Displacement & Refugees

@RepublikFree @SudanTribune_EN @IanECox @ayomikun09B True,the final SAF advance into darfur might be possible late next year as the RSF struggles to maintain its lines in parts of Kordofan.That aforementioned final advantage will likely involve tens to hundreds of thousands of troops on multiple fronts,it'll be bloody

Kızıl Taç Oyuncu Listesi Evet sonunda kayıtlar bitti. Tüm bilgilerle oyuncuların listesi şu şekildedir: Oyuncular: (ilk 12 kişi vandettada kalanı bende) İsim | Ülke ismi| Başkent | Renk | Irk | Element JapanEmperor: Safaviler | İsfahan | koyu mavi | İnsan | Toprak PolynesianKiwi: Kalmuk Kağanlığı| Ural’sk | Doğu Ukrayna | Pembe | İnsan| Su No-Mixture-5104: Zhyrdas | South Darfur | Kuzey Afrika | Kırmızı | Yamyam | Ateş Intelligent-Lynx3045: Volyaşçina | Poltava | Sarı| Ukrayna | İnsan | Toprak StockCardiologist431: İngiliz-İskoç Konfederasyonu | West Midlands | İngiltere | İnsan | Hava Kusburunluoralet: Moose Krallığı | Värmland | İsveç | Cüce | Toprak FootballSalt7845: Tian Wu | Hebei-Chahar | Çin | Kırmızı | Ork | Toprak Better\_Ad9625: İdeila | South West Queensland | Avusturalya | İblis | Su Nsarenemsar: Modronya | Central Provinces | Hindistan | Undead | Ateş TheHumanAynar: Magna Germania | Sachsen | Almanya | Undead | Su NoCity7249: Kırbostmediteryan Cumhuriyeti | Damascus | Türkiye | İnsan | Su Ill-Spite-3913: Thyromium | Mauritanian Desert | Batı Afrika | İnsan | Su iMerlinz: Elferya | Auvergne | Fransa | Elf | Su Pattizadam: Kamçatya Hanlığı| Sungkiang | Japonya | Yamyam | Toprak Jojoromokotoro: Kuzey Huzursuzlar Federasyonu | Northern Urals | Kuzey | Mor | Undead | Ateş Easy-Attention7096: Sordland | Nevel | Ukrayna üstü | Yeşil | İnsan | Su irkci\_skici: Nusaybin Amir | Palestine | Arabistan | İblis | Ateş PslashS: Aziles | Tashkent | Kazakistan | Volarin | Ateş Emergencyrealistic10: Büyük Maglovia Cumhuriyeti | Kraków | Polonya | İnsan | Su Zerotunas\_Ultras: Buyrat Hanedanlığı | Buyratia | Yeşil | Doğu Asya | İnsan | Ateş Kadayif\_Butterfly204: Gisako | Barotziland | Güney Afrika | İblis | Ateş \-\_-\_Requiem\_-\_-: Imper Romanicus | Lombardia | İtalya | Undead | Su Hooded\_Crow7: Kızıl Yıldız Konfederasyonu | Salla | Finlandiya | Yamyam | Toprak According-Arm-1834: Macroviana Union | Serbia | Balkan | İnsan | Ateş DefiantApplication71: Kumru Krallığı | Interior Borneo | Endonezya | Yamyam | Hava

🇸🇩🇨🇴🇦🇪 Cerca de 2.000 mercenários colombianos foram recrutados pelos Emirados Árabes para lutar ao lado das Forças de Apoio Rápido do Sudão. Os mercenários foram recrutados através da empresa de segurança privada GSSG, sediada nos Emirados Árabes Unidos, e foram transferidos para o Sudão através de uma rede de bases e "voos fantasma" envolvendo os Emirados Árabes Unidos, a Líbia e Puntland, na Somália. Alguns afirmaram ter recebido treino especializado em drones, defesa aérea e radares em instalações militares dentro dos Emirados Árabes Unidos, antes de serem enviados para Darfur. Os operadores recebiam US$ 2.600 por mês, os supervisores US$ 2.800 e os oficiais US$ 3.500. As unidades colombianas desempenharam um papel significativo nas operações das RSF, incluindo a captura de El Fasher, onde o grupo apoiado pelos Emirados Árabes Unidos cometeu atrocidades hediondas. Os mercenários descreveram a destruição generalizada e os corpos espalhados pela cidade após a sua queda, embora aqueles que foram entrevistados negassem ter participado pessoalmente em assassinatos de civis.

Minawi from Juba: The Abyei Act and the PCA Ruling Are the Basis for Resolving the Abyei Issue Juba – Abyei Three Horns Quoting رامشيل للأخبار Ramcial 4NEWS , the Governor of the Darfur Region, Minni Arko Minawi, confirmed that the 2009 Abyei Area Referendum Act and the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) ruling regarding the demarcation of the area’s borders represent the two primary reference points for resolving the Abyei issue. He emphasized that there is no need to invent new reference points for the case. This came during a candid interview conducted by journalist Simon Deng with Minawi in the capital, Juba. The interview covered developments regarding war and peace, the future of the national dialogue in Sudan, the situation in Darfur, the Abyei issue, and relations between Sudan and South Sudan. Minawi stated that the Abyei Referendum Act, passed in 2009 during the Government of National Unity, defined the geography of the area and determined who has the right to vote in the referendum. He noted that the law was passed with the participation of state institutions at the time, in the presence of former Sudanese President Omer Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir and then-First Vice President of the Republic, President Salva Kiir Mayardit. Minawi added that he was present during that phase before the Abyei issue was referred, based on the law, to the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Two parties participated in the arbitration proceedings—one representing the South and the other representing the North, with the northern side represented by al-Dirdiri Mohamed Ahmed. He explained that the Permanent Court of Arbitration issued its decision on the case, reiterating that the Abyei Act and the court’s ruling serve as the two primary reference points for addressing the issue. In response to a question by journalist Simon Deng on whether he would offer the same vision if the governments of Sudan and South Sudan requested his opinion or advice regarding Abyei, Minawi reaffirmed his clear position. He said: "For me, the Abyei Act and the decision of the Permanent Court of Arbitration are the two fundamental reference points, and I see no need to invent new reference points for the issue." In another part of the interview, Minawi called for an inclusive Sudanese dialogue that does not exclude any group, stressing that exclusion has never been a solution to Sudan's crises, and that addressing political issues must take place through a dialogue involving various political parties and social components. The interview also addressed developments in the war in Sudan, the situation in Darfur, the role of the Joint Forces, the positions of armed movements, issues of violations and accountability, and the future of the political process. Minawi's remarks regarding Abyei come at a time when the issue remains one of the most prominent outstanding files between Sudan and South Sudan, amid repeated assurances on the importance of adhering to the relevant legal reference points and international decisions.

The African Union has rejected foreign interference and attempts to create rival governments in Sudan, warning it risks prolonging the ongoing war and threatens unity. The warning came during a two-day visit by the AU Peace and Security Council delegation, as the continental body pushes for a ceasefire, better humanitarian access and renewed peace talks. During talks with army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan in Khartoum, the delegation said dialogue and a Sudanese-led political settlement were the only path to lasting peace. Sudan has been at war since 2023. The army controls much of Khartoum and central Sudan, while the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) controls large parts of Darfur and, with its allies, has formed a rival political alliance. The AU is calling for an inclusive political transition that could eventually lead to a constitutional government chosen through elections. #dwafrica

Lucy Tabrizi on Substack (excerpt): Hardly surprising ... that this week CCP-linked funding networks were found to be behind pro-Palestinian protests. Nor is it particularly surprising that the Islamic Republic has been caught operating anonymous and purportedly Jewish activist accounts,¹ or that Qatar has poured billions into building a global media empire whose digital arm, AJ+, is designed specifically for the social-media generation. Foreign powers figured out the game long ago, even if many of the people whose opinions they seek to shape remain blissfully unaware they’re being played. There is another reason Israel attracts such extraordinary attention: anti-Jewish animus and conspiratorial traditions remain deeply embedded in Western and global culture. This creates a feedback loop. Content about Israel attracts disproportionate attention, that attention generates more content, and the resulting saturation is then mistaken for evidence that this conflict must be uniquely monstrous. Which brings us to the other problem: what, exactly, did you “see with your own eyes”? We know what you think you saw. But in reality, you watched an information war unfold through your screen, mediated by algorithms, activists, journalists, anonymous accounts and bot farms, through eyes untrained in propaganda, military analysis, international law or genocide determination. Seeing something is not the same as knowing what you are seeing. More specifically, you saw thirty-second clips extracted from events lasting hours: dead children without knowing who killed them, destroyed buildings without knowing whether fighters or military infrastructure had been inside them, and explosions without knowing what was targeted. You saw “journalists” and “aid workers” without necessarily being told of militant affiliations. And yes, a terrorist with a press vest is still a terrorist. You saw casualty figures without knowing who was a combatant or how deaths were classified. In short, you saw the aftermath, not what preceded it. And sometimes you saw things that weren’t what they claimed to be at all. The footage flooding our screens exists within an information environment that has been rife with old footage recirculated as new, images and videos misattributed from other conflicts such as Syria and Yemen, selectively edited clips, disputed or staged material and, increasingly, AI-generated or digitally manipulated content. And yes, I’ve seen the crying mother with three hands, reverse-image-searched a supposedly starving Gazan baby only to discover the photograph was ten years old and from another country, and watched a “lifeless” body start moving before the camera cuts. No, I’m not suggesting everything is fake. But why manufacture suffering when there is already so much real suffering to document? It doesn't even need to be fake. Authentic footage can be given a false date, location, perpetrator or explanation the footage itself does not establish. Then this smorgasbord of manipulation and missing context passes through the algorithm, before landing in front of an audience largely unequipped to interrogate it and remarkably willing to swallow it whole. Social-media platforms reward whatever arrests attention and provokes emotion. The correction three days later generally does not travel nearly as fast. While we’re interrogating the phrase “livestreamed genocide,” here’s another question: why has there been a livestream at all? Israel is routinely accused of exercising near-total control over Gaza, yet for almost three years an extraordinary volume of footage documenting its supposed genocide has reached the outside world. Here is another point that really should be self-evident: regimes determined to control the flow of information can. Earlier this year, the Islamic Republic cut more than 90 million people off from the global internet for nearly three months to suppress footage of its crackdown. Regimes committing atrocities generally understand the advantage of not letting their victims livestream them. The fact that we barely pause to question any of this tells you just how spectacularly effective the information war has been. So effective, in fact, that millions became remarkably confident they could determine not merely that civilians were suffering, but the military circumstances surrounding their deaths, the legality of individual strikes and, ultimately, the specific intent of an entire state. There are many reasons I reject the genocide charge, from the unusually low civilian-to-combatant casualty ratio to the simple fact that Israel has the military capacity to kill hundreds of thousands of Gazans in a matter of days, but has demonstrably refused to. I’ve covered those arguments here. In this essay, I'm interested in the stranger proposition that genocide can be determined by watching videos on your phone. Genocide has never been determined by the emotional force or volume of images emerging from a war zone. It is a defined crime with a uniquely high evidentiary threshold and a demanding mental element: the intent to destroy a protected group as such. Images can provide supporting evidence of atrocities, civilian suffering or potentially unlawful conduct. But they cannot, by themselves, establish the specific intent that distinguishes genocide from other forms of warfare and mass civilian death. A photograph or video, however graphic, cannot, by itself, tell you what was in the mind of the person who caused it. The term “genocide” has also undergone some fairly ambitious renovations in recent years, which makes the claim that you can “watch a livestreamed genocide” considerably easier to pull off. Prior to October 7, 2023, genocide meant the intentional destruction, in whole or in part, of a protected group. Now, apparently, you can post an unsourced clip of a suffering child, caption it “the genocide is still ongoing,” and consider the evidentiary burden met. By that standard, however, every country on earth is committing genocide. Indeed, many convinced by the bright screen in their pocket that Israel is committing genocide also insist the genocide has been underway since 1948. Quite a remarkable use of the term for a population that has, over those same decades, grown at one of the highest rates in the region…” “…Genocide," by its actual definition, has never simply meant civilians suffering, civilians dying or infrastructure being destroyed. It does not mean a lopsided casualty ratio, or even the commission of war crimes. Some of the footage is, of course, real. How much? I don’t know, and neither does the average person scrolling Instagram. But no serious person claims there is zero suffering in Gaza. War is hell. The trouble is that much of the modern West has become so accustomed to conflict-free comfort that we've forgotten what war looks like. When its brutality suddenly arrives in high definition on our smartphones, we mistake what is aberrant to our experience for something aberrant even by the standards of war. But human beings were capable of unimaginable brutality long before smartphones documented it. During the Rwandan genocide, families were hacked to death with machetes and people slaughtered inside churches where they sought refuge. In one documented case, a three-year-old watched his siblings being killed, begged for his life, and was killed anyway. Up to a million people were murdered in roughly one hundred days. Rwanda is hardly an anomaly, read about Nanjing, the Eastern Front, Bosnia or Darfur. And if you think this barbarity belongs to the past, think again. In Sudan today, women and girls are being gang-raped, often in front of their families, while civilians fleeing violence are intercepted, ordered to the ground and shot in groups. Behind the information wall in Xinjiang, former detainees describe beatings, electric shocks, rape and sexual torture, including assaults with electric batons; one teacher described torture rooms close enough to classrooms that detainees’ screams could be heard through the walls. Anyone who believes Gaza has revealed some uniquely horrifying face of human conflict is revealing, more than anything, how little human conflict they had encountered before Gaza. That is exactly why preventing wars from beginning in the first place is so imperative. So who started this one? Hamas, whose leadership appears to have engineered October 7 knowing the devastating Israeli response it provoked would be strategically useful. Yahya Sinwar reportedly anticipated retaliation so extreme that he raised the possibility of a nuclear strike on Gaza, and later treated mounting Palestinian casualties as a necessary price for advancing the Palestinian cause. Hamas official Ghazi Hamad reiterated the same thinking. In an October 2023 television interview, he said Hamas was prepared to repeat October 7 “again and again,” describing Palestinians as a “nation of martyrs” willing to make sacrifices.² This goes right to the heart of Hamas’ human shield strategy, which is central to what we see on our phones. The strategy was championed years earlier by senior Hamas commander Nizar Rayan, who encouraged civilians to gather around buildings threatened with Israeli strikes and celebrated the use of civilians to deter attacks.³ Since then, Hamas has embedded military infrastructure throughout Gaza’s civilian environment more deeply than any armed group in history. It deliberately operates from densely populated areas and has constructed an enormous tunnel network beneath them to maximise civilian casualties. This is not factored into the wrenching images we have become accustomed to coming out of Gaza, but the strategic logic is brutally effective: force Israel to choose between abandoning military targets and striking an enemy operating among civilians, then turn the resulting civilian suffering into political and informational ammunition. Consider the following scenarios, which are real: Hamas attacks Israeli forces from a booby-trapped civilian building while preventing civilians from leaving. Israel establishes evacuation routes or safe zones, and Hamas operatives deliberately move into them. Hostages are held in booby-trapped tunnels under orders to be executed if Israeli troops approach.⁴ What, exactly, does our aspiring Instagram genocide scholar propose Israel do? I'm genuinely asking. Paint me the picture. If the answer is to leave fighters untouched whenever civilians or hostages are placed in their path, congratulations: you've just incentivised human shields and hostage-taking. Put civilians in the line of fire, weaponise their suffering when your enemy responds, and international pressure does the rest. The world has taught terrorists that civilian suffering pays. Notice where your thirty-second Instagram clip begins: at the end of this chain of events. Much of the horror on your screen cannot be separated from the way Hamas chooses to fight. Which brings us back to the supposedly unanswerable declaration: “We watched the first live-streamed genocide with our own eyes.” No. You watched a war through a screen, alongside a spectacularly effective disinformation campaign. When someone tells me they “watched a genocide with their own eyes,” all I hear is someone proudly announcing that the information war reached its target.”