Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

why isn't this on the evening news ?
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Mar 3 10:45:27 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  The West Wing: Lies About Sudan
By Michael Margolies


When the definitive history of mass murder is written, under the sub-heading “Clueless,” we can add NBC’s “West Wing” for its woefully ill-informed portrayal of the horror that is Sudan. The “West Wing’s” contribution to historical inaccuracy about the continuing slaughter in Sudan was on full display in a December 3, 2003 episode entitled, “Abu El Banat” (“Father of Daughters).

The onscreen preview provided by the Time Warner Cable Company gave the following synopsis: “Relief Workers jailed in Sudan. Episode: Abu El Banat. News of Relief Workers jailed in northern Sudan oppresses the holiday spirit at the tree lighting ceremony;….” Because the Sudan is hardly ever mentioned on American news broadcasts, let alone a major network series, the possibilities seemed intriguing. Could the Hollywood liberal elite, which prides itself as being the moral and ethical voice of America, be getting ready to make a statement and take a stand against genocide in Africa carried out by non-whites?



Unfortunately, the answer was a resounding “no.” One of President Josiah Bartlet’s (played by Martin Sheen) aides informs him early on that three bible-carrying Christian Relief Workers in northern Sudan were arrested for proselytizing: “Sir, these are Christians doing work in a drought-stricken, civil war-ridden nation.” And here is precisely where the problem begins.


To the unknowing, hearing the phrase “civil war” automatically brings forth an assumption that there are two or more sides involved in a domestic dispute. But in the case of Sudan this is factually incorrect. In Sudan one side has been brutally attacked and made war against by the other. One side is heavily armed, the other is not. One side has seen its people brutalized and massacred, and hard as it is to believe in the 21st Century, had tens of thousands of its women and children put into chattel slavery. Only one side suffered from famine because they were denied access to relief supplies. In every instance the victims in Sudan have been the black Christians and animists who mainly populate the southern half of Sudan, while the perpetrators are the Arab Muslim jihadist rulers of Khartoum in the north.


So how is it that among the fictional West Wing, including President Bartlet and his national security staff, and the real life West Wing screen writers, producers, directors, and actor Martin Sheen—social activist and supposed student of politics and international affairs—not one of them knew this information? Wasn’t there one member of President Bartlet’s and/or Martin Sheen’s team knowledgeable enough to inform him and his loyal audience that in the last eighteen real, not fictional years, approximately two million black Sudanese Christians and animists have been murdered at the hands of an Arab/Muslim jihadist regime? How did these allegedly political people miss it?


Didn’t any of them know that while murder and mayhem were going on, economic interests within countries such as, but not limited to, China (a really big player) Malaysia, Sweden, Austria, India, Canada, and of course, Sudan itself, were in the oil-for-blood business (black African blood mostly)? Or that the forces of the National Islamic Front cleared large swaths of land for oil development, including untold villages and roadways, usually by large scale murder? Hadn’t any of them heard about the raids on hundreds of black villages where the men were murdered and the women and children taken as chattel slaves (currently as many as 40, 000 according to some estimates)? Didn’t one of them know of the estimated four million internal and external refugees, virtually all blacks as well, who were able to get away before death in the form of jihad came to their doors?


Badly outgunned, with nothing like the religious or racial rallying cry of the jihadists, various black Sudanese factions have organized and armed as best they can to defend themselves. But to characterize this as a civil war, implying some type of armed insurrection against a legitimate governing authority, is like calling the Warsaw Ghetto uprising a civil war. What resistance there is takes place against a regime which is attempting to obliterate through jihad the largely defenseless black population.


If NBC, The West Wing, and famed liberal and progressive activist Martin Sheen didn’t know these things, shame on them. Shame on them for their laziness, ignorance, and smugness, and shame on them for misleading their viewers who ought to know the truth about one of the most brutal crimes against humanity of the last half century.


For a non-politically correct and detailed description of some of the horrors inflicted on a largely defenseless black population by Arab jihadist militia or Khartoum troops in Sudan, see the latest, but far from only, Amnesty International Report of Feb. 3, 2004.


 
addi Posted: Wed Mar 3 11:03:15 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Addi says: I'm shocked! Mr. Sheen ought to hung by his thumbs!

Ludwig says: Who gives a flying F**k?! It's a TV show for chriesake! Every day body bags are coming home, in real life, from Iraq. Have Michael Margolies write about that.


 
addi Posted: Wed Mar 3 11:08:37 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  hey, there's two of these. Two parallel dimensions must have met. Well, I'll be...


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Mar 3 11:45:23 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  the point I was trying to make is not the arrogance of the west wing writers, but the fact that most of the world is ignorant of what has been happening in Sudan, and Dan Rather and friends continue to ignore it.


 
addi Posted: Wed Mar 3 11:55:14 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Okay, ya got me there.
Let me ask you this. Were/are democrats/liberals the ONLY ones ignorant of the Sudan tragedies. You make it sound like the republicans have been trying real hard to get this story out, but the liberal controled media won't let them make it known to the world. I hope that's not what you're trying to say, cuz if it is I've got some swiss cheese on my sandwich that has less holes in it than that line of reasoning.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Mar 3 12:05:28 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  c'mon artboy, I haven't mentioned anything of the sort in this thread now have I?
I merely posed a question and now you want to put words in my mouth.
Now I'll be the first to admit that my mouth is a big one, but I was rather hoping to have Libra's feet in there, which means there will be no room for the words you seemingly want to put there.
LOL


 
addi Posted: Wed Mar 3 12:26:30 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  when you single out Dan Rather, who is viewed as a liberal by conservatives, then it's not a stretch to conclude who you and the writer see as the problem with information getting out about Sudan. If you had said "Dan Rather and the anchors for Fox News" I wouldn't have said a thing.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Mar 3 13:05:47 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  dan rather, peter jennings, whatever, it could have been any network news anchor. I chose mr. rather because he is probably the most famous.
How much of this story were you aware of, and what were your sources for said info.


 
DanSRose Posted: Wed Mar 3 13:17:53 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>The West Wing: Lies About Sudan
>By Michael Margolies

It's television. Political fiction, albeit one of the best written shows on the networks right now (although Season 5 is bothering now that Sam and Fitz aren't there, but Zoey thing was ended pretty well and the Josh and Donna drama is going places).

Also:
>To the unknowing, hearing the phrase “civil war” automatically brings forth an assumption that there are two or more sides involved in a domestic dispute.
It's a general rule of discourse that whenever you ASS-U-ME, you automatically lose.

I think NBC should have a new show about pilgrim detectives. By day they churn butter and worship according to their own beliefs, and by night they solve crimes.


 
addi Posted: Wed Mar 3 13:18:11 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I'm not trying to minimalize the importance of the story. The point was that it's a failure not of just the liberal news media (whatever that is), but of all the news media.
When I do watch the news I like to catch the BBC world News or other international channels. I find I usually get a better perspective on international stories, such as Sudan. In general I think the major channels here come up short in their coverage, or they make a big deal about something that is minor.


 
addi Posted: Wed Mar 3 13:21:11 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:

>I think NBC should have a new show about pilgrim detectives. By day they churn butter and worship according to their own beliefs, and by night they solve crimes.

lol
Dan actually has a sense of humor! I was hoping you wouldn't keep it hidden.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Mar 3 13:38:09 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addie my old friend, you keep injecting partisan ideals into this and that is not what this is about.
Liberal/conservative, whatever. . .
the point is that almost no one is aware that one of the biggest mass murders in history has been happening in the Sudan for several years now and no one, not your precious united nations or anyone else for that matter is doing squat to stop it.
How about this quote from the artictle:

while murder and mayhem were going on, economic interests within countries such as, but not limited to, China (a really big player) Malaysia, Sweden, Austria, India, Canada, and of course, Sudan itself, were in the oil-for-blood business (black African blood mostly)? Or that the forces of the National Islamic Front cleared large swaths of land for oil development, including untold villages and roadways, usually by large scale murder?

why is there no outrage for this ?



 
addi Posted: Wed Mar 3 13:45:34 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Gotcha. I'm in agreement. Let's make out now


 
zander83 Posted: Wed Mar 3 14:15:24 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  People don't seem to care about whats going on in the world. The simple fact more people watch the oscars and super bowl then the news, more people can name actors then UN Secretary generals... troubling... enough to make you want to become a hermit and give the finger to the world...


 
novemberrain Posted: Wed Mar 3 14:32:14 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  zander83 said:
> troubling... enough to make you want to become a hermit and give the finger to the world...


I give the finger to the world constantly. It's always out to get me



 
zander83 Posted: Wed Mar 3 14:42:01 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  It's always out to get me


bart: my dad screams whitey's always keeping him down...


 
DanSRose Posted: Wed Mar 3 16:56:25 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>lol
>Dan actually has a sense of humor! I was hoping you wouldn't keep it hidden.

I am a huge fan of the West Wing. That pilgrim detective line was a quote from Sam 'The Man' Seaborn (Rob Lowe) from Season 2 Ep. 8, "Shibboleth" (one of many Bible references).

The reason why people don't is that they are not given a reason to care. Sudan, Haiti, Afghanistan; they're not a world a way no one has taken the time or effort to show them that. The tainted oil from Sudan, the drugs and illegal immigrants from Haiti, the opium & sex trade and radicals from Afghanistan are all part of their world. To ignore it, to yell about the President's blowjob and the precious sanctity of marriage & how gays will ruin it, Janet's boob at the Super Bowl, the Oscar's, is to just say that we are too stupid to live our lives and make the decisions for ourselves.


 
DanSRose Posted: Wed Mar 3 19:12:28 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Oh and that line was taken completely out of context.
The Sudan subplot was not even a B-storyline. Barely a C.
The B-line was the physician assisted suicide was much more relevant, especially with Bartlett's (formally conceiled) MS, especially as "one in five patients requesting aid in dying has MS.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Mar 3 20:04:03 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  you don't think the world would see it differently if it were christians killing muslims instead of the other way around ?


 
DanSRose Posted: Wed Mar 3 22:19:01 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>you don't think the world would see it differently if it were christians killing muslims instead of the other way around?

Maybe. Maybe if were a nation in the Fertile Crescent with a huge oil supply, where Christian leaders from another nation made past deals and invasions only to do it again, completing this time, only to fail in the PR and the human relations departments. Though an international (and, to a degre, national) outcry failed to stop or control this outcry it is still happening with more violations and terrorist attacks happening everyday.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Mar 3 22:31:35 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>
>Maybe. Maybe if were a nation in the Fertile Crescent with a huge oil supply, where Christian leaders from another nation made past deals and invasions only to do it again, completing this time, only to fail in the PR and the human relations departments. Though an international (and, to a degre, national) outcry failed to stop or control this outcry it is still happening with more violations and terrorist attacks happening everyday.

yeah, you're right, maybe we should put him back in power.
why do all you bleeding heart liberals ignore the cries of the hundreds of thousands in the mass graves ?
where is your outrage for this ?
and the fact that the united nations did nothing, absolutely nothing beyond 15 resolutions to force him to disarm ?
would you have settled for one more reslolution ? or two ? or three ?
how many before something must be done ?



 
DanSRose Posted: Wed Mar 3 22:37:37 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  It's a power game and we don't have the power. Bleedig heart liberalism is not profitable. It is however easy to ignore.
Ie: The plight of the Sudanese has been well documented. Ever hear of Kevin Carter and his subsequent suicide?


 
addi Posted: Wed Mar 3 23:18:47 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Dan you're missing the point friend. If you don't like the way Bush handled it then you must have liked saddam and wanted him to remain in power killing unarmed citizens at his leisure. There is no middle ground on this dan. No other possible option other than a unilateral pre-emtive strike was the moral action to take. If you don't see it that way then you are stupid and most likey an evil progressive. It's something I'm told us liberals just are incapable of understanding. Only republicans can see the truth in this. Stop looking at the Iraq situation as shades of gray, with various options at our disposal. It was a black and white senario. They ignored the UN proposals, so we had to go against the wishes of the UN and the world and invade, especially in light of the emminent 45 minute threat they posed to Britain and all the WMD's Saddam had. Just go try to find some underprivaledged minority to throw a social program at, and leave the hard thinking to the conservatives.


 
marsteller Posted: Thu Mar 4 01:36:53 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  kill the camel jockeys, steal their shit. i live in the US, so im all about imperialism...gotta expand the empire


 
DanSRose Posted: Thu Mar 4 02:24:21 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I've been going with 4 hours of sleep for the last week and I swear I don't know if you are being sarcastic or not. So I'll say that you are being serious, just in case.

It is a shades of grey decision. All foreign politics are (actually all politics are). This isn't a negotiation with the school board. If things get screwed, the response is not no chicken nuggets anymore; the response is a bomb in a suitcase dropped off in Times Square or the Golden Gate Bridge being blown up (more West Wing allusions!). Compromise, multilateral decisions, and things like that (4 hours of sleep/night) are the only thing that works because nothing else works better.
Except imperialism, because always works 100% of the time, always, without any repurcussions at all, ever.

Does anyone else know who Kevin Carter is?
Here: http://home.worldonline.nl/~t892660/msp/time.htm
(don't look at the picture for too long)


 
addi Posted: Thu Mar 4 06:36:08 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>I've been going with 4 hours of sleep for the last week and I swear I don't know if you are being sarcastic or not. So I'll say that you are being serious, just in case.

No, I was being sarcastic. Get some sleep, dude.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Mar 4 06:49:03 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
Compromise, multilateral decisions, and things like that (4 hours of sleep/night) are the only thing that works because nothing else works better.

yeah, how bout some more toothless resloutions ?
that'll show 'em
more diplomacy too, since 12 years of it wasn't enough.
and of course the model for these compromises and multilateral decisions has worked so well with the palestinians and the israelis.


 
DanSRose Posted: Thu Mar 4 19:04:05 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  The question is what else works? Force fails as a deterent.
It's the last, best option. What else is there that makes real sense? The resolutions failed because the UN was working in blocks (an Arab block, an African block, a European block, and the US all by itself) was working against itself, not in anyone's best interest for this issue, or the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. Too many sides, opinions, and inputs.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Mar 4 21:14:18 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>The question is what else works? Force fails as a deterent.

Really ? before 9/11, when was the last time we went this long without being hit ?
Check out the situation in Libya and Syria and see force isn't effective as a deterrent.

>It's the last, best option. What else is there that makes real sense? The resolutions failed because the UN was working in blocks (an Arab block, an African block, a European block, and the US all by itself) was working against itself, not in anyone's best interest for this issue, or the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. Too many sides, opinions, and inputs.

No, the resolutions failed because Saddam didn't give a damn about them. He knew no one was going to enforce them. The UN has never been effective at anything other than making a bunch of self-serving diplomats into millionaires and bad mouthing America.
Oh yeah, they did allow Libya to chair the human rights commission. Brilliant eh ?
It doesn't matter why the resolutions failed, only that they did. It was obvious Saddam was not going to respond to anything but force after 12 years of trying.


 
DanSRose Posted: Thu Mar 4 21:43:52 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  You're commenting on thing that aren't there. Bombing the daughter of Khadafi (sp?) was why that conflicted ended. Poltical murder of a non-combatant- super way for a superpower behave.
Again the UN acted in blocks (Libya being in the Pan-Arab block) and everyone gets a turn at the slide at the UN. It's how it works.
Syria has been a major power in the Arab world and to screw with them is to gamble with the oil market. No one wants that; not Europe, not the US, not really even OPEC, and especially not Israel.
With Iraq, the nation was cornered into a little ball and wasn't going anywhere. The Arab world was ashamed of it and the West didn't like it one bit. Every so often it would swipe back with an incident on the 37 parallel, but the UN can only go so far without treading on a nation's right for self-determination. It limits its comments on the Saudi misogyny, but does lend women's relief when it can.


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]