(OT)Another ethnic cleansing going on

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread


7/16/99 -- 11:28 AM Angola-War


LUANDA, Angola (AP) - UNITA rebels allegedly rounded up about 50 women and children at a market, shot the women point-blank and threw the children into a nearby river, state-run media reported Friday. The alleged massacre occurred Tuesday at Sachitembo, a village 330 miles southeast of the capital, Luanda, according to Angop news agency and the state-owned daily Jornal de Noticias, which cited witnesses.

There was no independent verification of the report. UNITA officials, believed to be based in the central highland town Bailundo, could not be reached on their satellite telephone.

Fighting between the government army and UNITA rebels, which first began after Angola's 1975 independence from Portugal, has made most of the countryside inaccessible.

Since December, when a four-year-old peace pact unraveled, the rebels have been pushing people out of villages at gunpoint, forcing them to seek shelter in overcrowded cities.

UNITA - a Portuguese acronym for the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola - said in the statement it now controlled 70 percent of the interior, pinning government forces in the main cities and coastal areas of the southwest African country.

UNITA said over the past five months rebel forces had shot down 11 Mig-23 aircraft, captured 21 tanks and 90 armored vehicles, and knocked out 159 military trucks.

Officials in Luanda were not immediately available for comment, but the government previously has acknowledged that its forces are on the defensive against the heavily armed rebels.

Copyright 1999 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


Why don't we/NATO, stick our bloody nose's in this civil war. It look's like the rebel's are commiting the same stuff Milo was.

Oh! That's right, the're not European's, we don't care so much about their right's/life.

-- CygnusXI (noburnt@toast.net), July 16, 1999


Actually, and I know this might sound strange considering the horror he caused, but I think Milosevic was more "civil" than what is happening in Angola. I have a feeling this is only a small idea of what is actually happening there.

We humans are so strange...capable of such tremendous compassion and unthinkable cruelty.

Mike ===============================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), July 16, 1999.


I am a bit confused about your message. Are you suggesting that it would be a good idea for us to invade Angola? IMHO, the conditions are much different than in Serbia. The folks in Angola have not much more to lose and bombing such a country would not result in capitulation. For bombing alone to be effective, you must have a large middle class with lots of investment. Such is not the case in Angola. Ground forces would be required and many young Americans would die.

Or are you saying that that because we cannot help in Angola, we should not have helped in Serbia? This position also seems untenable, because the argument could be made for almost any action we might undertake as a country. If we cannot do it perfectly, everytime, to everyone, and forever... then we should never do it.

Did you mean to imply one of these two things, or did you mean something else entirely? Perhaps you actually meant to imply one of these things, but have a better reason than came to me?


-- Uhmm.. (jfcp81a@prodigy.com), July 16, 1999.

If the corporations see a return on their investment, our boys will be sent there. Kosovo was about the mineral mines in Trepca. We are living in a corporate-police state and Kosovo was a corporate takeover with violence. Wake up.

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), July 16, 1999.

Or are you saying that that because we cannot help in Angola, we should not have helped in Serbia? This position also seems untenable, because the argument could be made for almost any action we might undertake as a country. If we cannot do it perfectly, everytime, to everyone, and forever... then we should never do it.



Whether we should do it or not is another matter, the point is we can never use the reason of human rights for doing it. No group is more valuable than another. Many of us see this contradiction for what it is, political expedience in lieu of the truth.

Many of us also don't appreciate being lied to so blatantly, it is rather an insult to our intelligence, don't you know.

-- Will Huett (willhuett@usa.net), July 16, 1999.

When populations exceed the available resources this is the inevitable result...human beings behave like animals. USA Today had a blurb today...humans on Earth now exceed 6 billion. When I was born world population was 2.3 billion. Does anyone see a rosy future in this life? Its time for us all to find the higher powers inside.

-- Sand (smueller@azalea.net), July 16, 1999.


The real point is... no one group is more valuable than another.


I was hoping to get away with a neutral stance and just argue about form. You and Sand actually contributed quite elegant thoughts, though. In fact, rather than replying, I must think more carefully about these issues. Just barely Y2K, but quite nice anyway.

By the way, Cygnus, it was a wonderful birthday party. How old are you?


-- Uhmm.. (jfcp81a@prodigy.com), July 16, 1999.

KoFE hit the nail on the head.

-- Gia (Laureltree@hotmail.com), July 17, 1999.

Actaully, my point is. War will always be with us, as long as we are still human. I say let the war(wherever it is)be fought. Let the winners and loser's become clear, then move on.

This sound'd harsh, but it's better than us, or nato or whoever, going in and making everyone "kiss and make up", when they really still wanna kill eachother. That tactic, I believe, just prolong's the suffering-long term.

-- CygnusXI (noburnt@toast.net), July 17, 1999.

Cygnus, all too often the situation is *not* resolved. No one interfered with the English and the Irish, yet that mess has been happening for generations. Ditto with many of the African conflicts, ditto with mid-east and ditto with many European conflicts until now. I do not approve of NATO actions in Kosovo, but more because I question the motives and the legality of the action than because I feel that letting other groups kill each other off is morally correct.

This is a grey area for me, and not much easier to resolve than familial interference. To become an uninvited mediator in disputes requires more wisdom than I have - whether on a family or national level. Without that wisdom (and compassion, for *both* sides), I firmly believe that more harm is likely than good.

-- Tricia the Canuck (tricia_canuck@hotmail.com), July 17, 1999.


I cannot agree with your inability to interfere in another family's affairs. I strongly would protest in a moment spousal abuse or child abuse in another's family. Was Milo's sin easier for you to stomach?

Also, you are broadly defining the family as the state, but why stop there? You could define the continent or the geographical area as the 'family', and that assumption would have prevented you from interfering in the Nazi matter of 6MM dead jews in the European family of states. Just a family matter? IMHO, NOT!


-- Uhmm.. (jfcp81a@prodigy.com), July 17, 1999.

Uhmm, I didn't mean that interference is never required, just that it requires a finer touch than it usually gets.

Perhaps an earlier intervention would have saved some of those millions who died, Jews, Russians, and troups from all sides. Or it might have ignited a resistance type warfare that would have killed even more over the years.

As for intervening in cases of abuse, yes, it is called for. However, our attitude has gone from in no case should you interfere, to breaking up families which might have been able to mend themselves if a better form of mediation were available. No, I don't condone men beating their wives, wives beating their husbands, homosexuals/lesbians beating their partners or any of them beating their children (spanking being another grey area for me). Moreover, in cases where I worried about the life of the person being beaten (and in all cases of child abuse), I wouldn't hesitate to call the authorities. But, to call the authorities because I heard a couple yelling at each other and noted a bruise on her arm or him sporting a black eye - no. I would recommend councelling, tell them that I was concerned and watch carefully for further problems.

How many people died because of NATO interference that would not have otherwise depends on whose propaganda you believe. This was not the bloodless support of poor refugees that NATO would have us believe. Moreover the innocent are and were suffering with the guilty. Is that justice? As I said, I'm not wise enough to know what to do - to stand and let people die is wrong, but what we did may have been even more wrong. Perhaps history will tell - or it may all be rendered moot by Y2K.

-- Tricia the Canuck (tricia_canuck@hotmail.com), July 17, 1999.


You said: How many people died because of NATO interference that would not have otherwise depends on whose propaganda you believe... Perhaps history will tell.

IMHO, you cannot often await the judgement of history before taking action. You must often choose who/what to believe and to committ yourself long before history's judgement, or your beliefs may become the casualty.

Milo and his despotic associates had proven themselves ruthless killers of innocent people long before the recent battle. NATO, for all its problems, is the construct of democratically elected governments policed by (yes, arguably) free media. I maintain that reasonable people would had to beleive NATO over Milo, and to take action preventing (in so far as possible) the development and infectious spread of Milo's virulent hatred and ruthless murdering.

There is a Y2K parallel here which I hope will help me clarify my arguement: Whose propaganda do you believe... that of Southern Company, AT&T, Wachovia, Monkey County, Koskinen, and Pool (CET); or that of Yourdon, Cory, GN, Milne, and Heller? You must choose long before history delivers a verdict I think. You must commit yourself to action long before we know 100% which side is accurately forecasting the future. To do nothing commits you to the Koskinen side. To prepare yourself and your family commits you to the Yourdon side. If you have not yet made this decision, if you are awaiting history's judgement, if the Yourdon side is correct, history will judge you to be dead.


-- Uhmm.. (jfcp81a@prodigy.com), July 18, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ