|
Re: استفسار من الاخ بكرى ابوبكر. (Re: Biraima M Adam)
|
Here are the Sudaneseonline rules:
- يمكنك تحميل الصور من نوع
Gif,jpg and jpeg
2- يجب ان يكون حجم الصورة حوالى 65كيلو بايت
3- مدة بقاء الصور على السيرفر شهران
And Kodi has his profile pic for more than 2 months.
Pictures that were uploaded on other websites are still there some of them stay more than 6 months
I will bring some samples here
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: استفسار من الاخ بكرى ابوبكر. (Re: Biraima M Adam)
|
الاستاذ خالد كودي
لا اعتقد ان الصوره قد ازيحت عن قصد ,
وكما قال نصر الدين , واضح انو في مشكله لاني ايضا قد فقدت الصوره خاصتي في البووفايل وكذلك فقدت مجموعه كبيره من الصور في بوستي المعنون ب (صور )
لك ودي
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: استفسار من الاخ بكرى ابوبكر. (Re: Marouf Sanad)
|
أها يا بريمة و أنت زول خبره وتخصص في حقل الكمبيوتر
Why this shocking photo is still there in the same post
Click here
Re: نداء عاجل: للأخ بكرى أبوبكر وكل الأخوة البورداب
Here it is
?Can you tell me which website that picture was uploaded to
ممكن توريني مصلحة بكري شنو عشان يحزف صور شهيد الوطن جون قرنق من بوستي و أيضا من البروفايل?
أنت زول بتاع كمبيوتر و رينا الحاصل شنو عشان نتعلم منك....ليه غالبية أعضاء المنبر فقدوا صور البروفايل...including me (صورة قرنق)
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: استفسار من الاخ بكرى ابوبكر. (Re: Kostawi)
|
كوستاوى المطبلاتى، أرجو منك حزف هذه الصورة فوراً، وإلا أنا ح أرفع البوست بتاعى وأواصل الرصيع علي دوركم المحزى في عرض جثث الموتى بهذه الصورة المهينة التى تريدون بها إهانة الأحياء والأموات وسلب حرية الأخرين وقتل براءة أطفالنا. مازال الأمر تحت التحرى لماذا تجلب هذه الصورة المهينة. بريمة
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: استفسار من الاخ بكرى ابوبكر. (Re: Kostawi)
|
Dear Khalid Kodi
what is more horrifying seeing the shameful photos of atrocities or committing the act itself !!!
some people don't wanna see, hear let alone admit it is happening; simply because they might ...( I say might) .. be compelled to deal with the consequences including taking responsibilities and do something about it; denial is easy because as they say there is no comfort in the truth; such awful truth that they are not prepared to deal with !!!
What a shame !!
with respect
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: استفسار من الاخ بكرى ابوبكر. (Re: Khalid Kodi)
|
شكرا كستاوى وهاله،
لايدرى بريمه هذا ان المساله ليست نصرا وهزيمه بازالة او ترك الصور فى سودانيزانلاين، انما الموضوع هو الاصرار على الحق الذى هو قادم اراد ام لم يرد، يومها لنرى اى جحر سيدخل فيه المجرمين.
Sudan: Int. Criminal Court, help wanted
Firstly, I am attempting to gather information about the fate of failed asylum seekers returned from UK to Sudan. If you have any information about what has happened to such people, or information in general about people who have been removed to Sudan by the UK in recent years I would be most grateful if you could let me know.
Secondly, as you may know, following a referral by the UN Security Council, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court recently opened an investigation into the violence in Darfur. As one of many lines of investigation, we are trying to locate people who were witnesses to, or who have information concerning, attacks on civilians committed after July 2003 and who have since left the region and travelled to a variety of locations, including the UK. We are asking groups who have contact with such persons if they could advise their clients that the ICC is investigating crimes in Darfur and to find out if they might be willing to providing some basic information to our investigators. At this early stage, we are focusing on talking to people from the area and finding out as much as possible about the circumstances of the violence in Darfur. Decisions about such matters as formally providing a witness statement would take place further down the line and only after detailed discussion with, and consent of, any witness.
It is of course crucial that the person be sufficiently informed about the Court, its procedures and activities, and that they have time to consider any potential ramifications and discuss any concerns they may have. We can discuss such matters in more detail with them. It should also be borne in mind that, from the outset, the Court takes into account issues of confidentiality and will evaluate security concerns as necessary. I hope this information enables your to have a preliminary discussion with any clients you may have from Darfur and look forward very much to hearing from you. Meantime if there is anything which you need clarified or expanded upon just give me a call or drop me an email. My details, as below, can be passed on to your clients.
Best regards,
Susie Kemp Investigator Office of the Prosecutor International Criminal Court
Tel: +31 70 515-8933 Fax. +31 70 515 8395 Mobile: +31 646 448 745
Email: [email protected]
International Criminal Court Cour Pénale Internationale http://www.icc-cpi.int
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: استفسار من الاخ بكرى ابوبكر. (Re: Khalid Kodi)
|
The International Herald Tribune
It's worth bringing tyrants to justice By Ken Roth International Herald Tribune WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 10, 2005
NEW YORK Bringing to justice those who commit atrocities has obvious appeal. It provides redress for victims and their families, punishes perpetrators, and deters others from replicating their crimes. But is the price too high? Critics argue that the threat of prosecution compels dictators to cling to power rather than step down, or that it encourages abusive combatants to fight on rather than sue for peace. Yet a decade of experience with international tribunals suggests these fears are overblown.
The example of Charles Taylor, Liberia's brutal former president who on Thursday begins his third year in comfortable exile in Nigeria, shows that the costs of ignoring justice can be high. Taylor is one of only two sitting ######### of state to have been charged by an international tribunal.
In June 2003, a United Nations-backed court unsealed an indictment of Taylor for his role in supporting Revolutionary United Front rebels known for murder, rape and hacking off the limbs of many of its victims during Sierra Leone's civil war.
Two months later, as rebels were poised to take Monrovia, the Liberian capital, Taylor's days as president were clearly numbered. Yet rather than arrest and deliver him for trial, Nigeria, with the tacit consent of the United States and Britain, gave him sanctuary.
This sweetheart deal has so far deprived Taylor's many victims and Sierra Leone's people of the opportunity to see one of their prime persecutors brought to justice. It also risks emboldening other would-be tyrants to carry out similar atrocities, since they might calculate that, if their crimes catch up with them, they, too, can opt for exile over imprisonment.
It need not have been that way. The case of former President Slobodan Milosevic of Yugoslavia, who in May 1999 became the first sitting head of state to be indicted by an international tribunal, illustrates an alternative approach. When Serbs took to the streets en masse in October 2000 to challenge his rule - defiance fueled in part by international reaction to his indictment - the threat of prosecution did not delay his ouster. Lacking power to shield himself from prosecution, he was soon shipped to The Hague, where he is now standing trial.
That a risk of prosecution does not impede the toppling of dictators is suggested as well by many of Milosevic's predecessors. Before the era of international tribunals, tyrants whose regimes were crumbling typically fled abroad. Among them were Marcos of the Philippines, Duvalier of Haiti, Mengistu of Ethiopia, Amin of Uganda, Stroessner of Paraguay, Mobutu of Zaire, and the Shah of Iran. But as their reigns came to an end, all shared Milosevic's powerlessness to insist on formal protection from prosecution, despite the possibility of being forced back home to stand trial. As is typical, all clung to power until the last possible moment, by which point they had no capacity to prolong their rule in quest of official amnesty.
Even when the aim is ending armed conflict, when warring parties may be more willing to compromise before the bitter end, the advantages of not prosecuting are often exaggerated. The issue is not amnesty for merely taking up arms - a reasonable part of many peace agreements - but amnesty for atrocities committed during the conflict.
Once more, the situation in the former Yugoslavia is instructive. Milosevic accepted the Dayton Peace Accord ending the Bosnian conflict without obtaining an amnesty, even though an international criminal tribunal for the region had been established, and he was an obvious target.
Moreover, the threat of prosecution helped Bosnia by forcing some of its most vicious leaders to lie low, removing them from the political scene. A deterrent effect can also be found today in Darfur and eastern Congo, where the involvement of the International Criminal Court has contributed to a reduction in violence by forcing murderous commanders to adopt the mantle of reform to avoid the prosecutor's attention.
By contrast, the cost of impunity from prosecution can be high. During the Sierra Leone civil war, an attempt to placate the Revolutionary United Front by giving it amnesty in July 1999 allowed the rebels to regroup and resume their atrocities. Similarly, the impunity so far allowed Indonesia's military for its September 1999 slaughter in East Timor has emboldened the military to continue its brutality in Aceh; some abusive military leaders were even transferred from one conflict to the other.
Allowing murderous forces not only to escape justice but also to remain intact is a particularly dangerous recipe for renewed atrocities. President Álvaro Uribe of Colombia seems poised to repeat that mistake today by giving his country's deadly paramilitaries a slap on the wrist without insisting on genuine demobilization.
Even when circumstances delay prosecution, they should never evolve into formal amnesty. The possibility of prosecution when abusive forces no longer pose a threat should always be left open. The experience of Sierra Leone, where the United Nations' refusal to endorse a national amnesty for the RUF did not keep it from signing a peace accord, suggests that the threat of international prosecution need not undermine a peace process.
Shielding an abusive leader from justice is particularly inappropriate once he no longer commands troops. Whatever the reasons for granting Taylor temporary refuge in Nigeria, it is wrong for President Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria, two years later, still to refuse to surrender him for trial.
No one claims that justice is easy or painless. Competing priorities must sometimes be weighed. But experience suggests that the benefits of prosecuting those responsible for atrocities can be secured without the prolonged wars and extended dictatorships that critics often claim.
(Kenneth Roth is executive director of Human Rights Watch.)
IHT Copyright © 2005 The International Herald Tribune | www.iht.com[/B]
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|