So, no source then? Just hot air, as usual?
Do you really expect people to just okey-dokey your claims without a shred of evidence, the use of a picture and an unjustifiably arrogant tone?
Is that picture of a segment of the White Nile supposed to give people the impression that you are intimately informed about the topography of South Sudan?
I equate your apparent level of expertise on dams with your pretended expertise on South Sudan's topography -> non-existent.
Tell you what, I'll indulge you and pretend that you're actually well equipped to speak authoritatively on this matter:
You said earlier that South Sudan doesn't have the topography to build large dams, without these dams taking up too much land...
..So, what's too much land? Does our topography lend itself to being 2x, 3x or perhaps 4x more land inefficient?
The Waragamba dam has a surface area of 75km2, so how much more land do you imagine the supposedly topographically challenged, 640, 000 km2 size Country would have to give up for dams before it runs out of space?
Do you even know? Good show, you are an improv Maestro, my dear.
With your cartoonishly smug rhetoric, one could be forgiven for thinking that Sudan was a developed Nation -- and that it's current level of development (half a century's worth) was laudable, enviable or even a potential source of pride.
It would literally take no more than 15 years of semi-competent governance to get where it took Sudan half a century, so spare me this laughable display of arrogance.
Lock up another English woman for having the gall to allow primary school students the opportunity to name their toys -- an apparently malevolent act that resulted in (*gasp*) the incorrect name being given to a teddy bear and grown men braying for her literal death ...
..And then go on forums and act as though you're ascended. You're practically levitating.
This comical episode is contrasted with the more serious acts of attempting to assassinate Mubarak; hosting Osama Bin Laden; being implicated in multiple terror attacks outside of Sudan's borders; fighting in the Iraq-Iran war; opposing the first Gulf War and drawing the ire of the United States, despite being a servant of servants.
Ah, yes, because asking for evidence relating to the apparent topographical constraints that South Sudan is so evidently bedevilled with is akin to rebutting a fairy-tale.
The onus is on you to substantiate your claims, and no amount of projecting with stale screeches about "being lazy" will do.
I knew this response was coming as soon as I typed up my riposte; you pretend to not understand what was said and you then pick a straw man of your fancy and argue that instead.
"We" clearly refers to the various Nilo-Saharan groups that have resided in Sudan for many thousands of years.
There is a genetic, anthropological and linguistic basis that connects these Nilo-Saharan populations and anchors them to Sudan.
As it so happens:
Unlike like you, I actually believe in providing sources for my claims. It seems that the Zaghawa have actually been in northern Darfur since antiquity, so you might have to shelve your hopes of designating them as foreigners and expelling them from Sudan.
The Zaghawa use to raid the Nubians, so the idea that the Greeks and Romans preceded them in Sudan is all kinds of funny.
You obviously didn't understand the point I was making and decided to go ham on a position no one has even argued.
The point I was making is that the Zaghawa have historically occupied territories in Sudan, Chad and Libya and that pretending that they only occupied areas outside of Sudan is ahistorical.
Not only did you positively think of a scenario in which 200k people would be stripped of their citizenship... you actually put it into emission...
..And now you're referencing international law and equating what I said with being a caveman?
Ah, I see, you didn't mean to imply that their continued residency in Sudan was contingent on good behaviour, as defined by you?
Was my characterisation on what you wrote an unfair interpretation of your apparently innocent little post?
No, actually, but people do get a little nervous when only those people that coincidentally look like them get systematically targeted.
The first logic of life (survival) tends to impel people to take certain actions to avoid the unfortunate fate of others.
Projecting as usual; you accuse people of making straw man arguments while doing little else.
Actually, those Nilo-Saharan groups all share a majority of their genetic profile with South Sudanese, but that's of little relevance here because people don't care about that sort of thing.
It's obvious that people would see patterns and act accordingly; why are you acting new? Did the Nuba and the people of Blue Nile not join Garang against Khartoum? Were the Darfurians not armed by Juba?
Yes, women and children flee; is this supposed to be a big revelation? Do armed groups not persist in fighting?
Let's recap, shall we:
80% of South Sudan is arable
10% of Sudan is arable
South Sudan receives far more rainfall
Zero evidence has been provided that South Sudan can't accommodate large dams
Why did you find these obvious facts so disagreeable?
