Jubilant south Sudanese vote en masse in referendum
From Eye on the World:"We were the slaves of the Arabs... Today we are voting for our freedom."
"This is the end of Arabisation, the end of Islamisation.
(AFP) Villagers in southern Sudan voted on Sunday for what many saw as their freedom from "slavery" in a referendum forecast to bring independence to their neglected region of central Africa.
"We were the slaves of the Arabs... Today we are voting for our freedom," said Duku John, a square-jawed young southerner in a dusty village, with purple ink on his thumb showing he had cast his ballot.
John and many others did not mince their words, in a region whose residents were subjected to slavery and had to wait 55 years for self-determination, including a total of almost four decades of conflict with Khartoum.
"We, the blacks, were the slaves of the Arabs. We now want to build our own country," said John, standing in front of a long queue outside a polling station in Gudele, near the southern capital of Juba.
"This vote is the final battle. We are hurling the last bomb at the north," chipped in Charles Sambos, who toiled for 25 years in sugar-cane plantations of northern Sudan before returning to his home region last year.
"This is the end of Arabisation, the end of Islamisation," he said in the village with its mix of thatched, mud-brick and concrete homes.
Lengthy lines of voters formed at polling stations all over southern Sudan on the first of a seven-day independence referendum which was the main plank of a 2005 peace deal ending a north-south civil war.
Two decades of all-out war pitting the mainly Muslim and Arab north against the mostly Christian and animist south -- termed Sudan's second civil war between the two sides -- cost two million lives.
More...
18 comments:
Pastorius,
This is excellent news. I hope that they not only succeed but thrive, free of the Islamic north.
No way are the terrorist pedophile worshipers going to allow this to stand. Anyone who thinks so is in dreamland IMO.
This is nothing more than a line drawn in the sand. The real test will be if the world's remaining decent people force it to stand as they rightly should.
CJK,
They won't let it stand without a fight, but it maybe possible for the Southern Sudanese to defeat them, maybe with some help from the US. I hope we are able to help them.
Damien,
We and others are able to help them, but will we? And if we do, how far are the fiends going to up the ante?
In the end I kinda feel like it will be too easy for our craven societies of the West to just let them slip under.
I'm with you all the way on hoping for their success.
I think the independence of South Sudan will, very likely, lead to even more black Christians murdered.
Pastorius,
You know as well as I do that Jihadists will keep murdering non Muslims and even other Muslims that they do not regard as the real deal, no matter what we do. In the short run this may lead to the murder of more innocent people, but in the long run this might actually save lives. Any victory we have against them is a good thing.
You make a good point, Damien.
I am kind of with cjk, in that I think until Americans understand what is happening in Sudan and demand their government do something about it, nothing is going to change.
Israel is booming in the desert and the rest of the area is a wasteland of a garbage dump for one significant reason: All the oil on earth, all the natural resources on earth make no difference without social capital. Israel has it; the Muslim world doesn't. It means, simply, that Jews are smarter and better in all ways than Muslims. Being a Muslim is to be broken from birth, turned into a simple human animal. Rather than attempt to change themselves to prosper in the world, to even get along, to even live as beggars, Muslims often turn to murdering their own children to show the world that Muslims are worthy of attention. My point:
That Muslims are determined to maintain their superior social positions in Dar al Islam at any and every price. They will kill every Christian they can if it means Muslims will maintain their cultural supremacy. And what is there good in that for Christians? OK, there is much. People grow to love their slavery. But, My Point:
South Sudan, if it's anything like the north, is a wasteland. It's about as wasted a place as Israel. But S. Sudan has oil, which Israel, for the most part, doesn't. S. Sudan doesn't have the social capital Israel has. My Point:
Christians persecuted in Dar al Islam might consider removing themselves to S. Sudan as a needed and welcome social capital. S. Sudan could become a new Israel, if Christian, in Africa. My point is that smart people with the right attitude can do seemingly impossible things, e.g. turn Israel into a paradise (of sorts) while Muslims can take the oil wealth of the world to make the rest of the world into a shit-hole. South Sudan could be a place of Christians for Christians fleeing Islam. South Sudan, a New Israel.
Feel free to let me know if you all would like to contribute to such an idea, maybe by setting up a fund to finance such a move to Sudan for refugees. I would, perhaps, claim the first ticket there.
Dag,
Maybe it could become like a new Israel for Christian and non Muslim Africans, but it must first meet and overcome its first challenge, becoming strong enough to servive, regardless of what its enemies throw at it. Hopefully it will be able to do that.
The first order of this business is survival. If we can survive, we can thrive. Survival is a free enterprise, not one anyone should rely on other nations to provide. American might well be able to provide shelter for a South Sudanese nation, but why would they bother? Why would America spend more blood and treasure on a foreign land for foreign peoples? Compassion is great, but it never works as well as relying on oneself. If South Sudan is to survive, it will have to do so with its own social capital, of whatever level that becomes. It could well be a secure land for a people without a place to live in security. South Sudanese people need all the help they can get to survive, but to get that help they will have to pay the price of expanding their capital investments through international inflow, I think. Social venture capital, as I see it. There is a land for people who need a land, i.e. South Sudan, available, from what little I know of this, for Christians hunted and killed in Muslim lands. I'd go there. Others have better reason to consider it. But they have to fight for it, maybe for a century.
By startling coincidence, this just in at Jihad Watch:
Egypt: Off-duty Muslim police officer boards train, shoots Christians, killing 71-year-old man
Note the detail in the second story below, as reported by the Egyptian paper Al-Masri Al-Youm: the gunman checked people's wrists for a traditional Coptic tattoo of a cross before shooting. "Policeman shoots Christian dead in southern Egypt," by Hamza Hendawi for the Associated Press, January 11 (thanks to Steve):
CAIRO - An off-duty policeman boarded a train and opened fire on Tuesday, killing a 71-year-old Christian man and wounding his wife and four others, the Interior Ministry said. The attack, less than two weeks after the suicide bombing of a church killed 21, sparked new demonstrations by enraged Christians who pelted police with stones in southern Egypt.
Dag,
Free enterprise is good, but survival is a not free enterprise per say, there are people who survive day in and day out, living under totalitarian systems without much free enterprise or free anything for that matter. What they will need most of all right now, will be to become strong enough to defend themselves. They're going to need a strong military to stand against the Jihadist threat to their country. If the founding fathers failed to lead men into battle and successfully defeat the British, the united states of America would not exist, and the Southern Sudanese people are going to have to fight for their independence against a far more ruthless enemy. The British were so civilized by the stand point of these thugs, that they were shocked that the American Revolutionaries would dare to target their officers and were not very equipped to deal with Guerrilla warfare.
Damien, I must clarify my point here:
By free enterprise I mean that freedom is not to be given by another nation's defence of ones own. If South Sudanese depend on protection from the North Sudanese, this is obviously better than being murdered by the latter, but it is not the good that comes from the free activity of self-defence, of taking whatever necessary and effective steps one can to bring about and ensure ones survival first and freedom second. This is akin to the survival of a commercial enterprise, in that one risks or does not risk according to rational expectations of success, keeping in mind the possibility of failure. Prudence is necessary as much as, or moreso, than courage. Without prudence, we will find a failed if independent state, filled with men who cannot conduct rational affairs in the Modern world. My best guess, from knowing South Sudanese over the years I spent in Africa, is that they do not have sufficient social capital to sustain an independent nation, or if so, even minimally, a successful one, i.e. able to pay its debts and feed its people. All the cash on Earth will do a nation no good if the people do not have the acquired skills to know how to use it properly to build upon it. Prudence would suggest, for both the South Sudanese and for persecuted Christians in Dar al Harb, that the latter emigrate to a place where they will be both welcomed for their skills and will be safer from jihad than they are now. It's a business transaction, in a superior sense.
War is too important to leave to the military, as Clemenceau pointed out, however out of context in this case. Men, like the Zionists of yesteryear, must make a rational commitment to their own freedom and to the creation of their own State. Without that, even with borrowed capital, there is no reason to expect success. It's "free" enterprise in the sense one must be free to choose it and to make it work, if possible.
Dag,
Thanks. That clears things up. I think I understand what you're saying now.
If one makes a choice to fight, and here I mean by fleeing from Islam to a non-Islamic land and to fight for ones freedom there, e.g. in South Sudan, one must weigh the chances of success as a free man fighting to make that choice succeed. The Pakistani Christian, as an example, who would flee to South Sudan has to look at his choice to flee there as a chance to fight for freedom on better terms than to fight in Pakistan, where he would have no hope of winning against the state and the masses of Muslim Pakistanis. In another land, maybe his chances of winning in combat are better. I argue that if he removes himself from Islamic lands and goes to South Sudan, then he might have as his base a genuinely Christian nation to fight for, a Christian nation that is specifically Christian by choice of the people, as Israel is consciously Jewish by choice. He would have to make that decision, to flee, to fight for the land, the nation, and the people, not in the hope or expectation of American help or intervention by the U.N. (I laugh) but his decision must be based on his faith in his Faith, on the love of his religion, and the faith he has in his fellows, both natives to the land and those who would join him in such a nation-creating venture. I'm calling this a "free enterprise," much the same as one enters a marketplace with goods to sell, not knowing if such goods are what the world wants, not having recourse to trying some new product if the first doesn't sell. The commitment to having a nation is to put oneself in the marketplace as the product, ones faith in the nation being the product, and ones future being the product. Like selling some toy to passers by in the market, one can only have faith that one is doing the best thing and that there is a market for this item. There are competitors, and one cannot expect them to aid the other. Like any business person, this venture is an act of love, in that ones family will live or not according to how well one reads the market, whether one has a good product and a good price that strangers are willing to pay.
In America our forefathers had such faith, and they created a nation worth fighting for ever since. What they did was an act of faith, and it was an act of love, even for those they knew full well they would never live to see or even know to dream about. I like to think that persecuted Christians, like the Jews before them, can carve from world a nation for Christians where dhimmi populations can flee to. But, like Israel itself, such a nation will be under siege from the beginning, and it will never have a real day of rest until its enemies are utterly defeated and cannot rise again to attack. This has to be a private agreement between those who would form such a nation and that power from which they would make a covenant, as it were, to gain the strength to carry on in spite of what will have to be endless struggle to survive. It is a free enterprise, in that sense, made freely, and made daily. One cannot ask for more than a helping hand on occasion, though that is just, because it finally means that in this world one can only depend on oneself and ones own. A Christian nation for Christians fleeing from Islam is an act of faith, should it ever come about, and it will come and go or come and stay only by determination and faith and love. all of that must be freely given, and there cannot be much hope of charity from outsiders.
I'm no Christian myself, being too cranky and unimaginative and bewildered by the universe to have any beliefs of any kind any longer; but I would fight for such a nation and such people, provided they would fight for each other as an act of faith in love. We shall see.
Dag,
I posted your idea of turning South Sudan into a Christian Israel on the front page, and credited you.
:)
Post a Comment