home

Seven Darfur Women Describe Gang-Rape

One was pregnant. Another were mother and daughter, with baby in tow. Seven women went off to get firewood when men on camels in Janjaweed uniforms surrounded them, beat them and then gang-raped them, leaving them naked to walk hours back to their camp.

Rape is practically an everyday occurrance in Darfur.

U.N. workers say they registered 2,500 rapes in Darfur in 2006, but believe far more went unreported. The real figure is probably thousands a month, said a U.N. official.

Rape is a strategy of war.

In Sudan, as in many Islamic countries, society views a sexual assault as a dishonor upon the woman's entire family. "Victims can face terrible ostracism," says Maha Muna, the U.N. coordinator on this issue in Sudan.

Some aid workers believe the janjaweed use rape to intimidate the rebels, and their supporters and families. "It's a strategy of war," Muna said in an interview earlier this year in Khartoum, the capital.

As to the death tolls,

Meanwhile, more than 200,000 civilians have died and 2.5 million are homeless out of Darfur's population of 6 million, the U.N. says.

Save Darfur.

< Chandra Levy Update | Iraq: Vote For Dems In 2008 Because Voting For Them in 2006 Did So Much Good >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    "Save Darfur" (none / 0) (#1)
    by diogenes on Sun May 27, 2007 at 07:35:52 PM EST
    A well-placed NATO bombing of Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia stopped his ethnic cleansing.  How about another bombing campaign, this one against Sudan?

    So... (none / 0) (#2)
    by jarober on Sun May 27, 2007 at 09:22:52 PM EST
    So why is intervention in Darfur, to stop a regime killing its own people seen as good, while intervention in Iraq (which accomplished the same goal) seen as bad?

    Is TL under some delusion that an occupation of the Sudan would somehow be easier?  Or is the delusion that we can stop homicidal maniacs by using harsh language?

    Where (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 27, 2007 at 11:43:10 PM EST
    in my post do you read a suggestion for military occupation in Darfur?

    Parent
    Sure, that's why we went into Iraq (none / 0) (#12)
    by Dadler on Mon May 28, 2007 at 05:48:13 PM EST
    Then acted as if we couldn't have cared less about the place or its people.  Do you think with absolutely no plan for reconstruction -- for getting Iraq on its feet again, for employing its people, for quelling sectarian violence...hell, with no plan for even providing enough troops in the first place -- that it can be logically argued that protecting the Iraqis had ANYTHING to do with this fiasco?  We support regimes that kill their own people all over the place.  Give me a large break.  Look at the giant embassy we can build in Baghdad, under budget and on time, while we can't provide sh*t for the Iraqis themselves.  We are building bases all over the place there, so we can occupy militarily and control/protect the oil.  Have you not be made aware of the completely one-sided contracts American oil companies were granted in Iraq?

    So despite Jeralyn never calling for military intervention, the reality remains that your assumed basis of our invasion of Iraq bears no resemblance to reality, and thus your comparision bears no relation either.

    The middle east is about oil, always has been.  Don't tell me you didn't know this.  

    Parent

    Thus my question (none / 0) (#4)
    by jarober on Mon May 28, 2007 at 09:55:47 AM EST
    You make it clear that you would like to see the genocidal violence in Darfur stop.  I'm asking a simple question: What would cause that to happen other than force?  And why would force in Darfur work differently than it has in Iraq?

    Well, first of all there wasn't (none / 0) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 28, 2007 at 02:28:25 PM EST
    a current long running genocide going on in Iraq when we decided that the evil Saddam must go.  Now we don't have the troop strength to do anything about large scale long running genocides like Darfur and I know that some people would prefer that we didn't interfere in such matters but I'm not one of them.

    Parent
    We can always sell em some guns though. (none / 0) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 28, 2007 at 02:29:27 PM EST
    That's really more profitable than sending in troops to end the killing.

    Parent
    Not my point (none / 0) (#7)
    by jarober on Mon May 28, 2007 at 03:27:26 PM EST
    "Now we don't have the troop strength to do anything about large scale long running genocides like Darfur and I know that some people would prefer that we didn't interfere in such matters but I'm not one of them. "

    Troop strength isn't the issue.  The question is:

    -- Why is Stopping a mad regime in place 1 (Iraq) bad, while Stopping a mad regime in place 2 (Sudan) good?

    -- Assume we weren't in Iraq.  Why would an occupation of Sudan go any better than the occupation of Iraq is going?

    On the first point above, never mind oil, WMD, or terrorism - just ask yourself why stopping the same kind of thing in one place is preferable to stopping it in another.


    Parent

    never mind oil (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by squeaky on Mon May 28, 2007 at 03:32:23 PM EST
    And you forgot, never mind Israel.

    hahahahhahaha.

    In other words:

    Don't look too closely at my bogus comparison.

    Parent

    You could try... (none / 0) (#9)
    by jarober on Mon May 28, 2007 at 03:45:35 PM EST
    You could try to answer the question instead of tossing red herrings (Israel) around.  Although, it might be entertaining to hear you explain how Israel has anything to do with the Sudan.

    Parent
    Nothing (none / 0) (#11)
    by squeaky on Mon May 28, 2007 at 04:00:53 PM EST
    But it does have to do with Iraq. As does oil.

    YOur comparison is a red herring. Were the two situations remotely similar and were you not a GOP apologist trying to make a case for the Iraq war, it could be an interesting comparison.

    But it not. Your intent is to divert the discussion to justifying the war in Iraq.

    Parent

    Iraq is largely Baghdad... (none / 0) (#13)
    by Dadler on Mon May 28, 2007 at 06:22:21 PM EST
    Darfur is far outside of Khartoum in the desert.  The answer to your questin, as you know, would exist in the specifics of each case.  Your question contains the assumption that it would be possible to act in every case the same way regardless of the specific circumstances.  We know in an imperfect world that isn't possible, so all we are left with are the exact details of each crisis.

    You raise a valid point of debate, but assuming we invaded Iraq to get big bad Saddaam and save the Iraqi people is off-the-charts, starting the conversation with it is, well, a non-starter.  We were told and pounded daily with the line that we were invading Iraq to protecet OURSELVES first and foremost.  Which was B.S., but it was still the reason given.  Hussein had those WMDs, was working with AQ, blah blah.  What he did to his own people was far down our list of concerns, as evidenced by our non-existent strategy going in.  

    It could not be argued that we were going in to help Darfur to protect anyone BUT those refugees and villagers.

    There are many points of departure between the two.  And I can cite them without having to take any position on whether "invading" Sudan would be a good thing or bad.  Were it to occur, and I don't want it to, it would certainly be done on a much more clear humanitarian basis than the invasion of Iraq was and has continued to be.  

    Parent

    dadler - And your answer is???? (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 28, 2007 at 08:44:45 PM EST
    You raise a valid point of debate, but assuming we invaded Iraq to get big bad Saddaam and save the Iraqi people is off-the-charts, starting the conversation with it is, well, a non-starter.

    Hmmmm, but after we knew there were no WMD's, we could have given Saddam the keys back and left....

    So why is our attempt to make Iraq a better place "bad" and an attempt to make Darfur a better place "good?"

    Parent

    Your point and my brain, heart, and soul (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 28, 2007 at 03:54:14 PM EST
    are never on the same plane so what's new.

    Parent
    gesh Tracy (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 28, 2007 at 08:38:52 PM EST
    Well, first of all there wasn't a current long running genocide going on in Iraq when we decided that the evil Saddam must go

    Oh, really??

    You have heard of the Kurds, haven't you?? The gassing thereof, etc....etc.....

    Parent