Would Ethiopia fall due to the current situation?

Lofi99

LOFI HIGH
View attachment 206610

Where did you "read" this little gem from?


View attachment 206609

I'm being as calm as possible in my response to what really seems to be an attempt at shitposting.

Ahahhahhahahahahahaha

I know she pissed you off don't worry people are mentally ill .

Im laughing so hard Jesus who asks some shit like that wallahi people are sick.

anigif_enhanced-buzz-14914-1432236192-5.gif

naomi-campbell-laughing.gif
 

CanoGeel

"Show respect to all people, but grovel to none"
@Nilotic
Not true...

The Gambella Massacre in 2003 by the TPLF led EPRDF.



U right. There was a systematic land and resource grab by highlanders

"Conflict has escalated between Anyuak, resettled highlanders, and Nuer, at the Sudanese border since the end of 2003; nearly 200 people were killed and 10,000 were displaced at the end of January 2004 in that area. One of the main causes of the conflict is the fact that for more than two decades the population has been steadily increasing and overcrowding has become a serious issue in the Gambella region. Since the 1980s, many highlanders have been resettled in this fertile western part of the country. Moreover, the influx of Nuer refugees from eastern Sudan has contributed to population overcrowding in the area. However, the conflict is not only between the Anyuak and resettled highlanders/Nuer;

the Anyuak have been accusing the Ethiopian government of helping the resettled highlanders, who control both political and economic resources in the area (Hagmann and Mulugeta 2008). Besides this, the Ethiopian government has been attempting to explore oil in the region. The Anyuak feel that they are being gradually displaced from their traditional lands. Moreover, in December 2003, when the highlander turned on the Anyuak, about 300 people were killed."
 
Last edited:
U right. There was a systematic land and resource grab by highlanders

"Conflict has escalated between Anyuak, resettled highlanders, and Nuer, at the Sudanese border since the end of 2003; nearly 200 people were killed and 10,000 were displaced at the end of January 2004 in that area. One of the main causes of the conflict is the fact that for more than two decades the population has been steadily increasing and overcrowding has become a serious issue in the Gambella region. Since the 1980s, many highlanders have been resettled in this fertile western part of the country. Moreover, the influx of Nuer refugees from eastern Sudan has contributed to population overcrowding in the area. However, the conflict is not only between the Anyuak and resettled highlanders/Nuer; the Anyuak have been accusing the Ethiopian government of helping the resettled highlanders, who control both political and economic resources in the area (Hagmann and Mulugeta 2008). Besides this, the Ethiopian government has been attempting to explore oil in the region. The Anyuak feel that they are being gradually displaced from their traditional lands. Moreover, in December 2003, when the highlander turned on the Anyuak, about 300 people were killed."

Do you have any recent data on the demographics of Gambella? The Nuer and Anyuak seem to be pretty prominent in the political landscape in Gambella and there hasn't been instances of violence since the early 2000s.
 
I looked more into the matter and it seems as though I made a grave error in judgement regarding the history of Government supported ethnic contingent violence in Gambella; I was wrong and I retract my earlier statements that characterised it as merely a conflict between the Gajaak Nuer and the Anyuak.
 
An easy google find, also in many history books and published scientific reports.

They were discussing it in a clubhouse room earlier, that’s why I asked when I saw a random south Sudanese in a Somali forum.

If it's so "easy" to find evidence for your claim, then you won't have any issues with providing mounds of grit-edged evidence for it, would you?

Look, you obviously feel some type of way about other Africans and I can't change that.
 
@Khalumi






Ah, I see, we couldn't possibly have come to our own conclusion that being subject to devastating slave raids was an existential threat; we had to be "led to believe" that losing 2 million people to your slave raids in the 19th century deserved a forceful response -- a full century before the more recent events you're obviously alluding to.






Are you now trying to pretend that you (unlike our apparently naive little selves) were so fiercely independent and so incredulous that you didn't join your Turkish and Egyptian overlords in devastating the South in the 19th century? You didn't pay them tribute for the privilege of raiding us?




What stunning ignorance! We fought you long before the discovery of oil and long before we were aware of whatever economic windfall it could have provided for us; it was not the rationale for us refusing to kowtow to you -- a people that happily took directives from the Turks, Egyptians and Gulf Arabs.

Your ahistorical drivel would actually make sense if our interaction with the North only started in the time frame you've elected to fixate on.

It would also make sense if our resistance started in the 80s -- when oil was discovered.



Why is it that Northerners almost invariably seem to be affected by some sort of amnesia when recalling historical events?

You were the largest recipient of U.S. military aid in Africa (after Egypt) until 1989; we were with the Soviets during the entire Cold war, so it's laughable that you would try to attribute our movements to a power that supplied you with C-130 Hercules aircraft and M60 Patton tanks.

The United States didn't even start taking hostile action against you until you decided to back Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait; Saddam provided you with arms, so your support for him was a product of that largesse.

Israel came to us after you inexplicably declared war on them; your commitment to the Arab cause is ridiculous, and we saw this in your deployments to Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war -- where you were more Arab than all the other Arabs in the war against the Persians; we saw this in Yemen; and we saw it again in Libya.

You are still acting like poodles of the Arab world.

@Khalumi






Ah, I see, we couldn't possibly have come to our own conclusion that being subject to devastating slave raids was an existential threat; we had to be "led to believe" that losing 2 million people to your slave raids in the 19th century deserved a forceful response -- a full century before the more recent events you're obviously alluding to.






Are you now trying to pretend that you (unlike our apparently naive little selves) were so fiercely independent and so incredulous that you didn't join your Turkish and Egyptian overlords in devastating the South in the 19th century? You didn't pay them tribute for the privilege of raiding us?




What stunning ignorance! We fought you long before the discovery of oil and long before we were aware of whatever economic windfall it could have provided for us; it was not the rationale for us refusing to kowtow to you -- a people that happily took directives from the Turks, Egyptians and Gulf Arabs.

Your ahistorical drivel would actually make sense if our interaction with the North only started in the time frame you've elected to fixate on.

It would also make sense if our resistance started in the 80s -- when oil was discovered.



Why is it that Northerners almost invariably seem to be affected by some sort of amnesia when recalling historical events?

You were the largest recipient of U.S. military aid in Africa (after Egypt) until 1989; we were with the Soviets during the entire Cold war, so it's laughable that you would try to attribute our movements to a power that supplied you with C-130 Hercules aircraft and M60 Patton tanks.

The United States didn't even start taking hostile action against you until you decided to back Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait; Saddam provided you with arms, so your support for him was a product of that largesse.

Israel came to us after you inexplicably declared war on them; your commitment to the Arab cause is ridiculous, and we saw this in your deployments to Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war -- where you were more Arab than all the other Arabs in the war against the Persians; we saw this in Yemen; and we saw it again in Libya.

You are still acting like poodles of the Arab world.


It is not everyday that one writes 2 or 3 paragraphs and then gets an Essay as a reply, congrats for being the number one when i comes to writing nonsense :D


First of all, why do speak about slave raids as if North Sudanese were the only ones who used to enslave southern sudanese in the 19th century? Sudan, as a counry, did not even exist in the 19th century. Sudan or the region on which modern Sudan sits on today was politically controlled by the ottoman empire and Egypt. North Sudanese had little to no power after the Ottoman invasion of 1821 and the defeat of Sennar. Yes you had those big Sudanese slave masters like Zubeir Pasha who were heavily involved in the slave trade Southern Sudanese, people from Darfur and slaves from Chad etc... but Sudanese people on average were nothing but farmers at that time.

And lol at fiercly joining the Turks and Egyptians hurting Southern Sudan, did you know that the Turks had to ''Invade'' Sudan militarily to conrol us? We as Northern Sudanese hated the Turks and their Egyptian puppets to death. Why did the Mahdist revolution start in the 1880s? It was to kick out those invaders who used to collect the taxes forcefully from the Northern Sudanese farmers and only cared about themselves. Sudanese people lived much better off under British rule than those corrupt Turkish warlords. The whole Mahdist war to the point of Killing Gordon Pasha in 1885 was to become independent and remove those foreign powers from Sudan. Regardless of what type of counry we became after, independence was the aim. The Mahdist were also planning on following those forces inside Egypt, but by then it became a British protectorate. So please stop this nonsense of ''collaboration'' with the Turks against Southern Sudan.

and lol about your struggle starting before oil was discovered. Your ''Aim'' in the 1950s when the war started and before the discovery of oil was to get fairer representation in government. At that time, It was all about the south becoming more autonomous within the greater Sudan as you call it. Just like the situation in Darfur today. There was no talk about Independence and guess what? that is exactly what you got in the 1972 Addis Ababa agreement, AUTONOMY. However, it was only after the 70s/80s when oil discoveries started getting announced and just at around that time, independence ideas sarted appearing. It is interesting how throughout the war though, Garang always maintained the idea of a NEW Sudan. but after the late 90's and early 00's and Garangs Death and the SPLA independence Mafia took over, the isolation of Sudan internationally, sanctions, Israel and US support for the south increasing, that is when you guess were like hey, lets go indepedent with the oil! without doing any homework lmao

LOL how the hell could you be with the Soviets if you weren't even independent?? XD. Sudan was the largest military aid recipient in Sub Saharan Africa during th days of Nimeiry. Nimeiry had excellent relations with the west. However, his reign was during the peaceful times in Sudan i.e. the 70s/early 80s. I have no information of what happened to US assistance after the fall fo Nimery by the people in 1985. All that is irrelevant anyway so what are you on about? during the majority of the war, Sudan was ruled by the Bashir dictatorship and under sanctions and economic embargos. How coudl you possibly state that the US was supporting Sudan during the war lmao.

and lol at Saddam and Arab conflicts, What was Nimeiry?... A dictator.... who was Bashir? A dictator... The people had no ''say'' in what should or should not happen. Nimery's reign was at time when Arabs actually believed in unity and supporting each other. Egyptians fighting in Yemen, Saudis in Lebanon, Sudanese in Iraq etc... you name it. Nimery was good friend of Egypts Nasser (leader of arab unity cause) and Nasser supported Sudan heavily, he even bombed the island of Abba at the request of Nimeiry because of the Mahdis Answar rebellion. Also bare in mind that Nimery was pro West and pro Arab all the way. He even changed Sudans flag into pan arab colours. Nimery never cared about Africa because he saw no good in them. He believed that the best way to develop was to follow the west and the arab world. That was the thinking of back then.

The average Sudanese today could not care less about the arab cause or what happens in Libya, Yemen, Syria etc... we even supported establishing relations with Israel last year because we put Sudans interests before anythign else. Trump and West promised economic, diplomatic and military support under a civilian leadership which is what happened eventually. That is why Biden, Macron etc... are heavily pushing for the military to move on.
 
I think I've already established that oil was not the reason we took up arms against the Afro-Arabs in the center -- Khartoum-Omdurman; and in the periphery -- the Baggara of Kordofan and Darfur.


Did you know that we answered the Mahdi's call for a war of liberation against the British and dutifully expelled them from the South after the Mahdi promised an end to slave raids on fellow Sudanese?


Do you know what you people did after we forced the British out of our region at the behest of our Northern 'brothers'?


You reneged on the agreement and resumed military actions and slave raids against us; we then forced the Mahdists out of the South and came to realise that you people were scorpions in human form; you couldn't ever be trusted and we couldn't ever be complacent with you.


We had to oppose you; resist you; and fight you at every turn. Unlike every other non-Arab region in Sudan...we were never going to accept being lorded over by you -- no matter the costs.


Sudan could have enjoyed peace after the 1972 Addis Ababa Agreement, but you completely tore up and scrapped the Addis Ababa peace Agreement and your reasoning for it was mind-boggling... your elites said that it wasn't as if it was as holy as the Quran and so why abide by it.


The unofficial casualty estimate for South Sudan's totally unnecessary civil war is 400, 000 and it's a terrible indictment against us and will forever be an unforgivable and shameful chapter in our history.


I feel compelled to make it clear that we were losing close to 100, 000 lives every year during the Sudanese 2nd civil war, so were certainly not better off with you.




How generous of you to concede that you weren't in fact fluffy, innocent angels doing the Lord's work and that it was actually atrocious. That's progress, of a kind.




Your apparent support for Garang's vision was only ever theoretical -> worthless; you people only ever opposed regimes in Khartoum when cooking oil, flour and bread became a little too expensive in Khartoum-Omdurman; your bravery came to the fore on those occasions. Bravo!


Where were your apparently brave and 'revolutionary' protests for us when we were being bombed into oblivion and lost millions of lives; you said nothing when Darfur was subject to a sliver of our experience; you were again quite as mice when war erupted in Kordofan and Blue Nile.


You annexed Lebanon sized areas like Kafia Kingi in the 60s; the Upper Nile-While Nile border moved 90km South since 1956; the Unity triangle was taken from the South. It doesn't matter if we were one Country because stealing from your brother is still stealing.


We didn't create this atmosphere of North-South hatred; for many of you in Khartoum-Omdurman, the war was so far removed from your everyday lives that it may very well have taken place in Narnia.


The 'enemy' we encountered on the battlefields (much to our annoyance) were Fur, Masalit, Zaghawa and even Nuba; even the Baggara were restricted to paramilitary operations, and were somewhat insulated from the just consequences of a war that should touched everyone. If misery is to be had, it should be shared.


This isn't a fun little debate over distant and remote historical events; it's not an indulgent exercise in honing my debating skills; every bloodline of my being (all 4) have lost dozens of family members; you shouldn't dare taunt us and scratch at still fresh wounds...


..Let's allow some space for us to heal as sons and daughters of Greater Sudan; God willing, we will reconcile and restore our brotherhood and take back Sudanese land (Halaib triangle) from the Egyptians and give it back to the noble Beja...


..But until then, please -respectfully- KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT!

I think I've already established that oil was not the reason we took up arms against the Afro-Arabs in the center -- Khartoum-Omdurman; and in the periphery -- the Baggara of Kordofan and Darfur.


Did you know that we answered the Mahdi's call for a war of liberation against the British and dutifully expelled them from the South after the Mahdi promised an end to slave raids on fellow Sudanese?


Do you know what you people did after we forced the British out of our region at the behest of our Northern 'brothers'?


You reneged on the agreement and resumed military actions and slave raids against us; we then forced the Mahdists out of the South and came to realise that you people were scorpions in human form; you couldn't ever be trusted and we couldn't ever be complacent with you.


We had to oppose you; resist you; and fight you at every turn. Unlike every other non-Arab region in Sudan...we were never going to accept being lorded over by you -- no matter the costs.


Sudan could have enjoyed peace after the 1972 Addis Ababa Agreement, but you completely tore up and scrapped the Addis Ababa peace Agreement and your reasoning for it was mind-boggling... your elites said that it wasn't as if it was as holy as the Quran and so why abide by it.


The unofficial casualty estimate for South Sudan's totally unnecessary civil war is 400, 000 and it's a terrible indictment against us and will forever be an unforgivable and shameful chapter in our history.


I feel compelled to make it clear that we were losing close to 100, 000 lives every year during the Sudanese 2nd civil war, so were certainly not better off with you.




How generous of you to concede that you weren't in fact fluffy, innocent angels doing the Lord's work and that it was actually atrocious. That's progress, of a kind.




Your apparent support for Garang's vision was only ever theoretical -> worthless; you people only ever opposed regimes in Khartoum when cooking oil, flour and bread became a little too expensive in Khartoum-Omdurman; your bravery came to the fore on those occasions. Bravo!


Where were your apparently brave and 'revolutionary' protests for us when we were being bombed into oblivion and lost millions of lives; you said nothing when Darfur was subject to a sliver of our experience; you were again quite as mice when war erupted in Kordofan and Blue Nile.


You annexed Lebanon sized areas like Kafia Kingi in the 60s; the Upper Nile-While Nile border moved 90km South since 1956; the Unity triangle was taken from the South. It doesn't matter if we were one Country because stealing from your brother is still stealing.


We didn't create this atmosphere of North-South hatred; for many of you in Khartoum-Omdurman, the war was so far removed from your everyday lives that it may very well have taken place in Narnia.


The 'enemy' we encountered on the battlefields (much to our annoyance) were Fur, Masalit, Zaghawa and even Nuba; even the Baggara were restricted to paramilitary operations, and were somewhat insulated from the just consequences of a war that should touched everyone. If misery is to be had, it should be shared.


This isn't a fun little debate over distant and remote historical events; it's not an indulgent exercise in honing my debating skills; every bloodline of my being (all 4) have lost dozens of family members; you shouldn't dare taunt us and scratch at still fresh wounds...


..Let's allow some space for us to heal as sons and daughters of Greater Sudan; God willing, we will reconcile and restore our brotherhood and take back Sudanese land (Halaib triangle) from the Egyptians and give it back to the noble Beja...


..But until then, please -respectfully- KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT!

Lets make the point clear, yes the war started before the discovery of oil. However, you calls for Independence only startd ''After'' the discovery of oil and when the North was economically and politically isolated. So yes, you only called for indendence considering the very same reasons I mentioned. You would never have called for Indendence if the south was educated enough to know that this would be the oucome. From year one your SPLA Mafia who lied to you stole $4 billion. Price of oil collapsed, a civil war between one another more violent than even the Sudanese civil war.

What nonsense are you speaking? The Mahdis were too busy fighting wars with Ethiopia, Egypt and Eurpean powers. Surely the Mahdis with their force at the time, who even defeated Ethiopia being outnumbered 3 to 1 and killign their emperor, woudl not be afraid of going into the south. Are you claiming that Southern Sudanese were muslims back then? lmao the Mahdist revolution was an Islamic revolution. It was muslims from East, West and cenral Sudan fighting the foreigners. please elaborate how the south actually contributed to that fight or fought the Brits lmao. you guys were pretty much a nobody throughout those times. Ali Dinar, Al 7ilu, The Khalifa, the Mahdi etc....all those men who led the fight, I never heard or read about anyone named ''Deng'' being around at those times.

Again, the war started in Sudan in 1983 when Nimeiry, as a dictator, tore it apart. Something in which the people never had any say. So it isn't something that you could hold as a grudge against the North Sudanese. If there was democracy, Southern Sudanese would be given the treatment they truly deserved as citizens of Sudan. The barbaric intrduction of Sharia law in a country where 30% of the population was no muslim was nothing short of stupidity.
 
Now coming back to your civil war estimates, it was called the ''Sudanese'' civil war. Not the South Sudanese civil war of what you have today. 2 million died during that war, are you so small minded to think that it was only South Sudanese who died during that war? are you really assuming that no North Sudanese soul was lost in 25 years? The war reached Blue Nile, Kordofan, and even eastern Sudan. How many Northern Sudanese families lost a loved one during that war? you can't just assume that 100,000 deaths a year were only south sudanese. These deaths were mainly due to starvations considering the actions of both your ''own'' SPLA and Sudans government at that time.


It was a fully blown civil war in which casualties were thanks to actions made by both the government and your own SPLA. Even your own civil war, in which 400,000 died within 5 years and less were due to very similar reasons.

lol at only supporting Garang theoritically. Do you even know the meaning of a ''Dictatorship''? it means that everything in the Media was controlled by a certain group. If you are a child born in 1980, being a teenager in the 90s listening to news that urges you to join the fight against the enemy supported by Israel and the west. 90% were lies, but what does that poor soul know? little did we know that so many people in Southern Sudan did not even own cloths, let alone getting tanks from Israel. Sudan is no Rwanda, Sudan was the largest country in Africa at that time, nearly the size of western Europe. what happens on one side is ''far'' from being felt on the other side. So of course people in Khartoum, Port Sudan and Halfa etc... were FAR from what is happening in the South. Juba, which never fell to the SPLA, was also a very peacefull place. My mums family even used to live there in the 70s/80s.

Sudans army and paramilitary is not divided into tribal lines as you are stating. a soldier or volunteer is a soldier or volunteer regardless of what region he is from. they were a uniform, that is all that matters. The war was never against South Sudanese, it was against the rebels in teh south. Rebels which had Northern Sudanse members like Yasir Arman and Malik Agar.

I feel sorry for he loved ones you lost, and I don't like talking about the war either. However, if we don’t talk about history then we will never learn. In the North we are still going through economic crisis and god help south sudan with the fighting that goes on over there. end of the day, I don't think we will ever agree on what happened. The separation of he south was an Epic disaster. If the 2 Sudans stayed together under the same propositions of seculrism that are offered today, we would all have been better off. Sudan already hosts over a million south sudanese refugees today, regardless of the political and economic instability today and they are welcome in their home country where they feel safe

End of the day, I am Sudanese and you are Sudanese. There is no country on earth that I care more about than South Sudan as regardless of who holds Juba, the South is a part of me. And no, I won't Shut up but you can respectfully do that yourself :D
 
Last edited:
@Khalumi

First of all, why do speak about slave raids as if North Sudanese were the only ones who used to enslave southern sudanese in the 19th century? Sudan, as a counry, did not even exist in the 19th century. Sudan or the region on which modern Sudan sits on today was politically controlled by the ottoman empire and Egypt. North Sudanese had little to no power after the Ottoman invasion of 1821 and the defeat of Sennar. Yes you had those big Sudanese slave masters like Zubeir Pasha who were heavily involved in the slave trade Southern Sudanese, people from Darfur and slaves from Chad etc... but Sudanese people on average were nothing but farmers at that time.

Slave-raiding had been the prerogative of the state prior to the Turkiyya, and slave-owning and slave-trading had been confined to the court and aristocracy of the Sudanic kingdoms. The new rulers in the Sudan continued official slave raids on a massive scale, and imposed a tribute in slaves upon their new subjects. Collaboration in slave-raids into non-Muslim territories thus became a virtual duty for some of the Muslim pastoralists in the Sudan. The Shalqiyys from north of Khartoun, the Rufa'a of the Blue Nile, and the Baqqara along the White Nile and in the west soon were involved in official raids with the army, or were organizing raids of their own. Excess slaves were kept by the raiders for their own use or for sale. Not only did the number of slaves increase during the Turkiyya, but the use of slaves, too, expanded and for the first time domestic slavery became widespread throughout all segments of society in the northern Sudan.



At the same time, Turco-Egyptian reforms in taxation, land ownership, and use had a marked impact on the economy of the riverain settlements of Nubia, and especially on the Danaqla and Ja'aliyyin. The need to increase production in order to pay new taxes meant intensifying the use of marginal land. Indebtedness rose as farmers mortgaged their crops in advance of the harvest or transferred common-land rights to private ownership. There was a large outflow of men from Nubia seeking to escape taxation and indebtedness by hiring themselves out to the commercial companies who were exploiting newly opened lands in the South, where the ivory and slave trades became the main avenues for enrichment. Thus hardship created by the government's economic policies in the North contributed to the exploitation and subjugation of the South, and gave certain sections of the Muslim and Arabic-speaking population of the North a personal stake in its subjugation, a pattern which would be peated in the 1980s and 1990s (Section 6.2.1). (The Root Causes of Sudan's Civil Wars: Old Wars & New Wars)

And lol at fiercly joining the Turks and Egyptians hurting Southern Sudan, did you know that the Turks had to ''Invade'' Sudan militarily to conrol us? We as Northern Sudanese hated the Turks and their Egyptian puppets to death. Why did the Mahdist revolution start in the 1880s? It was to kick out those invaders who used to collect the taxes forcefully from the Northern Sudanese farmers and only cared about themselves. Sudanese people lived much better off under British rule than those corrupt Turkish warlords. The whole Mahdist war to the point of Killing Gordon Pasha in 1885 was to become independent and remove those foreign powers from Sudan. Regardless of what type of counry we became after, independence was the aim. The Mahdist were also planning on following those forces inside Egypt, but by then it became a British protectorate. So please stop this nonsense of ''collaboration'' with the Turks against Southern Sudan.

I've just provided a source from an eminent historian detailing that not only did you in fact collaborate with the Turkiyya in order to subjugate the South for your own interests... the following source demonstrates that slave raids intensified under the Mahdists.

Like many of the northerners' narratives, southern Sudanese narratives identify slavery as a key element. In the southern narratives, however, the south is the land not of slaves but of those who resisted Arab slave raids. As southerners see it, the early nineteenth-century conquest of the south by the Turco-Egyptian government just eased the slavers' jobs: slave raids became more intense after the south came under the rule of the Arab north. In one case, a prominent Arab slave trader gained so much power that he was appointed a regional governor.

The Mahdist government that followed allowed not only intensified slave raids but also degenerated into a Hobbesian state of violence so severe that by one estimate, Sudan's population fell by more than one-half in thirteen years. Dinka tradition, Deng reports, vividly remembers the period as equivalent to "the total destruction of the world." Deng continues, "The Dinka refer to the Turk-Egyptian and Mahdist periods as the time when the world was spoiled,' an abomination of which they speak with consistency and vividness." He reports extensive interviews with Dinka chiefs recounting how the Mahdists "destroyed the country" and "captured our people and sold them." (Nationalist Passions, Stuart J. Kaufman)

and lol about your struggle starting before oil was discovered. Your ''Aim'' in the 1950s when the war started and before the discovery of oil was to get fairer representation in government. At that time, It was all about the south becoming more autonomous within the greater Sudan as you call it. Just like the situation in Darfur today. There was no talk about Independence and guess what? that is exactly what you got in the 1972 Addis Ababa agreement, AUTONOMY. However, it was only after the 70s/80s when oil discoveries started getting announced and just at around that time, independence ideas sarted appearing. It is interesting how throughout the war though, Garang always maintained the idea of a NEW Sudan. but after the late 90's and early 00's and Garangs Death and the SPLA independence Mafia took over, the isolation of Sudan internationally, sanctions, Israel and US support for the south increasing, that is when you guess were like hey, lets go indepedent with the oil! without doing any homework lmao



Had you actually bothered to do your due diligence... you would have found out quite easily that prominent Southerners, organisations and armed movements were explicitly secessionist in the 60s.

Anyway, here are sources directly contradicting your ignorant flights of fancy:

Khalifa's government offered amnesty and autonomy for the South under a federal structure for the Sudan in late 1964, but these terms were rejected by SANU, who had been emboldened by the struggle to insist on complete Secession from the North. (Secession and Separatist Conflicts in Postcolonial Africa)

The public political objective of SANU was 'self determination', which had been offered to the Sudan as a whole, but not the South. Behind this lay the conviction that, given a free choice, the South would opt for independence. By taking this position, SANU ran directly counter to the newly-formed Organisation of African Unity's pledge to maintain the old colonial borders of the emerging States. (The Root Causes of Sudan's Civil Wars: Peace or Truce)

One of the old Anyanya's greatest problems throughout the 1960s was the political isolation it suffered as a result of its Separatist goal. (African Guerillas)

However, the insurgents gradually developed into a secessionist movement composes of the 1955 mutineers and Southern students. (Self-Determination and Secession in Africa: The Post-colonial State)

LOL how the hell could you be with the Soviets if you weren't even independent?? XD. Sudan was the largest military aid recipient in Sub Saharan Africa during th days of Nimeiry. Nimeiry had excellent relations with the west. However, his reign was during the peaceful times in Sudan i.e. the 70s/early 80s. I have no information of what happened to US assistance after the fall fo Nimery by the people in 1985. All that is irrelevant anyway so what are you on about? during the majority of the war, Sudan was ruled by the Bashir dictatorship and under sanctions and economic embargos. How coudl you possibly state that the US was supporting Sudan during the war lmao.

In what Disney, fairy dust, make believe world are you imagining, that State actors don't actively support non-State actors?

How do you suppose we received Israeli support in the 60s? Are the Houthis you were ordered to fight State actors? Gosh golly, how did Iran provide them with support?

Moreover, governments called Garang a puppet of Mengistu, who sought to impose a Marxist regime on Sudan and claimed that the SPLA would collapse without support from Ethiopia, the Soviet Union, and Cuba. (Sudan: Contested National Identities)
 
Last edited:
and lol at Saddam and Arab conflicts, What was Nimeiry?... A dictator.... who was Bashir? A dictator... The people had no ''say'' in what should or should not happen. Nimery's reign was at time when Arabs actually believed in unity and supporting each other. Egyptians fighting in Yemen, Saudis in Lebanon, Sudanese in Iraq etc... you name it. Nimery was good friend of Egypts Nasser (leader of arab unity cause) and Nasser supported Sudan heavily, he even bombed the island of Abba at the request of Nimeiry because of the Mahdis Answar rebellion. Also bare in mind that Nimery was pro West and pro Arab all the way. He even changed Sudans flag into pan arab colours. Nimery never cared about Africa because he saw no good in them. He believed that the best way to develop was to follow the west and the arab world. That was the thinking of back then.

A people’s government is more often than not a reflection of their society.

A Nation's elite don’t just drop out of the sky or manifest themselves from another dimension — they are us… even if they are a little more corrupt or a little bit more murderous.

The zealots and dictators you're attempting to put the complete blame on... came from your socio-cultural environment; your households; your schools; and your institutions.

Our leaders are mostly representative of our societies; your attempt to deflect and to absolve yourself of any and all responsibility is laughably childish.

What nonsense are you speaking? The Mahdis were too busy fighting wars with Ethiopia, Egypt and Eurpean powers. Surely the Mahdis with their force at the time, who even defeated Ethiopia being outnumbered 3 to 1 and killign their emperor, woudl not be afraid of going into the south.


Many Dinka leaders such as Anok Nger of Dinka Aliah, Dengdit of Dinka Malual Dinka, and Bordit of Dinka Bor-led their people to resistance against the new Islamic regime. Consequently, Amir Karimala, the Mahdist administrator of Bahr el Ghazal, withdrew with his forces from Bahr el Ghazal in 1884. More significant, his Dinka Malual army, under the command of Yor Waal (aka Yor Amac), killed Amir Abu Mariam, the Ansar commander, and defeated the invading Dervish army at the Battle of Shaka in the summer of 1893. Through his leadership, the Malual Dinka people and their immediate neighbours were relatively insulated from foreign incursions into Bahr el Ghazal during the nineteenth century, such as the Mahdists. (South Sudan: The Notable Firsts

The Shilluk kingdom attacked Khurshid's troops but later opened the way for his expedition to proceed towards the confluence of the Sobat River with the White Nile. On the return journey, the expedition came under heavy attack by the Shilluk. They recovered the booty and freed most of the slaves Khurshid's expedition had taken. The expedition was forced to retreat northwards with only 200 captives (Holt and Daly 2011: 46). Indeed the Shilluk-sustained resistance hindered the progress of the Turko-Egyptian expeditions to the heart of the Southern Sudan. The failure of Khurshid to subdue the tribes of the Upper Nile region frustrated his main goal of taking many slaves. After the failure, Khurshid redirected his attention to Eastern Sudan.

The resistance of the peoples of Southern Sudan to external forces from the North was sustained over centuries. Thus the Shilluk and other Nilotic groups developed a culture of resistance. They never doubted that the invaders were determined to replace them. They remembered how their ancestors were gradually pushed southwards by waves of invasion by the people of the North. This assumption is justified by scholars such as Sanderson, who confirmed that the Dinka and Nuer had a tradition of resistance to external influence of any kind (Sanderson and Sanderson 1981: 4-8). (Self-Determination and Secession in Africa: The Post-Colonial State)

Your successes against the Ethiopians are altogether immaterial; the said successes obviously could not be replicated in a wholly different and very challenging ecological environment.

The Sudd and other swampy areas presented such a challenge that the British didn't pacify the South until the 1930s, so it shouldn't surprise you that we could handle the Madhists.

Are you claiming that Southern Sudanese were muslims back then? lmao the Mahdist revolution was an Islamic revolution. It was muslims from East, West and cenral Sudan fighting the foreigners. please elaborate how the south actually contributed to that fight or fought the Brits lmao. you guys were pretty much a nobody throughout those times. Ali Dinar, Al 7ilu, The Khalifa, the Mahdi etc....all those men who led the fight, I never heard or read about anyone named ''Deng'' being around at those times.


That is precisely the sort ignorant-derived arrogance that neccesitated Sudan's partition; it's a complete distillation of why things turned out the way they did.
It is important to pause here and provide the background of the Dinka support to the Mahdia. As alluded to in the entry of Arop Biong above, it appears that the Mahdi (Maadi in Dinka) was a recipient of the spirit of Dengdit, one of the Dinka prophets from the sky. More significant, the Ansar leader had promised the Dinka protection from slave traders. The Dinka people had their own reasons to fight the Turco-Egyptian regime, not the least of which was slavery. Therefore Dengdit joined the Madhia campaign, which culminated in the surrender of Frank Millar Lupton, the governor of Bahr el Ghazal, in April 1884. But when the Mahdist army turned on the Dinka, particularly after the assassination of the Luo chiefs in autumn 1884 in Deim Zubier. Dengdit fought them fiercely. The Luo chiefs had refused to pay allegiance to the Mahdi or provide men for the Islamic army. (South Sudan: The Notable Firsts)


The Dinka initially saw the Mahdi as a spiritual leader, a man of God whom they expected to redeem the nation from the corrupt Turko-Egyptian rule. In line with their liberal religious beliefs, the Dinka saw the Mahdi as a spiritually inspired leader for all, not just for the Arabs or the Muslims. Indeed, they composed hymns of praise for the Mahdi as the son of Deng, imploring him to redeem them from the upheavals of the nineteenth century, which represented the total destruction of the world as they knew it. When the ansar, followers of the Mahdi, later turned out to be themselves a source of destruction, reviving slave raids with a vengeance, the Dinka withdrew their support for the Mahdist revolution. (Frontiers of Unity: An Experiment in Afro-Arab Cooperation)

Freed from all but sporadic interference during the Mahdist era, southerners sought to retain their independence from the British. The British faced armed resistance from the Azande, Nuer and Dinka. The Nuer and Dinka, led by prophets claiming direct revelation from powerful spirits of the sky, resisted British rule into the 1930s. (Africana: The Encyclopedia of the African and African American Experience)
 
Last edited:
Continued:

In the Dinka swamp country beyond Rumbek, the Agar and the Atwot had fought successfully against slavers, Egyptian administrators, and the Mahdists and regarded the British as just another invader to keep out of their marshland. Further to the north and deeper in the swamps lived the Nuer whose isolation in the heart of such a lonely and inaccessible land had protected them from the encroachments of the nineteenth century and had long sheltered them from British rule in the twentieth. The Nuer did not submit until the early 1930's. South of the Nuer on the upper Pibor in swampland nearly as formidable as that of the Nuer, the Beir defied the government until 1911, when they were finally overwhelmed by a strong punitive expedition. (Civil Wars and Revolution in the Sudan: Essays on the Sudan, Southern Sudan)

The Dinka, as the most desirable slave soldiers, were most heavily raided and some estimates suggest that two million southern people died during the turbulent nineteenth century. Simultaneously the Dinka formed into a resistant confederation that eventually expelled the Egyptians in 1885. Violence increased when a northern Sudan Muslim nationalist, known as the Mahdi, "liberated" all of Sudan with the aid of the Dinka in the South, but then turned around and pillaged the Dinka for slaves. (Africana: The Encyclopedia of the African and African American Experience)

Chief Makuei Bilkuei made the point almost obsessively: "It was Ansar [Mahdist followers] who destroyed the Country...That is what is called the spoiling of the world... Yes [they] would come with camels and donkeys and mules and guns... That's how [they] killed people... They destroyed areas until [they] reached us here. Then [they] took the people and and sold them... They said, 'La Illah, ila Allah, Muhammed Rasul Allah.' [There is no God but the one God and Muhammed is God's messenger]. That was the way they chanted while they slaughtered and slaughtered and slaughtered." (War of Visions: Conflict of Identities in the Sudan)

Now coming back to your civil war estimates, it was called the ''Sudanese'' civil war. Not the South Sudanese civil war of what you have today. 2 million died during that war, are you so small minded to think that it was only South Sudanese who died during that war? are you really assuming that no North Sudanese soul was lost in 25 years? The war reached Blue Nile, Kordofan, and even eastern Sudan. How many Northern Sudanese families lost a loved one during that war? you can't just assume that 100,000 deaths a year were only south sudanese. These deaths were mainly due to starvations considering the actions of both your ''own'' SPLA and Sudans government at that time.

Are you really going to compare the tens of thousands of soldiers lost on your side to the millions of civilians we lost?

The people of Blue Nile are essentially Southerners in the North in the same way that the Ngok Dinka of Abyei have been part of Kordofan since 1905; Blue Nile's Maban, Uduk, Burun, Gumuz, Komo and Opuo are ethnically Southerner and most of these tribes are also found in Upper Nile State, so framing their casualties as "Northern" is technically correct but a bit disingenuous.

The only people in the 'North' (not directly related to us) are the Nuba.

The Beja did not suffer to any notable degree as the insurgency was mostly dependent on over 5000 Southern troops.
 
Last edited:
I have no information of what happened to US assistance after the fall fo Nimery by the people in 1985. All that is irrelevant anyway so what are you on about? during the majority of the war, Sudan was ruled by the Bashir dictatorship and under sanctions and economic embargos. How coudl you possibly state that the US was supporting Sudan during the war lmao.

Did I not specify that U.S. military aid to Sudan was ceased in 1989? Is that not the year Bashir came to power? Are you somehow unaware of this?

Sudans army and paramilitary is not divided into tribal lines as you are stating. a soldier or volunteer is a soldier or volunteer regardless of what region he is from. they were a uniform, that is all that matters. The war was never against South Sudanese, it was against the rebels in teh south. Rebels which had Northern Sudanse members like Yasir Arman and Malik Agar.

No, you are far smarter than this, so don't pretend that the PDF was not mostly dominated by the various Baggara tribes.

You know that the ideal you've outlined is simply not in line with reality in any place in the global South -- especially not in Africa.

You cannot seriously tell me that most of the grunts in the SAF are Ja'alin or other riverain groups in Khartoum-Omdurman, Shendi and other areas around the center.

I feel sorry for he loved ones you lost, and I don't like talking about the war either. However, if we don’t talk about history then we will never learn. In the North we are still going through economic crisis and god help south sudan with the fighting that goes on over there. end of the day, I don't think we will ever agree on what happened. The separation of he south was an Epic disaster. If the 2 Sudans stayed together under the same propositions of seculrism that are offered today, we would all have been better off. Sudan already hosts over a million south sudanese refugees today, regardless of the political and economic instability today and they are welcome in their home country where they feel safe

End of the day, I am Sudanese and you are Sudanese. There is no country on earth that I care more about than South Sudan as regardless of who holds Juba, the South is a part of me. And no, I won't Shut up but you can respectfully do that yourself :D

I appreciate your words of grace and condolence.

I was actually a unionist and was distraught when Garang died because it was obvious what would follow; there was nobody else that could have held the Country together and now the criminals in both Khartoum and Juba are coordinating their efforts.

I wanted us to use our complimentary resources to provide a decent life for all Sudanese; I wanted access to the sea; I wanted the excess waters of the South to provide for our people in Darfur; and for solar and hydropower in both areas to boost the quality of life for all Sudanese.

It's unfortunate that none of that resource sharing and coordination will be possible now.
 
Last edited:

Trending

Latest posts

Top