20 September 2006
Sudan: the wankblogs demand action!
Staying on the theme of Sudan, and following on from the last posting - scroll down, folks, you can do it - Jonathan Steele has an article in The Guardian which takes the wankers for war to task with the argument that:
The so-called janjaweed militias that Khartoum organised and armed did not distinguish between civilians and guerrilla fighters. They burned huts, raped women and put tens of thousands of civilians to flight, forcing them across the border into Chad or into camps inside Darfur. But the rebels also committed atrocities, a fact that was rarely reported since it upset the black-and-white moral image that many editors preferred.OK, so what we have here is a nasty tribal conflict where nobody much cares about the rules of warfare. On the specific charge of genocide, something which the wankblogs are always, well, wanking about, Steele has this to say:
In spite of efforts to describe the killing in Darfur as genocide, neither the UN nor the EU went along with this description. It was not because of moral myopia, but because they understood the difference between a brutal civil war and a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing. Darfur is not Rwanda. Only the US accepted the genocide description, though this seemed a concession to domestic lobbies rather than a matter of conviction. Washington never followed through with the forcible intervention in Darfur that international law requires once a finding of genocide is made.Now, one can accept or reject Steele's argument, but what one cannot do is claim that it is not a coherent case. The same cannot be said of the wankblogs - their arguments are little more than dodgy rhetoric and personal abuse.
The dodgiest case is made by the old Wankmaster-General himself, Norman Geras. He starts off with these words:
It wasn't rape, it was a domestic conflict.Then he proceeds to demolish that argument. The problem is that it wasn't Steele's argument and those are not Steele's words. It is the oldest trick in the book: set up an Aunt Sally and then attack that, rather than what the writer actually wrote.
Following on from that the old Wankmaster quotes from the relevant genocide convention, and challenges Steele to show why this doesn't "now apply in Darfur".
Er, can someone please tell the Wankmaster that you can't prove a negative? Besides, it is not our job to demonstrate that genocide didn't happen: it is the wankers' task to show that it did.
As for the personal abuse, well, who better to turn to than our old friends at the Hand Shandy For War blog? Click over there and have a laugh. Yes, we know, that is all anyone does with this site, but go and have an extra deep belly laugh.
All in all, if this is the best that the wankblogs can do, then they have an uphill task in persuading us that a third war against a Moslem country is necessary.