Ethnic cleansing rages in Sudan

From The BBC

It is being called the world's worst humanitarian crisis. Arab militia men have driven an estimate one million black Sudanese villagers from their homes and there have been massacres on an unknown scale.

The crisis in the Darfur region of western Sudan has finally caught the world's attention.

[...]

Every time I asked why they thought this was being done to them they said the same thing: "It is because we are black."

It may seem strange that here in the middle of Africa, one type of black person - they call themselves Arabs - would drive another blacker type of person from their homes.

But then remember, the Hutus massacred the Tutsis in Rwanda. And whites ethnically cleansed whites in Bosnia.

Ethnic cleansing always seems to be rooted in dark historical feuds and it is the same here.

It is not "dark historical feuds" that spark these ethnic cleansing massacres. It is rooted in religion.

Hilary Andersson goes on to describe the horrors of yet another humanitarian crisis and leaves us with this thought:

I woke up when the moon finally rose at three o'clock in the morning. I watched as it cast its pale ghostly light across the cursed land we had seen and wondered, after Rwanda and Bosnia, why Darfur is being allowed to happen?

Because, Hilary, whenever we try and stop things like Darfur, the left, the anti-war movement and the appeaseniks do everything in their power to stop us. And once the rescue mission is underway the media, especially the BBC, descend on the rescures like vultures; picking at every little bit of bad news like it was a delicious bit of flesh.

Is it any wonder countries are relutant to get involved in these conflicts. You want someone to stop the atrocities but you want it done with a magic wand that does not exist. As Bisrmarc said, you are like a sasuage lover who doesn't want to know how it is made.

Why do you ask "why Darfur is being allowed to happen?" when the BBC does everything in its' power to stop the US in Iraq. Witness what the BBC and the Guardian have done during the Iraq conflict. You spin, leave out pertinent information, use anti-war activists as sources for stories and you let reporters make stories up.

The BBC went as far as to rigg a poll against the US:

The BBC reported the poll’s results in a web article on the 9th of April 2004, titled: 'US is bigger threat than terror.

The BBC and The Guardian have been in the forefront condemning Bush and Blair for going to war against Saddam. The BBC have been screeming for Blair's head, demanding to know where the weapons of mass destruction are. Yet when they are found you will not cover the story. Where are the BBC headlines when the link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam is proven?

Likewise the BBC condemned santions against Saddam and accused the US of causing the deaths of thousands of innocent lives. Now that we know the truth, that the UN itself via the oil-for-food scandal was responsible, the BBC will not cover the story.

The BBC, The Guardian, the left, the anti-war movement and the appeasenicks all bemoan the atrocities committed around the world. But what do you do about it? You give it lip service and do not lift a finger to help. You look to the UN as your saviour. The same UN that let Rawanda happen, the same UN that caused thousands to die in Iraq via their oil-for-food scandal.

But what do you do when the US tries to stop these atrocities? You condemn us, call us impearlist, war mongers, it's all about oil, the evil empire, and Satan.

So, Hilary, the question is not why don't we stop atrocities like Darfur, the questions is why does the BBC condemn those who try and help?