Sudan Massacre

[Jimmy Higgins]

My personal belief is that the Hamas attack of Oct 7 2023 was not organic but was motivated by a desire to manipulate US presidential elections.

The timing strongly suggests that the motive was to distract the US from events in Ukraine; In the first week of October, Ukraine was front-page news, and there was a growing support amongst the public for more assistance to Ukraine from the US.
...
I think you are absolutely right, that the underlying purpose was to influence the US, and had nothing at all to do with Israel or Palestine. But the Presidential election was more than a year away at that time, so seems to me like a less plausible target.

Not everything is about us. Neither theory is plausible. Hamas doesn't have much reason to give a rat's ass who is President or whether Russia conquers Ukraine. If the attack had any strategic objective beyond "Looks like we can pull off killing a lot of Jews and taking a lot of hostages and getting a lot of attention and keeping the money flowing in", it's a lot more likely to have been the strategic objective they actually achieved with the attack: provoking Israel into a response so severe it derailed the incipient peace treaty with Saudi Arabia.

It is adorable you think Hamas is an independent organization.

 

[Politesse]

I take it no one in the thread is proposing that we actually do anything about the Sudanese conflict?

 

[Toni]

You don’t think hostile powers plan more than a few months advance?

It was pretty incomprehensible to me that Trump won the first time. That he won the nomination 3 times? Won a second term?

Americans be crazy but not that crazy..

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I take it no one in the thread is proposing that we actually do anything about the Sudanese conflict?

There is generally a sense of no hope when it comes to African conflicts. Despots replace the last despots. Europe did a real number on that continent. And with not so much regarding high cost resources, the first world's interest in Africa is not that much. Yes, China is trying indebt Africa into their own resources, but that is about it.

 

[Gospel]

I take it no one in the thread is proposing that we actually do anything about the Sudanese conflict?

You can’t discuss the current conflict in Sudan, let alone talk solutions, without addressing the history that shaped how the country got here. Ignoring that context makes any conversation about what to do next impossible. I attempted to do just that and it was a derail so. Good luck.

 

[Gospel]

In my view, the only solution is the complete dissolution of all armed groups, full accountability through trials for every leader involved, and a new constitution that puts civilians in charge and rejects colonial identity categories entirely.

 

[Bomb#20]

... Hamas doesn't have much reason to give a rat's ass who is President or whether Russia conquers Ukraine. ... it's a lot more likely to have been the strategic objective they actually achieved with the attack: provoking Israel into a response so severe it derailed the incipient peace treaty with Saudi Arabia.

It is adorable you think Hamas is an independent organization.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. A Saudi-Israeli peace treaty isn't good for the Iranian regime either.

 

[Bomb#20]

I take it no one in the thread is proposing that we actually do anything about the Sudanese conflict?

We should pressure the UAE to stop sending money to the RSF.

 

[Bomb#20]

In my view, the only solution is the complete dissolution of all but one armed groups, full accountability through trials for every leader involved, and a new constitution that puts civilians in charge and rejects colonial identity categories entirely.

FIFY.

 

[Tigers!]

So here's a thought: how about we judge the rightness or wrongness of an action based on the action itself, not on who is doing it to whom, or how much our own faction might benefit from it? How about we decry atrocities wherever and whenever they occur?

What other atrocites would you like to decry?
We are well aware of your decrying of Israel but perhaps I have missed your voluble decrying of atrocites outside the ME?

 

[Tigers!]

it would be perfectly feasible for our military to operate in the north with the cooperation of the Nigerian government and kill an awful lot of Boko Haram fighters.

Would that make the remaining Mulsims in Nigeria less likely to be violent extremists?

I strongly suspect it would do the opposite.

What is needed is the far more difficult and expensive task of arresting, trying, and (if convicted) imprisoning or otherwise punishing, a small but well protected number of Boko Haram leaders.

Worth a try if it could be arranged.

You cannot bomb or shoot people into liking you.

That is not the only reason to bomb or shoot others. Granted it is the least likely to work (in getting others to love you).
You bomb and shoot to stop further bombing and shooting. Worked eventually in WW2. We did not bomb/shoot the Axis to get them to like us but rather to end the war(s) asap.

 

[Arctish]

So here's a thought: how about we judge the rightness or wrongness of an action based on the action itself, not on who is doing it to whom, or how much our own faction might benefit from it? How about we decry atrocities wherever and whenever they occur?

What other atrocites would you like to decry?
We are well aware of your decrying of Israel but perhaps I have missed your voluble decrying of atrocites outside the ME?

Use the search function.

 

[Tigers!]

So here's a thought: how about we judge the rightness or wrongness of an action based on the action itself, not on who is doing it to whom, or how much our own faction might benefit from it? How about we decry atrocities wherever and whenever they occur?

What other atrocites would you like to decry?
We are well aware of your decrying of Israel but perhaps I have missed your voluble decrying of atrocites outside the ME?

Use the search function.

I tried using Artish + decrying of actrocities outside the ME but the AI on this board was not impressed.

 

[Gospel]

In my view, the only solution is the complete dissolution of all but one armed groups, full accountability through trials for every leader involved, and a new constitution that puts civilians in charge and rejects colonial identity categories entirely.

FIFY.

The civilians themselves should become the only legitimate force in the country. What I am proposing is the complete removal of the current leadership, every faction and every general, followed by a new government built by the people and enforced by the people. I am talking about the Sudanese population that wants the military elites out so they can finally live in peace without proxy warriors tearing the country apart. This will require some level of outside support, and it is unfortunate that the United States, like most superpowers, is too self-interested for an idea like this to be taken seriously.

 

[TSwizzle]

Some folks here seem to think we're supposed to be mindful of Israel's needs but pay no mind to its flaws.

Do you mean me? If so, then yes, I am curious as to why, out of the scores of atrocities going on in the world daily right now (and Sudan seems a particularly vicious and brutal one) it is the atrocities in a tiny sliver of land on the med where the Jews live that invokes such outrage in lefties, why the main stream media studiously report on it and why Owen Jones of Teh Gruaniad questions whether October 7th was really that bad. I think I know why but I can't be sure.

 

[Tigers!]

Some folks here seem to think we're supposed to be mindful of Israel's needs but pay no mind to its flaws.

Do you mean me? If so, then yes, I am curious as to why, out of the scores of atrocities going on in the world daily right now (and Sudan seems a particularly vicious and brutal one) it is the atrocities in a tiny sliver of land on the med where the Jews live that invokes such outrage in lefties, why the main stream media studiously report on it and why Owen Jones of Teh Gruaniad questions whether October 7th was really that bad. I think I know why but I can't be sure.

If you do get a decent anwer do let us know please.
And Owen Jones is a tool of the highest order.

 

[Arctish]

Some folks here seem to think we're supposed to be mindful of Israel's needs but pay no mind to its flaws.

Do you mean me? If so, then yes, I am curious as to why, out of the scores of atrocities going on in the world daily right now (and Sudan seems a particularly vicious and brutal one) it is the atrocities in a tiny sliver of land on the med where the Jews live that invokes such outrage in lefties, why the main stream media studiously report on it and why Owen Jones of Teh Gruaniad questions whether October 7th was really that bad. I think I know why but I can't be sure.

I think you think it's because Israel is the Jewish State and you believe anyone who would criticize Israeli policies must be prejudiced against Jews.

I think it's because Israel has had America's rapt attention since the 1970s, perhaps earlier but I was too young to know about it in the 1950s and too focused on Cuba, Civil Rights, the Space Race, and Vietnam to pay it much mind in the 1960s (I didn't learn about the attack on the USS Liberty until the 2000s). The terrorist attack at the Munich Olympics and the murder of Israeli athletes and their coach, the 1973 War, the skyjacking and subsequent raid at Entebbe, etc., brought the issue of Israel and Palestine to the forefront of national news. The close ties between US politics and the arms industry has kept it there ever since.

Personal note: I don't know how old you are TSwizzle, but I was in my 20s when the number of illegal West Bank settlements more than tripled under the leadership of Menachem Begin. That was when I learned that Zionism wasn't about keeping Jews safe, and that Begin was an actual terrorist, not a metaphorical one. It complicated my view of the conflict. I certainly wasn't going to wish terrorists success in their endeavors, so I had to think long and hard about who and what I supported in Israel and the Occupied Territories. I still believed that the idea of having a State dedicated to the welfare and prosperity of a persecuted minority was a good one, but if I wanted to have any moral integrity I had to confront the reality of what had been done to create and maintain that State.

When the Oslo Accords came along in the 1990s I was glad to hear it, and even happier that the US government was throwing its considerable weight behind them. And then Yitzhak Rabin was murdered, Netanyahu and his allies gained control, and I became a vocal critic of Israeli politics.

I started posting on IIDB back when the murder of Rabin was still recent and there was still a chance the Oslo Accords could be resumed. I'm not going to apologize for saying I believe Israel went down the wrong path. I have said many times where I think the path to peace lies and what is necessary to follow it. I will not tone down my criticism of Netanyahu, Smotrich, Ben Gvir, or any of the other bigoted racist warmongers currently running Israel and using US support to commit blatant human rights violations.

 

[Bomb#20]

In my view, the only solution is the complete dissolution of all but one armed groups, full accountability through trials for every leader involved, and a new constitution that puts civilians in charge and rejects colonial identity categories entirely.

FIFY.

The civilians themselves should become the only legitimate force in the country. What I am proposing is the complete removal of the current leadership, every faction and every general, followed by a new government built by the people and enforced by the people. I am talking about the Sudanese population that wants the military elites out so they can finally live in peace without proxy warriors tearing the country apart. This will require some level of outside support, and it is unfortunate that the United States, like most superpowers, is too self-interested for an idea like this to be taken seriously.

So who's the one armed group that enforces the new government?

1. The people themselves,. i.e., give a gun to everyone? There's a famine going on, so nearly everyone who doesn't use it to become a robber will sell his gun to buy food.

2. A new security force made up of Sudanese loyal to democracy, that disarms the RSF, the traditional army, and the various rebel factions? History suggests it will just stage yet another coup. Sudan has an Arab majority, and Arab military culture isn't kind to democracy -- troops tend to be loyal to their units, their clans, their officers, anybody but their country; and Sudan is coup-prone even by Middle-Eastern standards.

3. The Americans? The U.S. isn't going to invade to restore democracy -- the majority of the Sudanese favor Sharia, Arab supremacy, and contempt for the rights of minority groups. The U.S. won't be up for enforcing that. If the Americans are brought in to shore up a new civilian government we'll insist on equal rights and secular government, and then the majority will be against us and new armed opposition groups will spring up.

4. An Arab foreign power? The African Union? Either of those will be perceived, probably correctly, as just muscle for one of the local factions.

5. Who else is there? China? That might be the least bad option.

 

[Gospel]

In my view, the only solution is the complete dissolution of all but one armed groups, full accountability through trials for every leader involved, and a new constitution that puts civilians in charge and rejects colonial identity categories entirely.

FIFY.

The civilians themselves should become the only legitimate force in the country. What I am proposing is the complete removal of the current leadership, every faction and every general, followed by a new government built by the people and enforced by the people. I am talking about the Sudanese population that wants the military elites out so they can finally live in peace without proxy warriors tearing the country apart. This will require some level of outside support, and it is unfortunate that the United States, like most superpowers, is too self-interested for an idea like this to be taken seriously.

So who's the one armed group that enforces the new government?

1. The people themselves,. i.e., give a gun to everyone? There's a famine going on, so nearly everyone who doesn't use it to become a robber will sell his gun to buy food.

2. A new security force made up of Sudanese loyal to democracy, that disarms the RSF, the traditional army, and the various rebel factions? History suggests it will just stage yet another coup. Sudan has an Arab majority, and Arab military culture isn't kind to democracy -- troops tend to be loyal to their units, their clans, their officers, anybody but their country; and Sudan is coup-prone even by Middle-Eastern standards.

3. The Americans? The U.S. isn't going to invade to restore democracy -- the majority of the Sudanese favor Sharia, Arab supremacy, and contempt for the rights of minority groups. The U.S. won't be up for enforcing that. If the Americans are brought in to shore up a new civilian government we'll insist on equal rights and secular government, and then the majority will be against us and new armed opposition groups will spring up.

4. An Arab foreign power? The African Union? Either of those will be perceived, probably correctly, as just muscle for one of the local factions.

5. Who else is there? China? That might be the least bad option.

I swear yawl really love adding a lot of strawmen to a persons statements. Imma keep it short and sweet. Sudanese civilians aren’t demanding “everyone gets a gun". They’re asking for something every functioning state has: one unified security institution under civilian authority, not ten competing warlords.

That’s the only model that has ever produced stability in a collapsed state, and it’s exactly what the Sudanese pro-democracy movement has been fighting for since 2019.

I ain't saying the U.S. should invade Sudan. International backing for constitutional restructuring and for guaranteeing elections is the normal path for post-conflict states. That’s how Liberia, Sierra Leone, Tunisia, and parts of the Balkans transitioned out of civil war.

 

[Gospel]

The fact that many Sudanese Arabs also support the pro-democracy movement shows that the real issue isn’t ‘Arabs vs. non-Arabs.’ It’s national unity versus the ethnic and regional divisions the British left behind. That division is being magnified by foreign influences, Egypt, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Russia among them, whose competing agendas fuel and prolong the conflict.