استفسار من الاخ بكرى ابوبكر.

الاخ بكرى،

تحيه،

ارجو التوضيح عن ازالة الصور من هذا البوست.

نداء عاجل: للأخ بكرى أبوبكر وكل الأخوة البورداب

مع التقدير

أستاذ كودي
يمكنك إستعمال موقع آخر للتحميل غير سودانيزأونلاين...
لقد فقدت معظم الصور في بوست الدكتور قرنق و المحملة في موقع سودانيزأونلاين
و لم أفقد باقي الصور المحملة في مواقع أخرى.

أهى يالله، بقينا في الأستفسار وحمل الصور من مكان تانى، أقبلوا بالواقع .. الهزيمة المرة.
بريمة

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

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

كوستاوى
أوجد ليها مبرر، عهدناك مطبلاتى، الصور بكرى حزفها عديل بعد ما شاف الحجج الواضحة التى قدمت بطرح إيجابى مش جعجعة ونبذ وإفلاس.
زوروا بوستى لتروا لماذا حزفت الصور:
نداء عاجل: للأخ بكرى أبوبكر وكل الأخوة البورداب
بريمة

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)

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

شوف يا زول هوي
الصوره دي قاعده في سودانيزأونلاين و أنا نقلتها إلي هنا عشان نثبت ليك تقولك الغير صحيح لأنك لا زلت داخل توش.
و بعدين إنت لسع بتهدد....?

أها أقيم علي الحد!!!

كوستاوى
لا تتقول أكثر من اللازم، هذه الصورة بها signature تعرف هذا يعنى ماذا، أن تلك الصورة منقولة من صفحة إسمها www.y1y1.com
ولا بأس عليك يبدو أنك أمى كمبيوتر، تعرف بس للنضمى في سودانيز أون لاين
بريمة

hahahahah

http://y1y1.com/up/get.php?filename=1124430750.jpg

أيوه كده يا توش ده هو الشغل التمام

يعني أثبت كلامى إنو صاح .... إنو الصور المشطوبة هي الكانت محملة في سودانيزأونلاين , مش كده?


Good night

كوستاوى

Quote: hahahahah

ياوهم، تضحك علي سجمك، ماهو القولتو أنا، أنو بكرى أزال الصور، وهذا الذى يجعلنا نقول ليكم يلا بلا لمة، ما عارفين غير الجعجعة
بريمة

تقل فهم

يا أخي بكري ما سحب حاجة....يا المده المقررة للصورة إنتهى 2 months

ذي صورة Marouf و صورة كودي..و صورتي و صور ناس كتار يا في technical issue

للمرة العاشرة بكري ما سحب أي صورة.

تحيتي

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

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

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]