The Africa Thread

Sudan’s PM Hamdok arrested after ‘resisting coup’

Sudan’s military has placed Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok under house arrest after moving him to an unknown location for refusing to support a coup, according to the information ministry.

Sudan has been on edge since a failed coup plot last month unleashed bitter recriminations between military and civilian groups meant to be sharing power following the toppling of the country’s longtime leader Omar al-Bashir.

The office of Sudan’s Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok called on protesters to take to the streets after security forces detained senior civilian leaders in the transitional government.
“We call on the Sudanese people to protest using all peaceful means possible … to take back their revolution from the thieves,” Hamdok’s office said in a statement.

Sudanese Doctors Committee has said that at least 12 people were injured in Khartoum during the demonstrations against the attempted military coup.
Sudan’s information ministry said that the protesters were facing gunfire near the military’s headquarters in Khartoum.
It had said earlier on its official Facebook page that tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets heeding calls by the country’s Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok to reject the coup.
Justification for Sudan coup ‘mind-boggling’: Analyst

Al Jazeera’s senior political analyst Marwan Bishara has said the military leadership’s justification for the coup is “mind-boggling”.
“They think that the arrangement of the past two years was simply an arrangement between the military who are entrusted with Sudan and some technocrats who are running the day-to-day government or governing under their leadership, the military leadership and that this arrangement is no longer working for the good of the people of Sudan,” he said.
“So the idea that Sudan has gone through major popular upheaval and brought about civilian government after 30 years of military dictatorship does not exist for the Sudanese generals.”​

000_9QD2NU.jpg

000_9QD2NP.jpg

Someone shows they know how to do a protest, you have to protect pedestrian protestors from vehicles
 
Last edited:
https://www.africanews.com/2022/06/06/at-least-20-dead-in-new-dr-congo-massacre/

At least 20 civilians were killed on Sunday night in Ituri, in the northeastern Democratic Republic of Congo, in a new massacre attributed to the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), experts and the local Red Cross said.

The Kivu Security Barometer (KST), an organisation with observers in the area, wrote on Twitter, adding, "the ADF is suspected".

"Our volunteers on the ground and the youth president have counted 36 bodies," David Beiza, president of the Irumu territory Red Cross, told AFP, explaining that "these ADF rebels arrived at around 8 pm (18:00 GMT). They operated quietly. Fortunately, many people were able to escape," he added.

The army's intervention was "late, I am angry", Dieudonne Malangay, a member of civil society in the Walese Vonkutu chiefdom where the village of Bwanasura is located, told AFP.

Bwanasura is a village located 44 km from Komanda-centre, in the Walese Vonkutu chiefdom, in the Irumu territory, 119 km south of Bunia (north-east).

Presented by the jihadist organisation Islamic State (EI) as its branch in Central Africa (ISCAP in English), the ADF group is accused of being responsible for the massacre of thousands of civilians in eastern Congo and of having committed attacks in Uganda.

The latest major massacres attributed to ADF rebels in eastern DRC date back to the end of May, with the death of at least 16 people in Bulongo announced on 30 May, following the killing of at least 27 people on 28 May in the village of Beu-Manyama, in the neighbouring Beni region.

Like the neighbouring province of North Kivu, Ituri has been under a state of siege for the past year, an exceptional measure that has given full power to the military but has so far failed to end the violence.
 
Burkina Faso got its second coup in a year this week…
 
Quite right, I agree with the man from the British Cape Colony in the Union of South Africa.
 
For a guy who's on-record as being happy that apartheid ended, you sure have a weird habit of using apartheid-era names.
They didn't have to rename provinces and cities. The name Transvaal predates apartheid. Apartheid was unsustainable in the long run, and I'm glad it ended without a massive bloodbath, but still, I wish that the country could have been partitioned. There could have been Bantu states alongside a South Africa that was for White, Coloured, and Indian people, dominated politically by Afrikaners, with every citizen having equal rights.

We could have just repealed the segregation laws without changing the flag, the names, etc...
 
And yet, the names changed. So when correcting somebody else, you should probably use the correct ones, instead of the ones that you prefer for historic reasons.
I don't identify with the new Bantu names. I am not a Bantu.
 
They didn't have to rename provinces and cities. The name Transvaal predates apartheid. Apartheid was unsustainable in the long run, and I'm glad it ended without a massive bloodbath, but still, I wish that the country could have been partitioned. There could have been Bantu states alongside a South Africa that was for White, Coloured, and Indian people, dominated politically by Afrikaners, with every citizen having equal rights.

We could have just repealed the segregation laws without changing the flag, the names, etc...
Gorbles, if someone renamed your country from the UK to Pondoland, would you identify with Pondoland or with the UK?
 
Gorbles, if someone renamed your country from the UK to Pondoland, would you identify with Pondoland or with the UK?
You might as well ask English and Scottish folk in the 1700s. Engaging in meaningless hypotheticals does nothing to advance any constructive form of discussion, because your question is a strawman. You're comparing the end of apartheid (of which the abolishing of the provinces was a part) to an arbitrary renaming of the UK.

Like I said. You seem super invested in a part of history you otherwise claim to be happy with being over. It's history buddy, I recommend getting used to it.
 
You might as well ask English and Scottish folk in the 1700s. Engaging in meaningless hypotheticals does nothing to advance any constructive form of discussion, because your question is a strawman. You're comparing the end of apartheid (of which the abolishing of the provinces was a part) to an arbitrary renaming of the UK.

Like I said. You seem super invested in a part of history you otherwise claim to be happy with being over. It's history buddy, I recommend getting used to it.
I think it's ultimately good that Mandela was released and that the discriminatory laws were done away with. I don't agree with every aspect of what happened when apartheid ended. They didn't need to abolish the provinces, they did it as an act of dominance to humiliate us.
 
You're comparing the end of apartheid (of which the abolishing of the provinces was a part)
The four provinces, formerly seperate colonies, long predated apartheid.

Here’s a fun fact: when the four colonies were united, each one was given a concession: Travsvaal got the executive, Cape Town the legislature, the Orange River colony the judiciary, and Natal got a cash payout.
 
They didn't need to abolish the provinces, they did it as an act of dominance to humiliate us.
I don't care what you think about the abolishing of the provinces, I'm simply pointing out that they were (abolished), and thus your correction of AmazonQueen was incorrect.
The four provinces, formerly seperate colonies, long predated apartheid.
And? Did I say they didn't? :D
 
And? Did I say they didn't? :D
Unless my inference was mistaken… anyway, my understanding of the redraw of the borders was not negotiated as an intended humiliation of South African whites but was a multi-racial push for more regional autonomy—keeping in mind that the IFP/Zulus did not want to be dominated by the other ethnic groups.
 
The four provinces, formerly seperate colonies, long predated apartheid.

Here’s a fun fact: when the four colonies were united, each one was given a concession: Travsvaal got the executive, Cape Town the legislature, the Orange River colony the judiciary, and Natal got a cash payout.
The old four-province system had a real historical basis. These new Frankenstein provinces have none whatsosever.
I don't care what you think about the abolishing of the provinces, I'm simply pointing out that they were (abolished), and thus your correction of AmazonQueen was incorrect.

And? Did I say they didn't? :D
I corrected Ajidica, not AmazonQueen.
Unless my inference was mistaken… anyway, my understanding of the redraw of the borders was not negotiated as an intended humiliation of South African whites but was a multi-racial push for more regional autonomy—keeping in mind that the IFP/Zulus did not want to be dominated by the other ethnic groups.
Either way, the Zulus would have dominated Natal (one of the provinces which had the least amount of changes to its borders)...they mostly did it to break up the Transvaal as a way of humiliating and demeaning Boers.
 
Back
Top Bottom