Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Sudanese woman flogged & humiliated Watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diaz89)
    The majority of Southerners aren't Christians, they hold indigenous beliefs and make up for 25% of the country, Christians make up only 5% of Sudan and most of them live in the North as a consequence of the Civil War. Splitting the country only serves one purpose and that is the complete destruction of the South by the warring ethnicities whom will seek domination over the another as it already happened even when they were fighting the North.

    https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/su.html
    I meant Darfur mainly, sorry - where the war is centered. and most christians are actually in the south of the country esp south of darfur.
    The Sudan conflict is typically characterized as between the predominantly Arab/Muslim North and the non-Arab/Muslim "African" South- off of wikipedia
    they tried a ceasefire awhile ago but that didn't help.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What an utterly barbaric thing to do. Whether its adultery or opening a brothel, this is an inhumane, cruel punishment that should not be sanctioned by anyone let alone a judge or the state. According to the Guardian, they are now investigating it - probably because they know this a completely backward, abhorrent, disgusting thing to do. At least there is some good news from the Sudan Tribune; "The video stirred widespread outcry among Sudanese around the world and even some pro-government columnists wrote critically of the incident."

    The article in the Sudan Tribune mentioned another case from a while a go; "A former reporter who was working for the United Nations at the time of her arrest, Hussein has publicized her case, posing in loose trousers she was arrested in for photos and calling for media support."

    Loose trousers?! How can we allow these terrorists with loose trousers to roam freely?! :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amsie/)
    I meant Darfur mainly, sorry - where the war is centered. and most christians are actually in the south of the country esp south of darfur.
    The Sudan conflict is typically characterized as between the predominantly Arab/Muslim North and the non-Arab/Muslim "African" South- off of wikipedia
    they tried a ceasefire awhile ago but that didn't help.
    Look at the link, most of them don't live in South, the Leninist SPLA were less tolerant of them than the "Islamists" in the North. A lot of people tried to add a racial angle to this entire conflict, but when I was doing my reading in prep for University, this clearly wasn't the case.

    This is an excellent assessment if you're interested.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuXA6U-sjgc
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diaz89)
    Look at the link, most of them don't live in South, the Leninist SPLA were less tolerant of them than the "Islamists" in the North. A lot of people tried to add a racial angle to this entire conflict, but when I was doing my reading in prep for University, this clearly wasn't the case.

    This is an excellent assessment if you're interested.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuXA6U-sjgc
    hmmm... i'm not sure about that
    i thought that although christians are the minority they were mainly in the south,
    and, yes, i get the whole corrupt government thing, it's in pretty much every african country and funded by- surprise, surprise- america but i'm not too sure about the whole thing
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by deathbeforeimmortality)
    No it's a law. It is not Sharia Law though. People don't understand the truth and meaning behind the Sharia Law.
    Well, what is the truth and meaning behind Sharia Law?

    For instance, ought apostates of Islam be killed, in your opinion?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diaz89)
    She's getting flogged for adultery and or running a brothel not wearing trousers......
    You're completely missing the point. Do you not understand the main crime here is the utterly cruel and inhumane nature of the punishment, regardless of the crime committed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lovely_me)
    You're completely missing the point. Do you not understand the main crime here is the utterly cruel and inhumane nature of the punishment, regardless of the crime committed.
    You're superimposing your own values on cultures that are very different from yours. In polite/religious societies such things are not tolerated, and for god's sake stop being so hyperbolic its not like the lashing scene in the passion of the christ now is it. she's wandering around the floor wearing layered clothing and getting hit on her feet, that's it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diaz89)
    You're superimposing your own values on cultures that are very different from yours. In polite/religious societies such things are not tolerated, and for god's sake stop being so hyperbolic its not like the lashing scene in the passion of the christ now is it. she's wandering around the floor getting hit on her feet, that's it.
    Well that doesn't mean I can't have an opinion on the punishment, just because I come from a different culture. Obviously part of the punishment is to intentionally humiliate the woman, hence why it was conducted publicly.

    Are you suggesting by the statement 'in polite/religious societies such things are not tolerated' that a religion-orientated government should not be tolerant of people who adhere to non religious values?
    Furthermore, you'll found that there are religious countries throughout the world who are far more tolerant than Sudan so I can't really understand your point.

    Are you not aware of how backwards and primitive a crime it is? Britain had capital punishment for centuries - did it stop people committing crime? No. There's no justification for such a disgusting form of punishment, I can't see why people insist upon Sharia Law.

    As for 'she's wandering around the floor getting hit on her feet, that's it' that's possibly one of the most ignorant things I've ever seen on this website. In fact you can actually see two officers corner her and whip her on the face. I actually find it concerning how you think it is acceptable a state should be allowed to physically harm its citizens. Do you think it is an acceptable punishment?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lovely_me)
    Well that doesn't mean I can't have an opinion on the punishment, just because I come from a different culture. Obviously part of the punishment is to intentionally humiliate the woman, hence why it was conducted publicly.
    I didn't say you can't have an opinion, I said, you cannot expect everyone to share your values or that there should be no difference in cultural expectations and moral inclinations.

    Are you suggesting by the statement 'in polite/religious societies such things are not tolerated' that a religion-orientated government should not be tolerant of people who adhere to non religious values?
    Furthermore, you'll found that there are religious countries throughout the world who are far more tolerant than Sudan so I can't really understand your point.
    I don't know what other religions specify, but Sharia law is not applied to non Muslims and anything they do in private is there own business. Secondly, I don't want to get into a debate about who is and isn't more tolerant, but the specified sentencing is 100 lashes and 5 years in prison, she got a hit on the feet fully clothed a couple of times.

    Are you not aware of how backwards and primitive a crime it is?
    Well to me personally, whoring and adultery is primitive and have no place in a civilized society.

    Britain had capital punishment for centuries - did it stop people committing crime? No. There's no justification for such a disgusting form of punishment, I can't see why people insist upon Sharia Law.
    Yes.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...061100406.html

    As for 'she's wandering around the floor getting hit on her feet, that's it' that's possibly one of the most ignorant things I've ever seen on this website. In fact you can actually see two officers corner her and whip her on the face. I actually find it concerning how you think it is acceptable a state should be allowed to physically harm its citizens. Do you think it is an acceptable punishment?
    She wasn't cornered, she got hit in the face once,and it's wrong to hit someone on the face and I condemn this. Read in2deep's post about it about the purpose of the punishment
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diaz89)
    The root causes of Sudan civil war is traced to British colonial policies that split Sudan into two. One half administered by Sudanese in the North and the South by the British. This policy created a wedge between the two people and never allowed there to be a sense of national unity and most importantly undermining any nationalist aspiration after the Mahdist revolt to maintain colonial rule.

    After the finding of Oil in the South during the 1970s and the incompetence of the government to distribute the wealth coupled with the communist influence that penetrated the South, the war took an ideological role. The SPLA adopted this ideology as tool to fight the decades of Southern underdevelopment. Hence the war started before Bashir came into power and most importantly when he organized a military coup not an "Islamic Revolution", he removed Sharia law from the South enacted by Sadiq Al Mahdi's government to find anyway to end the war that completely crippled the country. The South wasn't content with this and so sought for the full overhaul of Sudanese society and the total acquisition of Oil revenues. Hence as with most cases in Africa the war is about poverty and minerals.
    Yeah the British were the ones who literally divided the country but why did they do that? You need to go back way further than 1970 all the way to the whole Britain/Egypt saga. Eventually Sudan was under British/Egyptian rule (Britain effectively controlled Egypt anyway) so they divided the country culturally. You had the Muslim north annexed to Egypt and the Christian/Animist south, sort of East African.

    Eventually an Egyptian revolution based around independence of Egypt from Sudan as opposed to one state meant the British were left with no choice other than to grant them independence. Before independence was even granted the FIRST civil war started because the Animist/Christian south feared their new independent nation would be ruled and influenced by the Muslim north. Several times the South hit out in anger at regimes trying to impose Islamic law throughout the WHOLE of Sudan. Yes oil, employment, economy etc all played a very large part but at its very core its a cultural divide and the imposition of Islam was a focal point.

    (Original post by Sakujo)
    The biggest? A good proportion of the commanders of JEM are Muslim. You're seriously understating the impact of other factors such tribalism, political allegences, culture, nationalism and probably the biggest factor, economics. The south has a huge amount of sudans oil.
    I said "one of the biggest" not "the biggest". Just saying you're flat out wrong if you believe the biggest factor was economics. The things you listed become bigger factors during the second civil war (largely a continuation of the first) but as I've explained above the first civil war was started largely on the fear of the Animist/Christian south being ruled by the Arab Muslim north.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thisisnew)
    Yeah the British were the ones who literally divided the country but why did they do that? You need to go back way further than 1970 all the way to the whole Britain/Egypt saga. Eventually Sudan was under British/Egyptian rule (Britain effectively controlled Egypt anyway) so they divided the country culturally. You had the Muslim north annexed to Egypt and the Christian/Animist south, sort of East African.
    I'm referring to the British Empire and the acquisition of Sudan. The point I made about the 1970s is that,that was when Oil was discovered in the South. The Egyptian government had no sovereign role to play in Sudan, it still remained a British territory and British policies were supreme.

    Eventually an Egyptian revolution based around independence of Egypt from Sudan as opposed to one state meant the British were left with no choice other than to grant them independence.
    The Egyptian revolution occurred in 1922 and had nothing to with Sudan.

    Before independence was even granted the FIRST civil war started because the Animist/Christian south feared their new independent nation would be ruled and influenced by the Muslim north.
    No It had nothing to with that, the South felt no connection to the North coupled with Severe underdevelopment by the British and felt self determination was the best way forward.

    Several times the South hit out in anger at regimes trying to impose Islamic law throughout the WHOLE of Sudan. Yes oil, employment, economy etc all played a very large part but at its very core its a cultural divide and the imposition of Islam was a focal point.
    2 governments tried to impose Sharia law, both were overthrown and the present one abolished it immediately, if the imposition of Islam was the focal point, the war would've ended in the 90s. It didn't and the goal of the SPLA evolved and changed.



    I said "one of the biggest" not "the biggest". Just saying you're flat out wrong if you believe the biggest factor was economics. The things you listed become bigger factors during the second civil war (largely a continuation of the first) but as I've explained above the first civil war was started largely on the fear of the Animist/Christian south being ruled by the Arab Muslim north.
    They were already ruled by the North so could they have a fear of something concurrent.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diaz89)
    I'm referring to the British Empire and the acquisition of Sudan. The point I made about the 1970s is that,that was when Oil was discovered in the South. The Egyptian government had no sovereign role to play in Sudan, it still remained a British territory and British policies were supreme.



    The Egyptian revolution occurred in 1922 and had nothing to with Sudan.
    The one you're talking about is 1919 and even that one has relations to Sudan.

    The Egyptian Revolution of 1919 was a countrywide revolution against the British occupation of Egypt and Sudan. It was carried out by Egyptians and Sudanese from different walks of life in the wake of the British-ordered exile of revolutionary leader Saad Zaghlul and other members of the Wafd Party in 1919.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptia...lution_of_1919

    The Egyptian Revolution of 1952 finally heralded the beginning of the march towards Sudanese independence. Having abolished the monarchy in 1953, Egypt's new leaders, Muhammad Naguib, whose mother was Sudanese, and later Gamal Abdel-Nasser, believed the only way to end British domination in Sudan was for Egypt to officially abandon its sovereignty over Sudan.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudan#I...2.80.931989.29

    Britain effectively ran Sudan through Egypt and it was a result of the 52 Egyptian revolution which meant the British had to grant them independence. Yes British policies were still in play but they still divided the country culturally. I don't see how you can get away from that considering each side of the split is mentioned synonymously with either the Arab Muslim North nearer Egypt or Animist/Christian South influenced largely by East Africa.

    No It had nothing to with that, the South felt no connection to the North coupled with Severe underdevelopment by the British and felt self determination was the best way forward.
    By "felt no connection" you mean the South was concerned about the political power of the North i.e worried about an Islamic government. Really, if not for a clash of cultures why would the South so avidly seek autonomy? It's practically two separate countries. Of course there were other factors but the cultural differences were huge.

    However, in 1946, the British gave in to northern pressure to integrate the two areas. Arabic was made the language of administration in the south, and northerners began to hold positions there. The southern elite, trained in English, resented the change as they were kept out of their own government.[3] After decolonization, most power was given to the northern elites based in Khartoum, causing unrest in the south.

    In 1955, southern resentment of northern Muslim Arab domination culminated in a mutiny among southern troops in Equatoria Province. These troops were upset that the Khartoum government had failed to deliver on its promises to Britain that it would create a federal system. For the next 17 years, the southern region experienced civil strife, and various southern leaders agitated for regional autonomy or outright secession.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sudanese_Civil_War

    2 governments tried to impose Sharia law, both were overthrown and the present one abolished it immediately, if the imposition of Islam was the focal point, the war would've ended in the 90s. It didn't and the goal of the SPLA evolved and changed.
    Yeah and there's a good reason as to why they were overthrown. That just reinforces the importance of it for the South. In fact it was Gaafar Nimeiry who broke the Addis Ababa Agreement by impementing Sharia throughout the WHOLE of Sudan sparking continuation of the war (yes other things also played apart). Not sure by this point how you can't see the magnitude of the cultural divide and the role it played... :/

    See here and again how the implementation of Islamic law was a very important factor.

    In May 1986, the Sadiq al-Mahdi government began peace negotiations with the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA), led by Col. John Garang. In that year the SPLA and a number of Sudanese political parties met in Ethiopia and agreed to the "Koka Dam" declaration, which called for abolishing Islamic law and convening a constitutional conference. In 1988, the SPLA and the DUP agreed on a peace plan calling for the abolition of military pacts with Egypt and Libya, freezing of Islamic law, an end to the state of emergency, and a cease-fire. A constitutional conference would then be convened.
    They were already ruled by the North so could they have a fear of something concurrent.
    Well this is another case of me being so vague it ends up obscuring the point I was trying to make. They weren't exactly ruled officially by the North. Britain gave into Northern pressure leading to the South losing a lot of its political power to the North causing great unrest. It was this tip in power alongside a broken promise of a federal system (basically the Arab Muslim North wanting complete control over Sudan) which largely caused the second war or continuation of the whole war if you want to look at it as one.

    Again, I acknowledge the importance of other factors but role of the south, characterized by their East African culture seeking independence from an Arab Muslim north, which repeatedly tried to instate Islamic law over the entire country, was pretty huge. Something like Oil in particular is NOW absolutely huge and one of the reasons the North doesn't want Southern independence, but again this didn't play a huge role initially; this is the point I'm trying to make.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thisisnew)
    The one you're talking about is 1919 and even that one has relations to Sudan.
    I meant to say Egypt gained independence in 1922. But again it doesn't have relation with Sudan, You said "Egyptian revolution based around independence of Egypt from Sudan as opposed to one state meant the British were left"and the article states "It was carried out by Egyptians and Sudanese from different walks of life in the wake of the British-ordered exile of revolutionary leader Saad Zaghlul and other members of the Wafd Party in 1919"

    Britain effectively ran Sudan through Egypt and it was a result of the 52 Egyptian revolution which meant the British had to grant them independence. Yes British policies were still in play but they still divided the country culturally. I don't see how you can get away from that considering each side of the split is mentioned synonymously with either the Arab Muslim North nearer Egypt or Animist/Christian South influenced largely by East Africa.
    Secondly, even the second revolution had little to do with Sudan, "Egypt believed the only way to end British domination in Sudan to officially abandon its sovereignty over Sudan" Hence the separation of Sudan from Egypt was not a benefit to Egypt or even a prerequisite to the Revolution simply a favour to Sudan.

    By "felt no connection" you mean the South was concerned about the political power of the North i.e worried about an Islamic government. Really, if not for a clash of cultures why would the South so avidly seek autonomy? It's practically two separate countries. Of course there were other factors but the cultural differences were huge.
    There was never an Islamic Government in Sudan, it practised a parliamentary democracy. And note there's no mention of Islam in that bracket?. It refers to the dissociation of culture i.e the Arabic one etc. Sudan failing to meet its promises- "These troops were upset that the Khartoum government had failed to deliver on its promises to Britain that it would create a federal system" this just essentially echoes my point.

    Yeah and there's a good reason as to why they were overthrown. That just reinforces the importance of it for the South. In fact it was Gaafar Nimeiry who broke the Addis Ababa Agreement by impementing Sharia throughout the WHOLE of Sudan sparking continuation of the war (yes other things also played apart). Not sure by this point how you can't see the magnitude of the cultural divide and the role it played... :/

    See here and again how the implementation of Islamic law was a very important factor.
    I don't understand what you mean here. You say there was good reason for their overthrowing without specifying what that is, they were overthrown for their incompetence and the mismanagement of the economy by Northerners not Southerners, and then you say it's important to the south, what is important? and lastly that doesn't address why the war continued after Sharia law was abolished


    Well this is another case of me being so vague it ends up obscuring the point I was trying to make. They weren't exactly ruled officially by the North. Britain gave into Northern pressure leading to the South losing a lot of its political power to the North causing great unrest. It was this tip in power alongside a broken promise of a federal system (basically the Arab Muslim North wanting complete control over Sudan) which largely caused the second war or continuation of the whole war if you want to look at it as one.
    The South didn't have separate political power to lose in the first place hence, the "troops upset for not creating a federal system" that would've enabled them to have some.

    Again, I acknowledge the importance of other factors but role of the south, characterized by their East African culture seeking independence from an Arab Muslim north, which repeatedly tried to instate Islamic law over the entire country, was pretty huge. Something like Oil in particular is NOW absolutely huge and one of the reasons the North doesn't want Southern independence, but again this didn't play a huge role initially; this is the point I'm trying to make.
    Southerners don't have an East African culture, East African culture is predominately Swahili, Southerners are unique having preserved their animist one. Oil was a problem but the Southerners have proved completely incompetent despite receiving 50% of all oil revenues and their population being proportionally smaller.

    The South will inevitably secede, and it's almost certain a new civil war will break out between Southerners.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diaz89)
    I meant to say Egypt gained independence in 1922. But again it doesn't have relation with Sudan, You said "Egyptian revolution based around independence of Egypt from Sudan as opposed to one state meant the British were left"and the article states "It was carried out by Egyptians and Sudanese from different walks of life in the wake of the British-ordered exile of revolutionary leader Saad Zaghlul and other members of the Wafd Party in 1919"
    Yeah upon rereading it appears to be far more politically and British presence based.

    There was never an Islamic Government in Sudan, it practised a parliamentary democracy. And note there's no mention of Islam in that bracket?. It refers to the dissociation of culture i.e the Arabic one etc. Sudan failing to meet its promises- "These troops were upset that the Khartoum government had failed to deliver on its promises to Britain that it would create a federal system" this just essentially echoes my point.
    This is not true. Muhammad ibn Abdalla established Islamic law in 1885 for a good ten years and as said it was Gaafar Nimeiry who broke a treaty by imposing Islamic law effectively kicking off the war again. This is not to mention the Arab north of Sudan is practically synonymous with Islam. And FYI Sharia is still active in the north.

    In 1981 Nimeiry, pressured by his Islamic opponents, and still President of Sudan, began a dramatic shift toward Islamist political governance. He allied himself with the Muslim Brotherhood. In 1983, he imposed Sharia, or Islamic law, throughout the country—alienating the predominantly Christian and animist south. The administrative boundaries of the south were also reformed. In violation of the Addis Ababa Agreement he dissolved the southern Sudanese government, thereby prompting a renewal of the civil war.
    I don't understand what you mean here. You say there was good reason for their overthrowing without specifying what that is, they were overthrown for their incompetence and the mismanagement of the economy by Northerners not Southerners, and then you say it's important to the south, what is important? and lastly that doesn't address why the war continued after Sharia law was abolished
    You keep ignoring Islamic influence (Arab-Islamic influence, happy?) in all of this while pinning it solely on economy & incompetence. Abdul Rahman Suwar ad-Dahhab overthrew Nimeiry and one of the first things he did was rescind the decree declaring Sudan to become an official Islamic state however Sharia wasn't removed. In 86 the Al-Mahdi goverment met with the SPLA in Ethiopia and agreed upon a declaration which called for the abolishing of Islamic law. Then a while after al-Bashir rose to power and once again implemented Sharia.

    During the periods where there was no Islamic law the war did carry on for reasons such as a rapidly deteriorating economy I'm not disagreeing with this. I understand the importance of the economy in the war but even with a stable economy the conflict would be fueled by political/ethnic/religious reasons.



    The South didn't have separate political power to lose in the first place hence, the "troops upset for not creating a federal system" that would've enabled them to have some.
    Depends on how you want to define political power. Prior to autonomy the whole country was politically dominated by Northern powers and while not an official stand alone entity, the south held considerable political power. Much of the unrest in the South came when the Norths political influence on the south grew with Northerners taking positions of power politcally in the South. Also at one point Northerners were banned from holding positions in the south which is pretty indicative of a separate political power.

    Southerners don't have an East African culture, East African culture is predominately Swahili, Southerners are unique having preserved their animist one. Oil was a problem but the Southerners have proved completely incompetent despite receiving 50% of all oil revenues and their population being proportionally smaller.
    This is not true (And the only Swahili people bordering Sudan live on the East Coast of Kenya). The countries which border the South are:


    Eritrea - 50% Christian 50% Islam
    Ethiopia - 62% Christian
    Kenya (You find Swahili people on the coast here) - 78% Christian 10% Indigenous (i.e Animist)
    Uganda - 84% Christian
    Congo - 90% and 5% Islam 2.4% Animism just to put it into perspective
    Central African Republic - 50% Christian 35% Animist

    Now as you go West/North West into Chad/Libya/Egypt predominantly follow Islam (Libya/Egypt both have figures above 90%). Swahili people predominantly follow Islam so how exactly is the Christian/Animist dominated south influenced by a small group of people on the coast of one country that borders them?

    The South will inevitably secede, and it's almost certain a new civil war will break out between Southerners.
    That would mostly be a result of escalated tribalism from the instabilities war brings. Again I'm not saying it was purely down to the Islamic influence of the North conflicting with the South (that was a tongue in cheek comment as can be seen by the bottom right of the original post) what I am saying is that Islam in the north was a very large factor (i.e Nemeiri implementing Sharia effectively reigniting the conflict).

    Just read this quote and see how evident the role of Islam/Arab culture is in the whole conflict.

    The people of Sudan have a long history extending from antiquity which is intertwined with the history of Egypt, with which it was united politically over several periods (South contrasting hugely to the North/Egypt hence why the British split them in the first place). After gaining independence from Egypt and the United Kingdom in 1956, Sudan suffered 17 years of civil war followed by ethnic, religious and economic conflicts between the Northern Sudanese (with Arab and Nubian roots), and the Christian and animist Nilotes of Southern Sudan.[7][8] This led to a second civil war in 1983, and due to continuing political and military struggles, Sudan was seized in a bloodless coup d'état by colonel Omar al-Bashir in 1989, who thereafter proclaimed himself President of Sudan.[9]

    Sudan then achieved great economic growth by implementing macroeconomic reforms and finally ended the civil war by adopting a new constitution in 2005 with rebel groups in the south, granting them limited autonomy to be followed by a referendum about independence in 2011.[10] Rich in natural resources such as petroleum and crude oil, Sudan's economy is currently amongst the fastest growing in the world.[11] The People's Republic of China and Japan are the main export partners of Sudan.[12]

    However, after an Islamic legal code was introduced on a national level, the ruling National Congress (NCP) established themselves as the sole political party in the state and has since supported the use of recruited Arab militias in guerrilla warfare, such as in the ongoing conflict in Darfur.[13][14] Since then thousands of people have been displaced and killed, and the need for humanitarian care in Darfur has attracted worldwide attention. The conflict has since been described as a genocide.[15] Officially a federal presidential representative democratic republic, the politics of Sudan are widely considered by the international community to take place within an authoritarian dictatorship due to the influence of the NCP.[16] These factors led to the termination of diplomatic relations between Sudan and Chad, obstructed humanitarian assistance to the civilian population and has even led to war crimes charges being issued against members of the Sudanese government.[17] On 4 March 2008, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for President Omar al-Bashir on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity, the first sitting head of state ever indicted by the ICC.[18][18] And on July 12, 2010, the ICC issued a second arrest warrant for al-Bashir, adding the charge of genocide.[19] Sudan has also been the subject of severe sanctions due to alleged ties with Egyptian Islamic Jihad and al-Qaeda.[20][21] Sudan has scored medium in human development in the last few years,[22] ranking #150 in 2009, between Haiti and Tanzania. Statistics indicate that about 17% of the population live on less than US $1.25 per day.[23]
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thisisnew)
    X
    I'll respond to you in due course, I have an essay to hand in tomorrow so I'm a little preoccupied but I'll get back to you.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diaz89)
    I'll respond to you in due course, I have an essay to hand in tomorrow so I'm a little preoccupied but I'll get back to you.
    You don't have to. I take your points and stand corrected regarding the causes behind the Egyptian Revolutions for example. I also see how increasingly important natural resources, tribalism, politics etc became throughout. I just wanted to underline the importance of the cultural/religious differences when the conflict was in its early stages after all it's largely an ethnic, religious and political conflict. Two out of three isn't bad :P (And yeah the statement I made in my OP is incorrect, pretty much tongue in cheek as usual).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why doesnt this happen to the ****s of england?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Thisisnew, Please respond to my post (#15).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diaz89)
    The root causes of Sudan civil war is traced to British colonial policies that split Sudan into two. One half administered by Sudanese in the North and the South by the British. This policy created a wedge between the two people and never allowed there to be a sense of national unity and most importantly undermining any nationalist aspiration after the Mahdist revolt to maintain colonial rule.

    After the finding of Oil in the South during the 1970s and the incompetence of the government to distribute the wealth coupled with the communist influence that penetrated the South, the war took an ideological role. The SPLA adopted this ideology as tool to fight the decades of Southern underdevelopment. Hence the war started before Bashir came into power and most importantly when he organized a military coup not an "Islamic Revolution", he removed Sharia law from the South enacted by Sadiq Al Mahdi's government to find anyway to end the war that completely crippled the country. The South wasn't content with this and so sought for the full overhaul of Sudanese society and the total acquisition of Oil revenues. Hence as with most cases in Africa the war is about poverty and minerals.
    And how does this related to a woman getting publicly flogged; similar to how women get flogged in Saudia arabia, iran, and afghanistan.
    Notice a correlation? Yeah they are all majority muslim states.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thisisnew)
    You don't have to. I take your points and stand corrected regarding the causes behind the Egyptian Revolutions for example. I also see how increasingly important natural resources, tribalism, politics etc became throughout. I just wanted to underline the importance of the cultural/religious differences when the conflict was in its early stages after all it's largely an ethnic, religious and political conflict. Two out of three isn't bad :P (And yeah the statement I made in my OP is incorrect, pretty much tongue in cheek as usual).
    Fair enough, good debate any way :yy:
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 25, 2010
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.