Additional on the war in western Sudan in the current Economist, a good-sized feature story; online link at
http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2668200

hmmm.... what do all these places have in common?
Muslims attacking Christians, Anamists, and any religion that is not Islam. Another common thing is Slavery. But not just Slavery. Genocide is also happening to people that refuse to change their religion to [fill in the blank]. A group that is theocratic elitist are the ones committing these crimes against humanity. this has also been going on for years and nary a word from the useless UN. In my humble opinion in the near future we will have to open up another front in africa in our war on the Global Jihad.

You might want to read the Economist article.

"It is a little more complicated than that. Sudan, Africa's largest country, is the scene of two separate but related civil wars. One, between north and south, pits the Arab, Islamist government against rebels who are mostly black African and non-Muslim. This war has been raging intermittently for half a century, but has come tantalisingly close to resolution in the past year: partly because of foreign pressure, especially from America, and partly because both sides, exhausted, wish to stop fighting and share Sudan's new-found oil wealth.

The other war, between the government and two rebel groups in Darfur, pits Muslim against Muslim. The divide in Darfur is ethnic, between Arabs and black Africans. This war flared up only last year. It was seen at first as a mere sideshow, but is now too vast and vile to be ignored. " -- Ibid.

And as you'll see if you follow the Annuak link, AfricaPundit botched the reference:

"...countless eyewitnesses have reported that the Ethiopian military has committed mass murder and rape against unarmed civilians of the Anuak tribe in Western ETHIOPIA. Between 5,000 and 9,000 Anuak to have fled to refugee camps in Sudan..."

...which makes a lot more sense, since Ethiopian troops would have to march 600 miles across a hostile country, through two ongoing civil wars, in order to manhandle people in western Sudan.

The linked site lists no sectarian reason for this campaign on the part of the predominantly Christian Ethiopian government. There is no reference to the religious identification of the Anuak tribe. The character of this strife may be tribal/ethnic rather than religious or political.

Just to make this point clear: Religious, ethnic and racial bigotry, and violence sparked by such bigotries, knows no boundaries. Anyone can indulge in such behavior; at one time or another, most religious/ethnic/racial groups have done so.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

You know, this thing about linking to mainstream media stories and then decrying the mainstream media's lack of coverage of said stories strikes me as an amazing exercise in self-delusion.

Well, yes, and the Economist did play up the story. Although, in a US media context, Darfur isn't getting much attention; the Economist is not "mainstream" in the sense that it doesn't get read on Main Street as much, say, as Newsweek. Or People.

OK, how about the NY Times?