this post was submitted on 29 May 2025
18 points (87.5% liked)

World News

46830 readers
2360 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The Organization of Prohibition of Chemical Weapons ( OPCW), of which Sudan is a member of its executive committee, has a rigorous fact finding process that includes requesting clarification from any state of possible breaches and sending experts for inspection on the ground and finally sharing the report with the public. In the current case of Sudan this never took place; the only available information is a new report by The New York Times that references four US officials speaking under the condition of anonymity of the Sudanese army using these weapons.

Another report by a recently formed local organisation, with no disclosure of its funding, claiming that chemical weapons were used in Khartoum and Darfur by the army. Significantly, they have not provided a single shred of evidence. In a similar case, another organisation shared a photo of a grenade launcher made by the China North Industries Group Corporation Limited (Norinco), claiming it was used by Sudanese soldiers with the banned sulfur mustard gas before starting a battle in Khartoum. An independent news platform debunked this photo and showed the weapon could not be used to launch chemical weapons.

It is hard to overlook the influence of the UAE— the RSF militia’s main sponsor and a key military and financial partner of the US—in shaping this decision. As the Sudanese army gains significant ground on the battlefield, it is in the UAE’s interest to undermine its reputation and leverage its connections to diminish its power.

top 2 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] rumimevlevi@lemmings.world 1 points 1 day ago

It's a civil war so both side has support from a part of the population. So along military action there need a plan to deradicalize the people who fight with the RSF

[–] network_switch@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago

Economic sanctions exist just to make the people suffer and hopefully cause enough destabilization so that the ruling class capitulates to whatever demands. I plain don’t like economic sanctions. I consider it a form of terrorism and one the pillars of modern imperialism