Slavery is OK As Long As It Is a Muslim Master

This is a must read. At Life Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness gives us the heads up on the scummy underside of the appeaser media. The New York times prints what must be considered the all time low of apologetic appeaser tripe. After discussing the problems that slavery and genocide are causing in the Sudan, the New York Times gives the Muslim inslavers a pass, explaining how the slaves are treated so much nicer than the western civilizations ever did.

Across the Sahara and its edges, the Sahel, most of the coexistence is peaceful, linked by shared cultures and by Islam.

Arabs and most Western academics agree that the Arab form of African slavery, existing since at least the 6th century Arab conquest, generally has been less brutal and more open to advancement by slaves than the Western version.

African slaves in Arab households largely have labored as servants in households rather than farmhands on plantations, making for easier lives and less submerging of identity. They often ate and slept side by side with their masters, sometimes married into their families -- and occasionally even came to rule a Muslim kingdom.

Isn't that nice? The "Arab" academics agree that the "Arab" form of slavery is so much "nicer" and, besides, it's existed for 14 centuries. What could be wrong with that?

I don't know...this maybe?

``You, the black women, we will exterminate you,'' Amnesty International quoted one 20-year-old black African woman as telling them, speaking of the Janjaweed who abducted the women of her village in September 2003 and raped them for days.

Read Article(registration required)