381–390 of 415 posts
This is going to be the point where everyone blame the non interventionist movements for murder for the next thirty years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean by free speech is regressing in anglophone countries? That seems like a weird opinion to have? Do you have a particular example?
Random: https://nypost.com/2024/06/29/world-news/german-woman-given-... https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c15gn0lq7p5o (Misogyny to be treated as extremism by UK government) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_to_amend_the_Canadian_H... One can easily find examples in all countries. These countries do not have a free speech right in their Constitutions, for example, and no plans to include it.
>It is official: for only the third time in the past 20 years, the un has declared a full-blown famine. Looking into this, it's because the UN will only declare a famine if there's no functioning government. If there is one, they have the government declare a famine. Presumably that's why the UN declared a famine at the refugee camp, not the country or region. This story from last month discusses this aspect. https:/…
The article you linked to says famine was declared in Sudan on 2017. But the situation on 2017 is different from nowadays (to keep it short, at least on 2017, Sudan had a president, and that means a lot in such a country)
Importantly, he's the shit stain most responsible for the current situation. He was your traditional shitty dictator for a few decades but went further - incited a genocide, created a two power structure system (army and a militia, headed by two men that hate each other) to ensure the army isn't strong enough to overthrow him. Well they both worked together to overthrow him, surrendered him to the ICC, and have been at a civil war with bonus genocide ever since.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, if nobody currently governs then it is an anarchy. That some people try to establish order doesn't change that currently there is none.
Neither the article author, nor you, have shown that the situation here is caused by a lack of government. In fact the article explicitly states that an important agricultural region is governed by one of the warring factions.
There is no actual governance of the land, agricultural exploitation or oversight, basic services, or anything else.
Just armed men plundering, which is not any actual government control, hence the anarchy there and all around the country. There is a power structure in some places, but only insofar as military control and plunder; everything else is left to its own devices, hence chaotic anarchy.
I donate to UNICEF on a monthly basis. These sorts of things are terrible, but I’d like to think donating helps a little. https://www.unicef.org/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This ignores historic examples of societies with multiple cultures, religions, etc living peacefully. It doesn't always end well, but are you proposing the solution is to ensure that societies never try?
> This ignores historic examples of societies with multiple cultures, religions, etc living peacefully. Can you give me some examples? My own knowledge of history goes like this: proximity (between cultures / ethnicities) = war.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The vultures are there as they always are in such circumstances, what is your point?
That the people shipping weapons to one side or another are not merely vultures but foreigners who nonetheless have an interest in the civil war's outcome, making it not solely Sudanese vs Sudanese
It's interesting where to draw the line though, because it's relevant in the context of violent/-ist content as well - Relevant to the BS going on in the UK atm; we can claim that a "call to violence" is illegal as it well should be, but there is also the personal responsibility of those involved and that is why they're receiving sentences for participating in violent riots.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
both sides will say they "murder" or "terrorise" as a defence. that’s where the moral question comes from and proving "who shot first" etc.
You can't prove "who shot first" because the answer depends entirely on where history starts. People who want to argue about unanswerable questions like these don't want peace. They just seek justifications for further bloodshed. The actual moral questions are not difficult if you believe a Palestinian life is worth as much as any other life.
What do Palestinians have that shows their will to believe an Israeli life is worth as much as any other life? (and Palestinian lives also, especially their children’s)
[flagged]
There is not currently a total blockade of all food in Gaza. Afaik, the latest UN statement on Gaza was that there is high risk of famnine, but there is insufficient evidence to conclude one has happened yet. https://www.ipcinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ipcinfo/docs/I... There may be food insecurity problems in Gaza, but the current publicly available data seems to suggest that Sudan is much much worse.
Be wary of "insufficient evidence", because there are few people on the ground to collect evidence. The total number of deaths has been fixed at "about 40,000" since about March, because the institution that was counting the deaths got destroyed and never released a new count.