approve of as 'outlaws.' I remember before we started bombing Serbia and Kosovo, I heard the word used a lot to debcribe the fighting. Supposedly, hundreds of thousands of Albanians were 'missing' presumed dead, and the Serbs were accused of genocide, and their soldiers were Nazis and Milosovic was this year's Hitler. This was nearly all propaganda used to justify bombing Serbia. This pattern repeats itself over and over again in relation to our enemies. There was no 'genocide' in Kosovo. This has been documented. There were no massacres. More people were killed in Serbia by the NATO bombing campaign than in Kosovo. It was the whole WMD story all over again. I know this is a controversial area, as 'history' has already been established, but that doesn't make it 'true.'

Saddam was also called Hitler and Iraq was supposed to be full of mass graves, like the weapons of mass detruction, they were never actually found. Sure one found what appeared to be war graves with dead Iranian soldiers, but not the mass graves we were told about. It was war propaganda.

I'll give rough definition of the term 'genocide.' The systematic and centrally co-ordinated, racial motivated, attempt by one ethnic group to irradicate, wipe out, or actually exterminate another ethnic group. Thankfully, this doesn't actually happen very often.

Even the mass killings in Rwanda, may not really be definable as 'genocide' because it's debatable whether these ethnic differences really have a proper foundation in Rwanda. Supposedly during the colonial period the Belgians casually devided people into two groups, based on their relative heights!

I'm not sure how much I really want to get into this kind of argument about what's happening in Sudan and whether or not 'genocide' is actually taking place or not. I think what's happening there is bad enough. I just don't think it qulifies as 'genocide.' Why can't we keep the word genocide for genocide. I think the word loses value if we use it to describe ethnic violence which isn't really genocide. If we accept this broad definition of 'genocide' then I think one can argue with equal force that the United States has been guilty of 'genocide' in Iraq, indeed some people do argue this and forcefully.

What you write about 'Arabs killing Blacks' is also very problematic in relation to Sudan. But it serves another purpose entirely. I'm not really sure if your aware of this though. Maybe your just pissed at me for some reason?

I have real problems with this whole 'race' question. I think it's a very dangerous and questionable and controversial area. For example, 'everyone' in Sudan is 'Black'. There is only one 'racial group in Sudan and their all 'Black'. The term 'Arab' is also interesting. Are there really 'Arabs' in Sudan? There are Muslims who are 'Black' and 'Blacks' who are Christians and 'Blacks' who worship nature, so what? How relevant are these social divisons in reality? It gives the impression that the 'Arabs' are killing the 'Blacks' because they are 'Black' and that the socalled 'Arabs' are rascists, and therefore genocide is taking place. This 'loose' use of terminology is tendentious. It's a form of spin. You, Don, or I, wouldn't be able to see the difference between the main ethnic groups in Sudan.

The situation in Sudan is more complex than we learn from most Western media. The 'problem' with Sudan is not the killing. In the Congo somewhere around two to three million people have been killed during the last five or six years, and we hear very little about this far bigger civil war. The 'problem' with Sudan is their oil, they may have a lot of it, the Chinese are there and we are not, and it's country with a Muslim regime which is anti-western.

I know this sounds cynical and sceptical. I think given the documented history of Western 'humanitarian interventions' we should be very sceptical of everything we hear about foreign countries who've got a bit of oil and who aren't in our pockets. Just start from the premise that most of what one hears is over-simplified and grossly distorted propaganda. Then one can very slowly let oneself be convinced by cogent arguments and documentation. I think cynicism and scepticism are reasonable attitudes to adopt. Lying, double-standards, and hypocracy are about par for the course in our part of the world.

No, I actually said what I meant to say. The following is just an outline. I don't think it's necessary to go into enormous detail about Sudan and it's history, problems and ethnic and social complexity, but I'm going to give an outline, so please forgive me if it's a bit superficial. If any of you are really interested, go and read some stuff about Sudan!

First, I am not denying that violence, ethinic strife, something close to civil war and massacres have occured in and are occuring in Sudan. It's the scale and nature of the violence that concerns me. I don't believe there is strong evidence of 'genocide' in Sudan.

I know what the word 'genocide' means. What concerns me, is that it's being misused here, and I don't believe this helps the situation at all. I think we in the West increasingly misuse the word to bran regimes we do not approve of as 'outlaws.' I remember before we started bombing Serbia and Kosovo, I heard the word used a lot to debcribe the fighting. Supposedly, hundreds of thousands of Albanians were 'missing' presumed dead, and the Serbs were accused of genocide, and their soldiers were Nazis and Milosovic was this year's Hitler. This was nearly all propaganda used to justify bombing Serbia. This pattern repeats itself over and over again in relation to our enemies. There was no 'genocide' in Kosovo. This has been documented. There were no massacres. More people were killed in Serbia by the NATO bombing campaign than in Kosovo. It was the whole WMD story all over again. I know this is a controversial area, as 'history' has already been established, but that doesn't make it 'true.'

Saddam was also called Hitler and Iraq was supposed to be full of mass graves, like the weapons of mass detruction, they were never actually found. Sure one found what appeared to be war graves with dead Iranian soldiers, but not the mass graves we were told about. It was war propaganda.

I'll give rough definition of the term 'genocide.' The systematic and centrally co-ordinated, racial motivated, attempt by one ethnic group to irradicate, wipe out, or actually exterminate another ethnic group. Thankfully, this doesn't actually happen very often.

Even the mass killings in Rwanda, may not really be definable as 'genocide' because it's debatable whether these ethnic differences really have a proper foundation in Rwanda. Supposedly during the colonial period the Belgians casually devided people into two groups, based on their relative heights!

I'm not sure how much I really want to get into this kind of argument about what's happening in Sudan and whether or not 'genocide' is actually taking place or not. I think what's happening there is bad enough. I just don't think it qulifies as 'genocide.' Why can't we keep the word genocide for genocide. I think the word loses value if we use it to describe ethnic violence which isn't really genocide. If we accept this broad definition of 'genocide' then I think one can argue with equal force that the United States has been guilty of 'genocide' in Iraq, indeed some people do argue this and forcefully.

What you write about 'Arabs killing Blacks' is also very problematic in relation to Sudan. But it serves another purpose entirely. I'm not really sure if your aware of this though. Maybe your just pissed at me for some reason?

I have real problems with this whole 'race' question. I think it's a very dangerous and questionable and controversial area. For example, 'everyone' in Sudan is 'Black'. There is only one 'racial group in Sudan and their all 'Black'. The term 'Arab' is also interesting. Are there really 'Arabs' in Sudan? There are Muslims who are 'Black' and 'Blacks' who are Christians and 'Blacks' who worship nature, so what? How relevant are these social divisons in reality? It gives the impression that the 'Arabs' are killing the 'Blacks' because they are 'Black' and that the socalled 'Arabs' are rascists, and therefore genocide is taking place. This 'loose' use of terminology is tendentious. It's a form of spin. You, Don, or I, wouldn't be able to see the difference between the main ethnic groups in Sudan.

The situation in Sudan is more complex than we learn from most Western media. The 'problem' with Sudan is not the killing. In the Congo somewhere around two to three million people have been killed during the last five or six years, and we hear very little about this far bigger civil war. The 'problem' with Sudan is their oil, they may have a lot of it, the Chinese are there and we are not, and it's country with a Muslim regime which is anti-western.

I know this sounds cynical and sceptical. I think given the documented history of Western 'humanitarian interventions' we should be very sceptical of everything we hear about foreign countries who've got a bit of oil and who aren't in our pockets. Just start from the premise that most of what one hears is over-simplified and grossly distorted propaganda. Then one can very slowly let oneself be convinced by cogent arguments and documentation. I think cynicism and scepticism are reasonable attitudes to adopt. Lying, double-standards, and hypocracy are about par for the course in our part of the world.