We burnt villages, killed women, men and children

Originally posted by Maharbbal And The Turkish, Egyptian, Saudian, Pakistani armies doing? Don't they have enough troops?

Although the west gets the glory, the bulk of peace keeping troops are in fact supplied by countries such as India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Turkey, Brazil and Russia.

Or are they afraid to say the truth: they don't care about Darfour because the people comitting the genocide are Arab and Muslim while the victims are nothing but sparable negroes!

How on earth does a civil war between black muslim Darfurians and black muslim Sudanese get turned into another Arab & muslim bashing topic (not saying you did this, more the media). Hell there is a civil war in the south too, apparently the white christian media doesn't care about the black christian dinka.

Originally posted by flyingzone Omar, can you provide any real statistics on Swedish arms sales to Sri Lanka?

No I can't, but Sweden does have a large arms industry, and if anything peace must be against their interests not in it.

I hope you realise that by suggesting that the only scandinavian interest in sri lanka is arms, I was infact backing up flyingzones point when he said that they weren't acting in their own interest.

Originally posted by Maharbbal Anyway I'm sick and tired of this nonsense. Why would you care about this absurd law? There a law and then what? Get over it who cares? Don't you have a collapsing economy to take care of?

Under ordinary circumstances I should not care, but given the situation it is hard not to. 

If France passes this proposal into law, do you realize that an arrest warrant, valid all around Europe, can be issued for anybody who does not agree with your parliaments biased and slanted interpretation of Turkish History?

With millions of Turks around Europe, and my country about to enter the EU in 2007, I certianly care about what your parliament decides, as the laws that your parliamentarians make, in their new role as self-styled and self-appinted arbiters of Turko-Armenian history,  have direct implications on my fundamental freedom to express my opinion.

And don't be ignorants. There is NO way a country to send troops in a different country without having interests. Onw way or another.
And as for France has prooven many times that it is super power and it acts like one. I mean that they have funds and strong army and they using that for their OWN interests but in that way they help other countries maintain peace.
And it is about time a different country other that UK become the head of europe. I think France act like that.

And as far as the genocides i don't remember any muslim country to send troops to Rwanda. Where are the mighty Turks and Arabs?

The all thread sounds quite wrong any way as it is quite obvious our Turkish friends don't give a dame about Darfour.

And don't be ignorants. There is NO way a country to send troops in a different country without having interests. Onw way or another.

First of all give me a break with the French in Ruwanda as obviously you just don't know anything about it. Over 90% of the Hutus were killed not by the centralized agencies nor the army, but by their neighbour and fellow villagers. And that what's make the all genocide unike. So the problem wasn't to sell weapons but that several hundred thousands people were killed by mere machettes.

Second, obviously international law is not your stuff. You cannot ask for the extradition of a man from a country if the country doesn't consider the action as criminal. So (if the law is voted) you still be able to say that Armeninia was a mere accident provided that it is not publically in France.

Third, I know Paki and India and Bengal are the main providers of men for blue helmet but their record is bad, very bad. They just send their troops not to be obliged to pay them and they are as inefficent as one can imagine (see Indian troops in Somalia).

Then again, considering North Sudanese, they may look black to us, but don't try to sya it to them, they regard themselves as arabs.

It was a joke, we have more than enough soldier, but I dont see any reason to sent them other countries.

Ho God! Poor BG, you're defently clueless about the situation and won't ever learn anything because you refuse to hear. (NB I did confuse the two ethnicities)

1) You avoid the point that thousands of civilians were killed by civilians. There was no Tusti forces to fight against except the Burundi army that was massacring Hutu on the other side of the border.

2) You give no explaination for WHY the French militaries would have helped to kill these poor people.

3) You completly disregard the fact that French army ultimatly did end the massacres even though too late. And also that Operation Turquoise was ultimately backed by the UN.

4) You're forgetting that there is indeed a French responsability in the all genocide but it is at the govermental level and because they failed to understand that another government was about to kill half of its population. So with your false accusation you are actually not only violating the truth but weakening your own argument.

So recognize for once your clueless (which you failed to acknowledge for the all Darfur thing) and adopt a decent realistic position as Mortaza who at least is able to ask REAL questions that tackle REAL problems, not paranoid fantasies.

I'd like to add a few comment on your behaviour unfortunately I'd be instantly banned from AE for doing so. Yet what is certain is that you do not participate to the creation of an interesting and healthy debate on critically important questions.

Originally posted by bg_turk Care to provide any sources for those massacres?

Use Google

Originally posted by bg_turk Why the French supported the killers and aided them is very simple, because they were close allies of France and were a tool for French interests in the region. Rwanda had a special status for France, because it was not a former French colony, but an ally that had been won away from Belgium, its old colonial master. Backing the pro-French Rwandan regime that perpetrated the Genocide, offered France the chance not just to outdo Belgium but also to humiliate the Anglo-Saxon forces thought to be behind the largely English-speaking Tutsi forces.

So killing them was France's interest because France's interest was to kill them. It is called a circulatory argument my friend and it won't lead us any where.

Originally posted by bg_turk The BBC's Mark Doyle says that France was the closest ally of the Hutu regime in 1994. It is well known that French military advisers worked with the Hutu government army right up to the beginning of the genocide. France denies involvement in the mass killings.

Obviously you didn't read my previous post where I say the government didn't foresee the event. When it comes to the bbc article, some have an opinion and may have some untold interest in doing so. These are quite obvious for the Rwanda president and the anti-imerialist african.

Originally posted by bg_turk Are you aware of how many Tutsis were killed in the zones that were under the control of this so-called Operation Turquoise? Operation Turquoise is charged by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda with complicity of genocide and complicity of crimes against humanity.  ???? Why so-called? I want to see the warrant It did not fail to understand, it refused to understand, and even tried to thwart the attempts of those who tried to make the world aware of a potential genocide: From the beginning of the war in 1990, French authorities understood the risk of genocide. Colonel Rwagafilita, Habyarimana�s close associate, told the general who directed French military cooperation in Rwanda that the Tutsi �are very few in number, we will liquidate them.�82 Thus Ambassador Martres dismissed reports of massacres as �just rumors�83 and a supporter within the French Foreign Ministry wrote soon after the International Commission published its report that the Habyarimana regime was �rather respectful of human rights and on the whole concerned about good administration.� In a shocking echo of extremist Hutu propaganda, this author explained that the RPF, and not Habyarimana, should be blamed for the massacres of the Tutsi, because their agents (provocateurs) had infiltrated and caused the Bugesera massacre as well as the slaughter of the Bagogwe in 1991.84 As part of an effort to shore up Habyarimana and discredit further the RPF, the French secret service (Direction Gйnйrale des Services Extйrieurs, DSGE) planted news stories about supposed Ugandan support for the guerrilla movement. On February 21, 1993, the reputable Le Monde published an account of a RPF massacre of hundreds of civilians that had in fact never taken place. Source: http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/rwanda/Geno1-3-11.htm

Interestingly enough you totally fail to provide a single line about involvement of French soldiers during the genocide.

Rwanda holds France a guilty party in the Rwandan Genocide, I wonder when it will adress this aswell, or will it be made illegal to make a comment on it  or will they pass a new law teaching little Rwandan kids about the glories of the French "Peace-keeping" force in Rwanda.