Comments | ontd_political: The False Darfur 'Genocide' Numbers

idiocr4cy in ontd_political

The False Darfur 'Genocide' Numbers

Apr 01, 2009 22:54

Headlined In Defense of Genocide the neoconned WaPo editors condemn the Arab league for hosting Sudan's President Bashir while at the same time accusing Israel of war-crimes. The polemic includes this sentence:
T]he United Nations has reported more than 300,000 civilian deaths in Darfur as a result of the genocidal campaign sponsored by Mr. ( Read more... )

genocide, war, darfur

Comments 14

Stats yay! mr_spivens April 1 2009, 22:44:41 UTC

Unfortunately I have a meeting from 4-6, but I'm going to take a look at this when I get back. I only skimmed it very briefly, so I'm not sure if the author is making an interesting point or failing to grasp basic statistics.

bord_du_rasoir April 1 2009, 23:41:34 UTC

neoconned WaPo editors...
??? WaPo, as in The Washington Post? That newspaper is not neoconservative.

...accusing Israel of war-crimes
This is not a neoconservative position.

*checks source*

moonofalabama.org

Yeah, I'm not reading further.

idiocr4cy April 1 2009, 23:45:51 UTC

Who cares about where it comes from. Look at the links cited from the piece. They are from credible organizations.

As for the washintgon post neocon claim, read this: http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2004/08/04/washington_post/

idiocr4cy April 1 2009, 23:50:35 UTC

Oh, and incase you were wondering the Arabs at the sumit were accusing israel of war-crimes.

The neocons are basically in the same tent as Israeli hawks anyway.

bord_du_rasoir April 2 2009, 00:12:00 UTC

I see that the last part of the sentence is referring to Arabs not to the WaPo editiors. I read it wrong.

So, the argument appears to be that The Belgium Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters placing the number at 120,000 and the US places the number at 98,000 - 181,000.

Okay.

Thread 5

empath_eia April 1 2009, 23:44:23 UTC

Oh yay, only a huge number of people died instead of a really huge number! Nothing to worry about. :/

(The comment has been removed)

idiocr4cy April 1 2009, 23:54:13 UTC

Read the end bit:

"In reality I suspect a mixture of motives that drive the general hostile U.S. position towards Sudan, the false accusations of genocide and the overstatements of casualty numbers in the Darfur conflict. The simple fact that Sudan does not do what the U.S. says it should do is probably enough for the Washington Post editors to condemn it.
They are free to do so. But besides false numbers and wrong claims they have little to make their case."

And If we're talking about numbers, how about we stop fucking bombing the shit out of the middle-east? How many are dead because of our bombs?

textualdeviance April 2 2009, 00:06:34 UTC

Um, since when did it become necessary to support the crazy shit going on in Darfur to protest the crazy shit being done by Israel?

IT'S ALL BAD. We don't need to minimize any of it to condemn all of it.

idiocr4cy April 2 2009, 00:12:50 UTC

It's not about supporting or minimizing crazy shit going on in different places.

It's about realising that there is more to these "crisis" than the theatre advanced by policy makers on all sides.

Thread 6

jorajo April 2 2009, 00:55:30 UTC

It's not like there's been a violence problem in Darfur since the '80s that is rarely mentioned in talk of the genocide in Darfur. Besides, they're from Africa. It's not like they matter or anything!

*RAGE-A-SAURUS HULK SMASH LDFJASDLFJSLKDFJ AL;SDKFJ SL;DFKJASLKDFJ*