Monday, June 25, 2007

The Sudenese Genocide at Darfur Pales in Comparison to Genocides by America.

posted by Bill Arnett @ 1:03 PM Permalink

I got to wondering, why do they call Darfur a genocide while America kills many more people, seemingly without consequence.

As to Darfur's real death toll, see this article from the WaPo:
THE BUSH administration's challenge on Darfur is to persuade the world to wake up to the severity of the crisis. On his recent visit to Sudan, Deputy Secretary of State Robert B. Zoellick took a step in the opposite direction. He said that the State Department's estimate of deaths in Darfur was 60,000 to 160,000, a range that dramatically understates the true scale of the killing.…
Other authorities suggest that mortality is likely to be closer to 400,000 -- more than twice Mr. Zoellick's high number.…
The British medical journal, The Lancet, estimated Iraqi losses to be between 350,00 to 1,000,000 Iraqi dead based upon the most comprehensive study ever conducted in a war zone.

Of course, bush doesn't want you to believe those numbers as they would show him for the monster and war criminal he is, but his denial is itself refuted by common sense: Iraqis are dying on average at the rate of 100 per day (as a direct result of the war), which would indicate 365,000 deaths a year excluding those reported killed by American forces directly.

Do the math: 365,000 dead per year for 4 years equals 1.46 million people dead. Add that to the numbers reported killed by the military and the figure would rise dramatically.

The forces decimating Darfur are rank amateurs at genocide compared to America as lead by bush. So why all the condemnations and criticism for not stopping a genocide when genocide is what America, under bush's government, does best?

Labels: , , , , ,


Post a Comment

<< Home