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.
Well, you refuse to be rational about the logic bits that bring us to this state.
So lets reiterate:
Decades of strife in the region, militants all over, 100k buildup of resistance forces.
Meeting between nato counterparts
3 days later, military activity that far surpasses the last decade+
So to reject the statement that the meeting ignited the conflict is ridiculous when attempting to instead suggest it is a standard civil war out of nowhere.
Timing is key here.
I said already that the rsf forces are nato forces, nato built that army, If you wanted, you could do some research on that angle and examine the plethora of backing evidence.
You were done on this thread when you started, coming in half cocked and ill informed.
How can you re-iterate what was never iterated in the first place?
Show me something by a reasonable source that says 1/2 of the government forces (which are fighting the other 1/2 of the government forces) which used to jointly rule after a coup they jointly did are funded/trained by 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.
Well, you refuse to be rational about the logic bits that bring us to this state.
So lets reiterate:
Decades of strife in the region, militants all over, 100k buildup of resistance forces.
Meeting between nato counterparts
3 days later, military activity that far surpasses the last decade+
So to reject the statement that the meeting ignited the conflict is ridiculous when attempting to instead suggest it is a standard civil war out of nowhere.
Timing is key here.
I said already that the rsf forces are nato forces, nato built that army, If you wanted, you could do some research on that angle and examine the plethora of backing evidence.
You were done on this thread when you started, coming in half cocked and ill informed.
How can you re-iterate what was never iterated in the first place?
Show me something by a reasonable source that says 1/2 of the government forces (which are fighting the other 1/2 of the government forces) which used to jointly rule after a coup they jointly did are funded/trained by NATO?