The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Asia's Tsunami and Darfur's 'Sudanami' highlight our hypocritical humanity > Comments

Asia's Tsunami and Darfur's 'Sudanami' highlight our hypocritical humanity : Comments

By Kamal Mirawdeli, published 28/1/2005

Dr Kamal Mirawdeli argues that our response to the Asian tsunami highlights and lack of response to man-made disasters like the 'Sudanami' of Darfur highlights our human hypocrisy.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
The comparison - Tsunami to Darfor is niave.

How can someone compare a natural disaster to a man-made disaster.

How can anyone claim the "spontaneous outpouring of generosity" toward our neighbours in Indonesia and around South East Asia is "hypocritical" because we have not, supposedly, exercised the same "outpouring of generosity" for the tradegy of Darfor.

One reason might be that the Tsunami was an event which consumed all before it in literally a moment. Darfor comes along and is in an area of Africa which has been a cesspool of violence and attrition for decades, regardless of the amount of private Charitable and government Aid and Western support which has been poured in as well as numerous UN declarations and pontifications over that time.

If you want to criticise Australias "spontaneous generosity" and call it "hypcrisy" because of the bad behaviour of "Arab colonists" (your words) - I would suggest that such a view is comparable to me criticising Kurds for their lack of tangible charitable support for the victims of IRA problems of the past 30 years - and such a view would be as offensive to you as your view is offensive and bigotted to me.
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 28 January 2005 3:01:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If every Australian gave every cent they had to the people of Darfur it wouldn't make the least bit of difference. They only thing that can help these people and others in similar circumstances is armed intervention by the UN.

The only problem with this is the UN is the most spineless, pathetic and useless organisation the world has ever known. They stood by and watched as 800 thousand Rwandans were slaughtered with machetes, hoes, knives and axes and didn't raise a finger to help - even though they had plenty of warning that the slaughter was imminent. All this slaughter took six months. The UN would need longer than this for all the bureaucrats to find a convenient slot in their busy schedules so they could discuss the matter.

The UN knows how to have good meaningful "dialogue" and they sure know how to build bureaucracy, they are great at gathering statistics, spending billions of dollars every year on themselves and employing every euro trash pacifist they can find, and they are the world experts on how to sit down and do nothing while hundreds of thousands of people every year are murdered by their governments. Until this impotent and bloated organisation is given a good dose of viagra nothing is going to change.
Posted by Cranky, Saturday, 29 January 2005 1:06:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with Col Rouge here Dr Kamal should be asking this question of the African countries not having a go at us.

Cranky, Your attacks on the UN sounds to me like the usual uninformed right wing rants that are taught in some right wing churches. The UN works as effective as the members allow it to just like any other org like it. The UN has no standing army it has no ability to make executive decisions. The UN is a council have and as such behaves like a council. Can you tell who brought this issue up at the UN, did the US or anyone else do anything ? Belgium had troop in country what did they do? The UN was set-up to try and stop another world war from happening not civil wars. It has taken on that role but it’s current structure and rules make it hard. What is your alternative Cranky what would you do to change the UN to make it more effective, it is very easy to point out faults much harder to come up with fixes
Posted by Kenny, Saturday, 29 January 2005 10:23:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kenny, I haven't been in a church for 20 years. Before you go off on your own rant go and read the UN charter, then tell me that they have no responsibilities in civil wars.

You can hardly defend an incompetent organisation by claiming that it must be incompetent by it's very nature! What's the point in its existence?

Yes Kenny the Belgians were in Rwanda at the time and pulled out. Not only that, they urged other nations not to go in! And the UN listened to them! This just backs up my argument.

If it's "right wing" to criticise a lot of useless blow-hards who sit by and watch 800 thousand people slaughtered then I'm quite comfortable with the tag. I find it quite unbelievable that anyone could defend them! I wonder what your attitude would be if it was the United States who failed in this responsibility?
Posted by Cranky, Saturday, 29 January 2005 11:05:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said.. our hypocricy... sure.. even our 'good works' are as filthy rags to God.. because by and large they are for our own satisfaction than for the genuine help of those we assist.

The Sudan situation (and Ruanda. and Ivory Coast) is but an example of the realities of our world. Any one who has hopes in ANY 'United Nations' type organization is living in cloud cuckoo land. The people at the top of our nation-states represent those largest and wealthiest stake holders in those countries. THEY don't want to go further than the point at which their interests are threatened. The UN is nothing but a power balance resulting from the past wars.

So, on balance .. the bible is right "All have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God"

Its not a new 'organization' we need.. its new hearts on a national scale.

BOAZ
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 29 January 2005 12:52:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BOAZ_David

I see little in your post to either defend or object to the article in question, merely what seems to be some quasi-religious condemnation of the democratic processes and that you disagree with the elected national leadership which is the outcome of that process.

Religious zealotry has no place in a secular society - and we are a secular society.
Religious zealotry has no place beyond the confines of the cloister or cult-centres which are the usual realms of delusion in which the zealots hide from the reality of life. I suggest - Keep it to yourself - It has no credibility with a balanced and educated population.

And whilst you may suggest that all have sinned and their response of "spontaneous charity" are like filthy pieces of rag etc... I will respond with - So What!

Those who contributed to the Tsunami appeal did so as a gesture of compassion for their fellow human beings, without thought of divine credit or Godly enlightenment - Please never criticise the generosity and compassion of others who you do not know - unless you are prepared to show how much more "wonderous" your contribution was.

Finally, I humbly suggest - do not bother to criticise our democratic process - unless you have a better system. It may be imperfect - but it is still the best and surpasses the archaic social structure where individuals were subordinate to the self annointed authority of priests and churches.
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 29 January 2005 2:42:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge
its amazing what a little 'religious zealotry' can do to bring out so much in terms regurgitated media generated mythology, and the views of people who have apparently unquestioningly accepted such verbal soup. Anyway.. ur right about my statement neither 'for' or 'against' the article. But in regard to hypocricy .. lets ask, 'where is the yelling screaming marching protesting left' about the genocide in Darfur ? I mean..they have the energy to rant and rave and protest about our treatment of 'alleged' assylum seekers..why is there not more 'compassion' generating protests outside the Sudanese consulates, or Parliment house, urging them to DO something about the murder and rape of tens of thousands ? Maybe its because Darfur is 'far away' and out of mind.
I don't question the generosity of folk who have given to help the tsunami effected people.
I don't see how you get 'quasi religious condemnation of our democratic processes'.
I'm rather enjoying democracy of late, since I'm seeing how it can 'work' for me and those of a like mind.
I maintain my point, that its not a 'system' no matter which one it is which will address the problems of either Darfur or natural disasters. Its renewed hearts. What I find a bit shallow, is when people come along from 'within' our peaceful and protected 'spot' on the historical time line and speak as IF they would not react in a rather human manner in the face of a water shortage where u have 2 identifiable ethnic groups both wanting their peceived rightful share.
Its easy to be 'nice' and compassionate when there are no bullets flying or ur water has not been cut off by the members of a village up pipe from you during a water shortage simply because they were a different 'religion' or race than you.(as happened to me) As soon as u see ur kids not able to drink or bathe.. u discover instincts u perhaps would not like to think exist in yourself. That is also by the way, where u discover the trendy leftist approach of 'lets resolve problems of human conflict without violence' approach just looks so stupid its not funny. (by the way, violence can be verbal as much as physical) When your child is going thirsty, you have to ACT and fast.
You said 'we are a secular society' and 'religion has no place in a secular society' and

"Religious zealotry has no place beyond the confines of the cloister or cult-centres which are the usual realms of delusion in which the zealots hide from the reality of life. I suggest - Keep it to yourself - It has no credibility with a balanced and educated population."

I suggest you read THIS ==>http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/1999-2000/2000rn08.htm

...Regarding God in our constitution.

Specially the part which says there are about 73% to 75% of Australians who would subscribe to the idea of God. So, Col, ur describing a heck of a lot of ur fellow citizens as unbalanced and uneducated.
But, the 'balanced and educated' bit.. I so love :) I will probably devote a special response to 'caringly dismantling' that one, its so loaded with issues that are juicy to any apologist. But mainly it tells more about you than the statement itself. (no offence meant)
So, in conclusion, I support the article in some areas.
By the way, I was not meaning to suggest that acts of kindness and human generosity are not worthy and good .. the 'filthy rags' reference was also not meant to imply that God simply doesn't care about our behavior and nothing we can do will ever please Him. But it certainly got you going :) Which is good. I was saying in a rather 'in ur face, religious zealot' kinda way, that deep down, we all have the need for renewal, and acts of kindness during times of economic blessing and peace, dont really change that, as other circumstances would quickly reveal.

In regard to democracy and how society is shaped, secular or Christian, (in the sense of a specific emphasis on a Christian based socialization program) that dear Col is purely up to the voters, not an individual like you. If a number of us decide to put Family First across the line, or even for them to have a significant number of juicy preferences .. even in one seat which could determine the flavor of the government in a close election.. wellll deals can be made :) and to quote a person you know well .. "so what" ?

Have a chew on this, and see where it leads.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 29 January 2005 8:11:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is what President Clinton says in his memoir "My Life", about the role of the USA in Rwanda (Hutchinson, London, 2004, at page 592):

"Early in April....mass violence raged in Rwanda. A plane crash killing the Rwandan president and the president of Burundi sparked the beginning of a horrendous slaughter inflicted by leaders of the majority Hutu on the Tutsis and their Hutu sympathisers. The Tsutis constituted only 15 percent of the population but were thought to have disproportionate economic and political power. I ordered the evacuation of all Americans and sent troops to guarantee their safety. Within one hundred days, more than 800,000 people in a country of only 8 million would be murdered, most of them with machetes. We were so preoccupied with Bosnia, with the memory of Somalia just six months old, and with opposition in Congress to military deployments in faraway places not vital to our national interests that neither I nor anyone on my foreign policy team adequately focused on sending troops to stop the slaughter. With a few thousand troops and help from our allies, even making allowances for the time it would have taken to deploy them, we could have saved lives. The failure to try to stop Rwanda's tragedies became one of the greatest regrets of my presidency. In my second term, and after I left office, I did what I could to help the Rwandans put their country and their lives back together. Today, at the invitation of President Paul Kagame, Rwanda is one of the countries in which my foundation is working to stem the tide of AIDS."
Posted by grace pettigrew, Sunday, 30 January 2005 1:01:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BOAZ_David

Sorry I did not bother to read all your rant

I saw the length of it, read the first paragraph, realised there was nothing to gain and went straight to this response.

If you want to sell an Opinion or Idea - Keep it Brief (ranting has low marketing appeal)
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 30 January 2005 10:28:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col you should have seen OZ-Aware'S response to Grace recently.

and if u make sweeping statements only to ignore responses, it says more about your own closedmindedness and 'bigotry' ? than anything else.
Brief enuf ?
BOAZ
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 30 January 2005 2:45:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BOAZ_David

I posted according to the contents of the article

You posted something which was rambling on not about the article but seemed to be a "bible class for the cognitively challenged"

I will give credit when and where credit is due

but I felt what you posted lacked any "credit" to merit further comment
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 31 January 2005 5:31:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy