Your last sentence is doing exactly what you're saying your against. What I read is sophistry.
Back to the original point...there are two armed factions fighting in Sudan, and you have not pointed to either of them being NATO with evidence. I'm not trying to be rude here, but unless you stick with that topic, I'm done on this thread.
Article confirms my point. The nation was co-ruled by these two durkas, jointly. It's durka 1 vs durka 2.
If you had mentioned the possibility of a Russian naval base and the CIA pushing this civil war to prevent it, then you'd have caught my attention.
The base is already approved afaik.
if you look at Ethiopia and all the surrounding regions and consider the loss of Saudi Arabia then it makes more sense, they now require Sudan.
Rest assured that the meeting just held 4-5 days ago was what kicked this off and it was nato.
Whenever someone says "rest assured" or "clearly" their argument rests upon their authority rather than other facts.
That is your silly way of interpreting what is said.
When someone says 'rest assured' then the indication is that preceding evidence has already set the state.
When someone says 'clearly' then the content has been provided previously and should be reviewed.
When people attempt to reduce the value of language and the meaning of words, we end up where you are at right now.
Confused and attempting to assert incorrect state into the reality.
Your last sentence is doing exactly what you're saying your against. What I read is sophistry.
Back to the original point...there are two armed factions fighting in Sudan, and you have not pointed to either of them being NATO with evidence. I'm not trying to be rude here, but unless you stick with that topic, I'm done on this thread.