Why are you still beating this dead horse? I have already proven to you that you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to Darfur. But then again, your ignoring and deliberate failure to reply to that post does not come to a surprise to me, as if only to highlight your conscious effort to outright deny anything that disagrees with your near-sighted views as "horse shit" even if such are facts. Even your own sources contradict your conclusions; conclusions of which predominantly have been the completely false accusation that the Sudanese government, because Muslim, are engaged in a systematic killing of people of other religions.

Perhaps this is a part of your complete and utter bigotry to the entire religion of Islam, and consequently maybe you are only seeing this how you like, and not intentionally lying, I don't know, and frankly it doesn't matter. What matters is the fact that you are spreading false information in an attempt at slandering the entire religion of Islam. Whether or not Islam truly teaches violence is a completely different topic and I'm sure you will attempt to bring in quotes taken out of context. But allow me to say that the primary focus on this thread is your inability to separate fact from hasty generalizations, simply because bigotry clouds your judgement.

From Wikipedia and consequently it lists sources (for this statement) from the Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur to the United Nations Secretary-General, USA Today, Slate, and the New York Times Review of Books:
"Unlike in the Second Sudanese Civil War, which was fought between the primarily Muslim north and Christian and animist south, in Darfur most of the residents are Muslim, as are the Janjaweed."

It quotes the UN report as following:
"The various tribes that have been the object of attacks and killings (chiefly the Fur, Massalit and Zaghawa tribes) do not appear to make up ethnic groups distinct from the ethnic group to which persons or militias that attack them belong. They speak the same language (Arabic) and embrace the same religion (Islam)" (p. 129).

Nor is there any evidence to suggest (from your sources) that the Janjaweed are involved in any massacre of the Anuak. Nor is there any evidence from your sources that they were targeted in Sudan. Nor is there any evidence that the Sudanese government or the Janjaweed have been co-conspirators with the massacre of the Anuak as committed by the Ethiopian military on even such a source as the Anuak Justice Council. What happened to the Anuak was horrible, but to use this case and twist the truth of their sacrafice for your own benifit of attempting to discredit the Muslim religion is by far disgraceful, and highly disrespectful to those who have died in that tragedy. It is also highly disrespectful to the main sufferers of the Darfur conflict who temselves are predominantly Muslim. The extent to your and Alias' irresponsibility of your systematic and racially and religious-motivated disinformation against Muslims is simply intolerable.

Although you might interpret it as so anyway, this is in no way an attempt of mine to somehow defend the brutality of what some Muslims around the world are doing including the government of Sudan and the Janjaweed. I myself am an advocate of some kind of decisive (perhaps military) intervention in Darfur. Just because their government is Muslim, and just because the Janjaweed are Muslim does not somehow connotate religious violence. Especially if those being massacred are Muslims themselves. Although I must say that religion could have entered in in some distorted way -just as basically any genocide where the killers are religious- it does not mean that religion, or in this case the teachings of Islam, are the sole intervention force in this conflict. Nor does it say anything about the behavior and teachings of that particular religion. By following that logic, I could say that Christians advocate the mass killings of Jews, just because some insane ones have done in the past. But I wont say that because I know its highly flawed logic.

Aside from the fact that the massacre of the Anuak happened in Ethiopia, your attempt at erasing the lines between its distinct episode with that of what is happening in Darfur is further discredited with the little fact that such massacre happened in 2003.

"On December 13, 2003, members of the Ethiopian military and militias formed from non-Anuak minority groups entered Gambella town in southwestern Ethiopia. Over the course of three days, they sought out, tortured and killed 424 men, burned houses, and scattered families. Since that time, the genocide and crimes against humanity have continued, raising the death toll between 1,500 and 2,500, and causing more than 50,000 Anuak to flee."
-Anuak Justice Council

You have also made it your attempt to erase the line separating the conflicts of Darfur and Southern Sudan. The Southern Sudan conflict was mostly stained by the First and Second Sudanese Civil Wars. Although there is an aspect of religious tension in the Second Sudanese Civil War, it was mostly pitted such a way because the Southerners wanted to mostly reject the religion of what they saw as the Arab government, not the Muslim government. The Northern government did want to impose sharia law on the South, and this is also another source of such religious polarization. Even many Muslims in the North disagreed with imposing sharia law. Its almost like saying the American Civil War was soley fought over slavery. Which was simply an issue pitted out of the broader conflict over state's rights. But that is not the point, the point is, is that you're attempting to group it in with the Darfur conflict, which is an entirely different conflict, and in a different region of the country.

No one has said that here. Nor has anyone here said that the Darfur conflict are caused by Isreal or the United States. As I have said before, I wish for intervention in Darfur.