The RSF, The UAE and the killings in Sudan

I'm somewhat relieved to see this thread, because part of me was worried that this would be a topic swept under the rug by fellow Blues. And so that no one can accuse me of getting on my high horse, I can admit that I have been guilty of turning a blind eye to a lot of the unsavoury things our owners have been connected to (directly or indirectly). But with Sudan, I can't ignore it.

I work in the humanitarian sector, and some of my work has involved projects in Sudan, so there is likely a personal angle to this issue that hasn't been there in the aforementioned things I'd turned a blind eye to. I'm often in the unfortunate position of seeing or hearing about things that don't make the news or social media. And, yes, I've known about the UAE's involvement (and our owner's alleged connection/complicity) long before mainstream media and football fans started to point it out.

Reading through these pages, I think that people have a good sense of what's happening there, though I can also say that there are things I've seen that are probably worse than what most people have seen or are aware of, or can imagine. 'Trauma fatigue' is a real problem for people working in our sector; there's only so much your mind and heart can take before it starts to affect you viscerally.

I emigrated 6 years ago (Watford cup final was my last game) but my family still goes to games. I'm never going to hold that against them. It's not that they couldn't care about Sudan (if they even know about it); I think it's just that City means so much to them and they couldn't bear to lose it. And I totally get that. I imagine it's the same for a lot of City fans, on this forum and generally.

But this whole Sudan thing doesn't sit well with me and I don't know what to do about it. I can't boycott or protest because I'm thousands of miles away, and honestly, it wouldn't make any difference at all. I just kind of feel like there's this big hole in me now.
 
che_don_john said:
I'm somewhat relieved to see this thread, because part of me was worried that this would be a topic swept under the rug by fellow Blues. And so that no one can accuse me of getting on my high horse, I can admit that I have been guilty of turning a blind eye to a lot of the unsavoury things our owners have been connected to (directly or indirectly). But with Sudan, I can't ignore it.

I work in the humanitarian sector, and some of my work has involved projects in Sudan, so there is likely a personal angle to this issue that hasn't been there in the aforementioned things I'd turned a blind eye to. I'm often in the unfortunate position of seeing or hearing about things that don't make the news or social media. And, yes, I've known about the UAE's involvement (and our owner's alleged connection/complicity) long before mainstream media and football fans started to point it out.

Reading through these pages, I think that people have a good sense of what's happening there, though I can also say that there are things I've seen that are probably worse than what most people have seen or are aware of, or can imagine. 'Trauma fatigue' is a real problem for people working in our sector; there's only so much your mind and heart can take before it starts to affect you viscerally.

I emigrated 6 years ago (Watford cup final was my last game) but my family still goes to games. I'm never going to hold that against them. It's not that they couldn't care about Sudan (if they even know about it); I think it's just that City means so much to them and they couldn't bear to lose it. And I totally get that. I imagine it's the same for a lot of City fans, on this forum and generally.

But this whole Sudan thing doesn't sit well with me and I don't know what to do about it. I can't boycott or protest because I'm thousands of miles away, and honestly, it wouldn't make any difference at all. I just kind of feel like there's this big hole in me now.
Click to expand...
 
che_don_john said:
I'm somewhat relieved to see this thread, because part of me was worried that this would be a topic swept under the rug by fellow Blues. And so that no one can accuse me of getting on my high horse, I can admit that I have been guilty of turning a blind eye to a lot of the unsavoury things our owners have been connected to (directly or indirectly). But with Sudan, I can't ignore it.

I work in the humanitarian sector, and some of my work has involved projects in Sudan, so there is likely a personal angle to this issue that hasn't been there in the aforementioned things I'd turned a blind eye to. I'm often in the unfortunate position of seeing or hearing about things that don't make the news or social media. And, yes, I've known about the UAE's involvement (and our owner's alleged connection/complicity) long before mainstream media and football fans started to point it out.

Reading through these pages, I think that people have a good sense of what's happening there, though I can also say that there are things I've seen that are probably worse than what most people have seen or are aware of, or can imagine. 'Trauma fatigue' is a real problem for people working in our sector; there's only so much your mind and heart can take before it starts to affect you viscerally.

I emigrated 6 years ago (Watford cup final was my last game) but my family still goes to games. I'm never going to hold that against them. It's not that they couldn't care about Sudan (if they even know about it); I think it's just that City means so much to them and they couldn't bear to lose it. And I totally get that. I imagine it's the same for a lot of City fans, on this forum and generally.

But this whole Sudan thing doesn't sit well with me and I don't know what to do about it. I can't boycott or protest because I'm thousands of miles away, and honestly, it wouldn't make any difference at all. I just kind of feel like there's this big hole in me now.
Click to expand...
Good post.

The last paragraph says it all.
 
che_don_john said:
I'm somewhat relieved to see this thread, because part of me was worried that this would be a topic swept under the rug by fellow Blues. And so that no one can accuse me of getting on my high horse, I can admit that I have been guilty of turning a blind eye to a lot of the unsavoury things our owners have been connected to (directly or indirectly). But with Sudan, I can't ignore it.

I work in the humanitarian sector, and some of my work has involved projects in Sudan, so there is likely a personal angle to this issue that hasn't been there in the aforementioned things I'd turned a blind eye to. I'm often in the unfortunate position of seeing or hearing about things that don't make the news or social media. And, yes, I've known about the UAE's involvement (and our owner's alleged connection/complicity) long before mainstream media and football fans started to point it out.

Reading through these pages, I think that people have a good sense of what's happening there, though I can also say that there are things I've seen that are probably worse than what most people have seen or are aware of, or can imagine. 'Trauma fatigue' is a real problem for people working in our sector; there's only so much your mind and heart can take before it starts to affect you viscerally.

I emigrated 6 years ago (Watford cup final was my last game) but my family still goes to games. I'm never going to hold that against them. It's not that they couldn't care about Sudan (if they even know about it); I think it's just that City means so much to them and they couldn't bear to lose it. And I totally get that. I imagine it's the same for a lot of City fans, on this forum and generally.

But this whole Sudan thing doesn't sit well with me and I don't know what to do about it. I can't boycott or protest because I'm thousands of miles away, and honestly, it wouldn't make any difference at all. I just kind of feel like there's this big hole in me now.
Click to expand...
Seems we still have a lot of blues who'd like this swept under the rug judging by some of the comments on here
 
The blue phantom said:
Seems we still have a lot of blues who'd like this swept under the rug judging by some of the comments on here
Click to expand...
So, are we state owned or not?
If we are, then 115 is coming home to roost and we’re likely guilty of everything. On the positive side, all those who said the owners would be embarrassed by being accused of cheating, don’t need to worry as genocide must supplant cheating and they’re apparently not bothered by the first so the second is largely immaterial!

Alternatively, the Russian funded opposition are guilty of at least the same, if not worse crimes, unless you choose to believe that the Russians are ‘telling the truth’ and the UAE are ‘lying through their teeth’.
You pays your money and you take your choice, I suppose.
 
che_don_john said:
I'm somewhat relieved to see this thread, because part of me was worried that this would be a topic swept under the rug by fellow Blues. And so that no one can accuse me of getting on my high horse, I can admit that I have been guilty of turning a blind eye to a lot of the unsavoury things our owners have been connected to (directly or indirectly). But with Sudan, I can't ignore it.

I work in the humanitarian sector, and some of my work has involved projects in Sudan, so there is likely a personal angle to this issue that hasn't been there in the aforementioned things I'd turned a blind eye to. I'm often in the unfortunate position of seeing or hearing about things that don't make the news or social media. And, yes, I've known about the UAE's involvement (and our owner's alleged connection/complicity) long before mainstream media and football fans started to point it out.

Reading through these pages, I think that people have a good sense of what's happening there, though I can also say that there are things I've seen that are probably worse than what most people have seen or are aware of, or can imagine. 'Trauma fatigue' is a real problem for people working in our sector; there's only so much your mind and heart can take before it starts to affect you viscerally.

I emigrated 6 years ago (Watford cup final was my last game) but my family still goes to games. I'm never going to hold that against them. It's not that they couldn't care about Sudan (if they even know about it); I think it's just that City means so much to them and they couldn't bear to lose it. And I totally get that. I imagine it's the same for a lot of City fans, on this forum and generally.

But this whole Sudan thing doesn't sit well with me and I don't know what to do about it. I can't boycott or protest because I'm thousands of miles away, and honestly, it wouldn't make any difference at all. I just kind of feel like there's this big hole in me now.
Click to expand...

Interesting post, but you have known about the UAE's involvement in what exactly? I am interested to know. Because, in my mind, there is a big difference between supporting one side or the other in a war which is carrying out atrocities and trying to rein them in, and encouraging one side or the other in a war to continue the atrocities without trying to rein them in, as the West has seemingly been doing with Israel.

To me, there is a tipping point in the balance between the necessity to protect your strategic interests and the moral requirement to prevent atrocities against a civilian population. I have enough information to determine the UAE's strategic interests, and their right to protect them, but next to nothing on how they are fulfilling their moral responsibility other than "of course they are complicit because they are providing funds and arms", which just doesn't cut it for me.

You say you know about the UAE's involvement. What is it you know? It may help me understand the situation better. Because I am getting nothing from the simplistic hand-wringing going on here.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Interesting post, but you have known about the UAE's involvement in what exactly? I am interested to know. Because, in my mind, there is a big difference between supporting one side or the other in a war which is carrying out atrocities and trying to rein them in, and encouraging one side or the other in a war to continue the atrocities without trying to rein them in, as the West has seemingly been doing with Israel.

To me, there is a tipping point in the balance between the necessity to protect your strategic interests and the moral requirement to prevent atrocities against a civilian population. I have enough information to determine the UAE's strategic interests, and their right to protect them, but next to nothing on how they are fulfilling their moral responsibility other than "of course they are complicit because they are providing funds and arms", which just doesn't cut it for me.

You say you know about the UAE's involvement. What is it you know? It may help me understand the situation better. Because I am getting nothing from the simplistic hand-wringing going on here.
Click to expand...
Do you believe the UAE are involved in supplying all these weopens?

Bearing in mind they have categorically denied all of this and have just stated they supply humanitarian aid.

Which one do you think is true?
 
Keith Moon said:
So the Sudanese military regime, backed by the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran, Russia, Qatar, Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, starts this conflict, arms the former rebel forces in Darfur (whom they fought during the civil war) to fight against the RSF, allies itself with Islamist militias such as the Al-Baraa Ibn Malik Battalion, commits the worst imaginable war crimes, blocks humanitarian aid to Darfur and the refugee camps—causing famine—and refuses to negotiate an end to the war, etc.

And people are blaming HH Sheikh Mansour— you couldn’t make it up.
Click to expand...
Thanks Khaldoon. The RSF is the reincarnation of the janjaweed militias set up by the then Sudanese government and which conducted massacres of non-Arabs in Darfur. They're also the ones who initiated this current civil war. There's no group wearing the white hats in this scenario.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Interesting post, but you have known about the UAE's involvement in what exactly? I am interested to know. Because, in my mind, there is a big difference between supporting one side or the other in a war which is carrying out atrocities and trying to rein them in, and encouraging one side or the other in a war to continue the atrocities without trying to rein them in, as the West has seemingly been doing with Israel.

To me, there is a tipping point in the balance between the necessity to protect your strategic interests and the moral requirement to prevent atrocities against a civilian population. I have enough information to determine the UAE's strategic interests, and their right to protect them, but next to nothing on how they are fulfilling their moral responsibility other than "of course they are complicit because they are providing funds and arms", which just doesn't cut it for me.

You say you know about the UAE's involvement. What is it you know? It may help me understand the situation better. Because I am getting nothing from the simplistic hand-wringing going on here.
Click to expand...
So, at a broad/economic-diplomatic level, the UAE has been involved in Sudan since the early 1970s with steadily expanding economic and development ties.

In terms of strategic-military involvement, that significantly deepened in the 2010s, before my time working in this field, and then more so around 2018-2019, which coincided with the Sudanese political transition (the time I started working in the sector).

I should specify that my work isn't concentrated on Sudan (I've been more involved with South Sudan's flooding and IDPs), and I haven't ever been there. But, I do work closely with partners on the ground, some of whom have talked quite openly about the UAE's direct military or geopolitical involvement in Sudan’s post-2023 war. Some claim to have seen evidence (none that I've seen, but colleagues I trust have) that this involvement has really picked up in the last few years, and point out that Sudan is actually quite blessed with natural resources (hence external interest). One line of enquiry regarding arms supply chains was uncovered through completely unrelated work in Chad, of all places, almost by luck.

Their biggest concern and attention, when it comes to lobbying, has been on who has been supplying/backing the UAE (easier for Geneva-based agencies to put pressure on Western governments than on the likes of UAE).

You're right that there is a difference between getting involved to supprt atrocities and getting involved to rein them in, and that's precisely why the spotlight is on UAE and why investigations are taking place. Typically, in my experience at least, such ambiguity over whether an actor is a 'good guy or bad guy' is not a good sign and conclusions tend to lean to the latter, hence my pessimism and uneasiness about it. 'No smoke without fire' and all that.
 
che_don_john said:
So, at a broad/economic-diplomatic level, the UAE has been involved in Sudan since the early 1970s with steadily expanding economic and development ties.

In terms of strategic-military involvement, that significantly deepened in the 2010s, before my time working in this field, and then more so around 2018-2019, which coincided with the Sudanese political transition (the time I started working in the sector).

I should specify that my work isn't concentrated on Sudan (I've been more involved with South Sudan's flooding and IDPs), and I haven't ever been there. But, I do work closely with partners on the ground, some of whom have talked quite openly about the UAE's direct military or geopolitical involvement in Sudan’s post-2023 war. Some claim to have seen evidence (none that I've seen, but colleagues I trust have) that this involvement has really picked up in the last few years, and point out that Sudan is actually quite blessed with natural resources (hence external interest). One line of enquiry regarding arms supply chains was uncovered through completely unrelated work in Chad, of all places, almost by luck.

Their biggest concern and attention, when it comes to lobbying, has been on who has been supplying/backing the UAE (easier for Geneva-based agencies to put pressure on Western governments than on the likes of UAE).

You're right that there is a difference between getting involved to supprt atrocities and getting involved to rein them in, and that's precisely why the spotlight is on UAE and why investigations are taking place. Typically, in my experience at least, such ambiguity over whether an actor is a 'good guy or bad guy' is not a good sign and conclusions tend to lean to the latter, hence my pessimism and uneasiness about it. 'No smoke without fire' and all that.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Appreciate your answer.

Nice to have input from someone who has actual experience of the region.
 
Keith Moon said:
It is undeniable that the RSF has committed horrific war crimes. However, the current conflict was triggered when al-Burhan and the Sudanese Armed Forces demanded that the RSF be integrated into the regular army under a rapid and rigid timetable, then refused to compromise once the RSF rejected those terms.

If one were to choose the lesser of two evils in this conflict, it would likely be the side that isn’t backed by the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran, and Russia — the one that most Western governments would quietly favor.
Click to expand...
Lol
 
Bluemoon gets a mention on Iran’s state-run broadcaster, the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), English-language news and media channel Press TV.

"Online rebellion of Manchester City's fanbase

The alarming crimes in Sudan, and the mounting evidence linking them to their club's owner, have forced Manchester City fans into a difficult moral reckoning, creating visible fractures within a global community accustomed to celebrating unprecedented sporting success.

In the immediate aftermath of the RSF's capture of El Fasher, social media platforms became a battleground, with the club's official Instagram and X accounts flooded with over 50,000 comments featuring photos of mutilated Sudanese children and captions explicitly stating, "Your owner funds this."

This digital activism far exceeded the engagement on typical match-day posts, signaling a concerted effort to break through the sportswashing narrative.

Within the fanbase itself, a vocal minority has become increasingly critical, with prominent fan pages like "Man City Fever" and "City Xtra" posting statements that the actions of the owner and his government must be condemned and that football should stand for good.

On the largest independent fan forum, Bluemoon, lengthy discussion threads titled "The RSF, the UAE and the killings in Sudan" have garnered hundreds of pages of debate.

Within these forums, an outraged contingent, representing roughly thirty percent of the discussion, has drawn direct moral comparisons, arguing that if another club's owner were accused of such crimes, City fans would demand their expulsion, and the same standards must apply to them.

This has been accompanied by the emergence of dissent hashtags like #MCFCNotMyClub, a significant first in the fanbase's history.

Despite this growing unease, the dominant reaction among supporters remains one of compartmentalization or outright indifference. Some fans online express a desire to focus on the football, arguing that every major club has a dodgy owner and that City is being unfairly singled out."
 
Keith Moon said:
Bluemoon gets a mention on Iran’s state-run broadcaster, the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), English-language news and media channel Press TV.

"Online rebellion of Manchester City's fanbase

The alarming crimes in Sudan, and the mounting evidence linking them to their club's owner, have forced Manchester City fans into a difficult moral reckoning, creating visible fractures within a global community accustomed to celebrating unprecedented sporting success.

In the immediate aftermath of the RSF's capture of El Fasher, social media platforms became a battleground, with the club's official Instagram and X accounts flooded with over 50,000 comments featuring photos of mutilated Sudanese children and captions explicitly stating, "Your owner funds this."

This digital activism far exceeded the engagement on typical match-day posts, signaling a concerted effort to break through the sportswashing narrative.

Within the fanbase itself, a vocal minority has become increasingly critical, with prominent fan pages like "Man City Fever" and "City Xtra" posting statements that the actions of the owner and his government must be condemned and that football should stand for good.

On the largest independent fan forum, Bluemoon, lengthy discussion threads titled "The RSF, the UAE and the killings in Sudan" have garnered hundreds of pages of debate.

Within these forums, an outraged contingent, representing roughly thirty percent of the discussion, has drawn direct moral comparisons, arguing that if another club's owner were accused of such crimes, City fans would demand their expulsion, and the same standards must apply to them.

This has been accompanied by the emergence of dissent hashtags like #MCFCNotMyClub, a significant first in the fanbase's history.

Despite this growing unease, the dominant reaction among supporters remains one of compartmentalization or outright indifference. Some fans online express a desire to focus on the football, arguing that every major club has a dodgy owner and that City is being unfairly singled out."
Click to expand...

They continued:

"On the other hand, posters like @halfcenturyup are complete cunts for not immediately reaching for their pitchforks. A plague on all their garden sheds."
 
Keith Moon said:
Bluemoon gets a mention on Iran’s state-run broadcaster, the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), English-language news and media channel Press TV.

"Online rebellion of Manchester City's fanbase

The alarming crimes in Sudan, and the mounting evidence linking them to their club's owner, have forced Manchester City fans into a difficult moral reckoning, creating visible fractures within a global community accustomed to celebrating unprecedented sporting success.

In the immediate aftermath of the RSF's capture of El Fasher, social media platforms became a battleground, with the club's official Instagram and X accounts flooded with over 50,000 comments featuring photos of mutilated Sudanese children and captions explicitly stating, "Your owner funds this."

This digital activism far exceeded the engagement on typical match-day posts, signaling a concerted effort to break through the sportswashing narrative.

Within the fanbase itself, a vocal minority has become increasingly critical, with prominent fan pages like "Man City Fever" and "City Xtra" posting statements that the actions of the owner and his government must be condemned and that football should stand for good.

On the largest independent fan forum, Bluemoon, lengthy discussion threads titled "The RSF, the UAE and the killings in Sudan" have garnered hundreds of pages of debate.

Within these forums, an outraged contingent, representing roughly thirty percent of the discussion, has drawn direct moral comparisons, arguing that if another club's owner were accused of such crimes, City fans would demand their expulsion, and the same standards must apply to them.

This has been accompanied by the emergence of dissent hashtags like #MCFCNotMyClub, a significant first in the fanbase's history.

Despite this growing unease, the dominant reaction among supporters remains one of compartmentalization or outright indifference. Some fans online express a desire to focus on the football, arguing that every major club has a dodgy owner and that City is being unfairly singled out."
Click to expand...
Who’d have thought that the Iranians would be looking into Bluemoon! I wonder if we have fans over there?
 
Keith Moon said:
Bluemoon gets a mention on Iran’s state-run broadcaster, the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), English-language news and media channel Press TV.

"Online rebellion of Manchester City's fanbase

The alarming crimes in Sudan, and the mounting evidence linking them to their club's owner, have forced Manchester City fans into a difficult moral reckoning, creating visible fractures within a global community accustomed to celebrating unprecedented sporting success.

In the immediate aftermath of the RSF's capture of El Fasher, social media platforms became a battleground, with the club's official Instagram and X accounts flooded with over 50,000 comments featuring photos of mutilated Sudanese children and captions explicitly stating, "Your owner funds this."

This digital activism far exceeded the engagement on typical match-day posts, signaling a concerted effort to break through the sportswashing narrative.

Within the fanbase itself, a vocal minority has become increasingly critical, with prominent fan pages like "Man City Fever" and "City Xtra" posting statements that the actions of the owner and his government must be condemned and that football should stand for good.

On the largest independent fan forum, Bluemoon, lengthy discussion threads titled "The RSF, the UAE and the killings in Sudan" have garnered hundreds of pages of debate.

Within these forums, an outraged contingent, representing roughly thirty percent of the discussion, has drawn direct moral comparisons, arguing that if another club's owner were accused of such crimes, City fans would demand their expulsion, and the same standards must apply to them.

This has been accompanied by the emergence of dissent hashtags like #MCFCNotMyClub, a significant first in the fanbase's history.

Despite this growing unease, the dominant reaction among supporters remains one of compartmentalization or outright indifference. Some fans online express a desire to focus on the football, arguing that every major club has a dodgy owner and that City is being unfairly singled out."
Click to expand...
Hundreds of pages? I wouldn't call 17 pages hundreds of pages!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top