Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Hamas, Sharia and Sudan

durruti02 said:
if you were an israeli, worried by your govt who wants to support their violence, i am sure you would be interested to know who Hamas's friends are
Click to expand...
US investor buys Sudanese warlord’s land

A US businessman backed by former CIA and state department officials says he has secured a vast tract of fertile land in south Sudan from the family of a notorious warlord, in post-colonial Africa’s biggest private land deal.

Philippe Heilberg, a former Wall Street banker and chairman of New York-based Jarch Capital, told the Financial Times he had gained leasehold rights to 400,000 hectares of land – an area the size of Dubai – by taking a majority stake in a company controlled by the son of Paulino Matip.

“You have to go to the guns, this is Africa,” Mr Heilberg said by phone from New York. He refused to disclose how much he had paid for the lease.

Jarch Management Group is linked to Jarch Capital, a US investment company that counts on its board former US state department and intelligence officials, including Joseph Wilson, a former ambassador and expert on Africa, who acts as vice-chairman; and Gwyneth Todd, who was an adviser on Middle Eastern and North African affairs at the Pentagon and under former president Bill Clinton at the White House.

Laws on land ownership in south Sudan remain vague, and have yet to be clarified in a planned land act. For this reason, some foreign experts on Sudan as well as officials in the regional government, speaking on condition of anonymity, doubted Mr Heilberg could assert legal rights over such a vast tract of land. The deal is second only in size to the recent lease of 1.3m hectares by South Korea’s Daewoo from the government of Madagascar.

Mr Heilberg is unconcerned. He believes that several African states, Sudan included, but possibly also Nigeria, Ethiopia and Somalia, are likely to break apart in the next few years, and that the political and legal risks he is taking will be amply rewarded.

“If you bet right on the shifting of sovereignty then you are on the ground floor. I am constantly looking at the map and looking if there is any value,” he said, adding that he was also in contact with rebels in Sudan’s western region of Darfur, dissidents in Ethiopia and the government of the breakaway state of Somaliland, among others.

The company was embroiled in a dispute with the south Sudan government over its claims to exploration rights for oil.

Mr Heilberg said Jarch had no expertise in agricultural development but would be seeking joint venture partners to cultivate the land, which is in one of the remotest parts of Sudan, in a region bordering the Nile river but with no tarred roads.
Click to expand...

durrutti02, you are completely misguided to focus on the hamas re. Sudan.

if you want to talk about Sudan, then talk about US involvement (business and military) and the impact on the population, both nomadic and static, that western development of the land of the Sud will bring
 
tangentlama said:
US investor buys Sudanese warlord’s land



durrutti02, you are completely misguided to focus on the hamas re. Sudan.

if you want to talk about Sudan, then talk about US involvement (business and military) and the impact on the population, both nomadic and static, that western development of the land of the Sud will bring
Click to expand...

tangent i am entirely happy to accept the pernicious US involvement in Sudan as EVERYWHERE

why do you dismiss then the links between Hamas and Sudan .. they are the only two existing Muslim Brotherhood regimes .. when Hamas complain about massacre in palestine surely it is not wrong to note their realtionship to a govt who carries out atrocities in Sudan?
 
http://www.sudanvisiondaily.com/modu...icle&sid=37474

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=45723

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=C...sult#PPA185,M1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood "Until the election of Hamas in Gaza, Sudan was the one country were the Brotherhood was most successful in gaining power, its members making up a large part of the government officialdom following the 1989 coup d'état by General Omar Hassan al-Bashir."

ideologically it is clear sudan and hamas are brothers whether sudan funds them is a differrent question but it seems they are NOT a major funder
 
belboid said:
right, so not an iota odf evidence to back you up. those links just say they are ideologically allied (as we all already knew), but say nothing about main sources of funding, or anything else. just because sudan is a state (which Gaza isn't, of course), that doesnt mean they are the main backers. Sudan is such a weak f'ed up state it isn't really in a position to be a 'main friend'

The 'bad guys'? At the moment the real 'bad guys' are the Israeli state.

e2a: If Sudan were really Hamas' main friend, I would expect them to show it by being at least one of: their main finders; their main suppliers of arms; their main suppliers of 'education' (ie training camps, religious, military, propaganda techniques etc). As far as I am aware - and there is nothing in the links to gainsay my current knowledge - that isn't the case
Click to expand...

belboid you have changed the issue .. i have not said they are a major funder .. but a major friend / ally .. many groups who are not ideologically similar or supportive WILL fund groups .. so syria and iran NEITHER of which are from the hamas politic stable give more support for hamas than sudan AS IT SUITS THEM in the world of geo-politics .. and don't forget that initially ISRAEL funded Hamas, as now they fund PLO .. so funding is a whole murky area

and you are right when you say that sudan is weak .. if it was not it would fund hamas more

but essentially i am glad you accept at the beginning of your post the links between hamas and the criminal sudan regime

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/hamas-funds.htm

BUTBUTBUT why again do you do this ' but israel are the bad guys' I KNOW THIS YOU O=KNOW THIS WE ALL ( CEPT ZACHOR) KNOW THIS .. but please it IS possible to understand that when one side is the aggressor that the other side is a major problem too .. i think you are doing a right old pre swp lefty thing of saying we support WHOEVER fights capital .. we do NOT have to .. there are always options .. in this case supporting to nationalism does NOT and will not break the cycle of violence
 
Iran this, Iran that. Anyone would think that our leaders wanted a war with Iran. Ah, this is just like the days before the invasion of Iraq; the 'rogue' state, governed by a bloodthirsty tyrant and a huge supporter of international terrorists.

Are you guys up for a war? :D:rolleyes:
 
belboid said " ...how so? The issue that I questioned was your contention that Sudan could reasonably be described as Hamas' best friend. You haven't given one iota of evidence to back that up, probably because it isn't true. "


ok .. what is a friend? .. is it someone who you agree with and who supports you in what you believe? .. or is it someone who has lots of money? .. if we are talking money my statement is wrong .. if we are talking ideologically i am right ..
 
nino_savatte said:
Iran this, Iran that. Anyone would think that our leaders wanted a war with Iran. Ah, this is just like the days before the invasion of Iraq; the 'rogue' state, governed by a bloodthirsty tyrant and a huge supporter of international terrorists.

Are you guys up for a war? :D:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
what you are saying the al jazeera article is not true?
 
yes .. a working class war .. the mullahs butchered the iranian left .. and should be made to pay ..

but you do not think like this do you .. you mean, do i support a US war against iran? of course not ..

but would i care if israel bombed irans nuclear facilities? .. no, not really .. the idea of iran or pakistan OR ISRAEL ( support mordechai vanunu!) having nukes scares me

now do you acceot that al jazeera article or not


http://www.vanunu.freeserve.co.uk/
 
Wtf are you talking about? In the words of Ian Paisley, "Let me smell your breath".

You post up loads of links but I don't think that you've actually read anything that they contain (or not, as the case maybe).

For example, this link leads to nowhere.
http://www.sudanvisiondaily.com/modu...icle&sid=37474

This one...how relevant is this to the current situation? I note that the date of the article is 14/7/08. Furthermore, what does it prove?
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=45723

Here's another phantom link...nice.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=C...sult#PPA185,M1

And finally, the ultimatum.

now do you acceot that al jazeera article or not
Click to expand...

What if I don't, are you going to cry? :D
 
forget the fucking messenger .. what do YOU think! it ios bareley possible to get ANY non partisan ( i.e nono zionist or non islamist prop ) here so that is the reality

now .. what do those links say?
 
durruti02 said:
it shows simply that hamas will back sudan in the face of its disgusting aggression in darfur ..
Click to expand...

Right, so that makes it okay to indiscriminately put hundreds of innocent Palestinians (many of them children) to the sword?

Is this what you're saying, durutti...or, do you accept Israel's 'human shield' defense that it's "Hamas' fault" for those many deaths"?
 
durruti02 said:
forget the fucking messenger .. what do YOU think! it ios bareley possible to get ANY non partisan ( i.e nono zionist or non islamist prop ) here so that is the reality

now .. what do those links say?
Click to expand...

"Forget the messenger", he says. :rolleyes: So what if the messenger happens to be a neo-con or a supporter of US state-sponsored violence. That's okay, is it?

Oh and stop barking orders. You're looking silly. :D
 
nino_savatte said:
Right, so that makes it okay to indiscriminately put hundreds of innocent Palestinians (many of them children) to the sword?

Is this what you're saying, durutti...or, do you accept Israel's 'human shield' defense that it's "Hamas' fault for those many deaths"?
Click to expand...

no not in the slightest .. i UTTERLY condemn israels attacks and their bullshit prop

and as i have already said b4 ALSO the whole basis for their existance ..

BUT equally i am arguing HAMAS are NOT part of a solution as they are fundamentalist ultra religio-nationalists

why when you are against zionism do you not attack its mirror in hamas?
 
durruti02 said:
no not in the slightest .. i UTTERLY condemn israels attacks and their bullshit prop

and as i have already said b4 ALSO the whole basis for their existance ..

BUT equally i am arguing HAMAS are NOT part of a solution as they are fundamentalist ultra religio-nationalists

why when you are against zionism do you not attack its mirror in hamas?
Click to expand...

So you're pursuing this line that anyone here who speaks out against this action - British, Palestinian, Israeli, US et al - has some sort of associated culpability with Hamas. Is this what you're saying?

Is it a requirement to denounce Hamas in order that we may be 'cleansed' in your eyes? :D

Hamas wouldn't have existed if it were not for the state of Israel. I guess you didn't think of that - eh?

If Hamas never existed, Israel would still have bombed Gaza or the West Bank.
 
durruti02 said:
belboid you have changed the issue .. i have not said they are a major funder .. but a major friend / ally .. many groups who are not ideologically similar or supportive WILL fund groups .. so syria and iran NEITHER of which are from the hamas politic stable give more support for hamas than sudan AS IT SUITS THEM in the world of geo-politics .. and don't forget that initially ISRAEL funded Hamas, as now they fund PLO .. so funding is a whole murky area

and you are right when you say that sudan is weak .. if it was not it would fund hamas more

but essentially i am glad you accept at the beginning of your post the links between hamas and the criminal sudan regime

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/hamas-funds.htm
Click to expand...
I agreed in my first response to your statement 'Sudan are hamas' main friends' that Sudan and Hamas are linked, so i dont know why you persist in saying I have only just 'accepted' this, as it isn't true.

As for the rest of your comment, it seems a bit all over the shop.

you claimed (as I just said) that Sudan are hamas' MAIN friend. But you can't provide anything tlo back that up, you just seem to think that because Sudan is a state it MUST be the most important ally. But I see no evidence for that statement. As you seem to accept, Sudan is not a significant funder, nor a provider of arms, nor of any other kind of practical support. There is no evidence that it is the main ideological ally either. Do they provide education? Tell them how to organise and/or fight, a la Moscow and the rest of the worlds CP's? No. So in what way are they practically Hamas' 'main friend'? They simply seem like kindred spirits to me, and there is no real reason to think that just because something happened in Sudan it will be copied as exactly as possible by Hamas.

(of course they will do many things the same way, but that is because of a shared general philosophy, not because Sudan says its good)
 
nino_savatte said:
1)So you're pursuing this line that anyone here who speaks out against this action - British, Palestinian, Israeli, US et al - has some sort of associated culpability with Hamas. Is this what you're saying?

2)Is it a requirement to denounce Hamas in order that we may be 'cleansed' in your eyes? :D

3)Hamas wouldn't have existed if it were not for the state of Israel. I guess you didn't think of that - eh?

4)If Hamas never existed, Israel would still have bombed Gaza or the West Bank.
Click to expand...

1)er no? what a mad idea!

2) stranger and stranger!

3)you are wrong .. hamas is part of the Muslim Brotherhood .. who predate israel by a couple of decades

4)yes and that they have grown yes IS related to israels existance


you are so fucking dogmatic lol .. you are still stuck in this intelectual dead end that says you can NOT criticise those who are our enemies enemies .. it simply is daft but whatever ..
 
belboid said:
I agreed in my first response to your statement 'Sudan are hamas' main friends' that Sudan and Hamas are linked, so i dont know why you persist in saying I have only just 'accepted' this, as it isn't true.

As for the rest of your comment, it seems a bit all over the shop.

you claimed (as I just said) that Sudan are hamas' MAIN friend. But you can't provide anything tlo back that up, you just seem to think that because Sudan is a state it MUST be the most important ally. But I see no evidence for that statement. As you seem to accept, Sudan is not a significant funder, nor a provider of arms, nor of any other kind of practical support. There is no evidence that it is the main ideological ally either. Do they provide education? Tell them how to organise and/or fight, a la Moscow and the rest of the worlds CP's? No. So in what way are they practically Hamas' 'main friend'? They simply seem like kindred spirits to me, and there is no real reason to think that just because something happened in Sudan it will be copied as exactly as possible by Hamas.

(of course they will do many things the same way, but that is because of a shared general philosophy, not because Sudan says its good)
Click to expand...

1) the regimes in sudan and gaza are the ONLY two in the world that are Muslim Brotherhood .. if you do not accept this as significant then the arguement ends ..

sudan ABSOLUTELY IS a main ideological ally on that basis ..

tbh you sound like you do not know much about the MB .. kindred spirits sounds like some 1930's leftist dilettantes .. honestly you are being incredibly nieve

2) when we look at Hamas' other allies, they are far more pragmatic / opportunist .. iran? .. are shia .. in iraq, hamas and irans allies are blowing each other to bits ... syria? .. is secular, baathist of sorts .. so again opportunistic .. saudi? well similar religous politics but US allies ..

so who would YOU say then was Hamas main ally?

and i ask again .. why do you not want this to be true?
 
durruti02 said:
1) the regimes in sudan and gaza are the ONLY two in the world that are Muslim Brotherhood .. if you do not accept this as significant then the arguement ends ..

sudan ABSOLUTELY IS a main ideological ally on that basis ..

tbh you sound like you do not know much about the MB .. kindred spirits sounds like some 1930's leftist dilettantes .. honestly you are being incredibly nieve

2) when we look at Hamas' other allies, they are far more pragmatic / opportunist .. iran? .. are shia .. in iraq, hamas and irans allies are blowing each other to bits ... syria? .. is secular, baathist of sorts .. so again opportunistic .. saudi? well similar religous politics but US allies ..

so who would YOU say then was Hamas main ally?

and i ask again .. why do you not want this to be true?
Click to expand...

what I want are facts not spurious assertion. The fact that they are the only two MB regimes (good choice of word btw :) ) doesn't really mean that much. Why should it? Something beyond 'its obvious' please. I could also just as well ask you why you are so desperate for it to be true? Tho I guess thats because it makes it easier to simplistically pigeon-hole Hamas and to attack them.

as for not knowing much about MB because of one phrase, well feck off you patronising twat. I could, with far more justification, say that dont know much about it because of your ludicrous assertion that they are key allies.

In practise Hamas has appeared to be as simply pragmatic as those other groups you mention.

You have still offered nothing to show that the two are genuinely main allies. Until you do, of course I'll refuse to accept your assertion. The argument 'they're the only MB regimes, so they MUST be' just holds no water whatsoever. You cannot offer a single example of genuine allied working, nor of significant ideological support going either way. you jmust recognise that that means there is a weakness in your argument.
 
belboid said:
what I want are facts not spurious assertion. The fact that they are the only two MB regimes (good choice of word btw :) ) doesn't really mean that much. Why should it? Something beyond 'its obvious' please. I could also just as well ask you why you are so desperate for it to be true? Tho I guess thats because it makes it easier to simplistically pigeon-hole Hamas and to attack them.

as for not knowing much about MB because of one phrase, well feck off you patronising twat. I could, with far more justification, say that dont know much about it because of your ludicrous assertion that they are key allies.

In practise Hamas has appeared to be as simply pragmatic as those other groups you mention.

You have still offered nothing to show that the two are genuinely main allies. Until you do, of course I'll refuse to accept your assertion. The argument 'they're the only MB regimes, so they MUST be' just holds no water whatsoever. You cannot offer a single example of genuine allied working, nor of significant ideological support going either way. you jmust recognise that that means there is a weakness in your argument.
Click to expand...
so what did you think of the link wherin hamas defends sudan re darfur or the attack on sudan re darfur?
 
I think its a link wherein hamas defends sudan on darfur. The SWP just defended Hamas, are they now Hamas' main allies?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

editor
  • Poll Poll
Merging Hamas/Israel conflict and West Bank Front threads?
Replies
23
Views
705
freshapple
F
tim
  • Poll Poll
Should we have a MENA (Middle East and North Africa ) forum or sub-forum?
Replies
11
Views
357
Serge Forward
Serge Forward
bcuster
Homeland Sec Kristy Noem's times (and hands) is up
Replies
28
Views
1K
Nylock
Nylock
Boris Sprinkler
Spain and Portugal hit by massive power outage. 28/04/25
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
197
Views
9K
elbows
elbows
teqniq
Good ole USA in shocking double standards of alleged Israeli sex offender allowed to leave the US and still detained in Israel Palestinian American
Replies
0
Views
234
teqniq
teqniq
Back
Top Bottom