“A Dead Man Washing a Killer”!

As I see

Adil El-Baz

1
The mouthpieces of the collaborators in “Sumood” and their follower, Massad Bolus, are attempting to present a sycophantic narrative to whitewash the militia’s crimes—crimes that cannot be cleansed by all the water on earth. Their hypocritical discourse is built on three narratives: the first is to downplay the militia’s atrocities; the second is to equate the army’s violations with isolated incidents and errors that occur in all armies during war; and the third is denial and falsification of facts.

The narratives of Massad Bolus and the “Sumood” platforms attempt to shape reality in ways that serve the militia—narratives intended to mislead public consciousness, each trying to achieve an impossible mission: washing a blood-soaked hand. Yet global evidence—from UN and international reports to major newspapers—has demolished these narratives one by one.

2
The first narrative was downplaying. The militia’s propagandists claim: “There is no genocide… what happened was merely communal conflict.” Some even went as far as saying: “Talk of mass rape is media exaggeration,” as Alaa Al-Din Naqd stated. But international reports left them no room to escape. Every major reputable newspaper in the world published documented images of the crimes and carried live testimonies from displaced people. All human rights organizations issued reports from the ground. Dozens of research centers and rights groups—and even the latest Amnesty International report in November 2025—described the atrocities committed by the militia in El-Fasher, just as they had previously described what happened in Geneina as “the worst wave of ethnic violence in Africa in the past decade.” The reports confirmed that the attacks were not wartime chaos but organized operations targeting specific groups. Even the United Nations, despite its cautious language, was forced to acknowledge that 82 countries condemned the militia’s “planned” attacks on civilians. These facts suffocated the first narrative entirely.

3
The second narrative was the false equivalence: “All parties committed crimes; the army and the RSF are the same.” Some of Bolus’s writers repeated: “No one is innocent in this war,” while others claimed that “the army committed worse.” Their aim was not analysis but deception—placing the victim and the perpetrator on the same moral plane. But the facts struck this illusion hard. The army, despite all pressures, announced investigations into any individual violations—behavior of an institutional force subject to the law. The militia, however, committed systematic crimes acknowledged by the world: satellite images from Maxar and Planet Labs showed entire neighborhoods burned; Yale HRL documented mass graves and ethnic cleansing; survivors recounted mass rape carried out under high command orders; and The New York Times documented identity-based killings in the streets of Darfur. All this shattered the second narrative and restored the moral distinction between a state and a militia.

4
The third narrative was outright denial—and here the collaborators’ rhetoric reaches its peak in shamelessness: “There were no massacres… the images are fabricated,” “There are no mass graves… they’re natural pits.” This denial equates crime with nonexistence, as if Geneina had not been annihilated, as if El-Fasher had not been slaughtered. But the evidence came like a flood. Satellite images pinpointed the mass graves and recorded the burning of neighborhoods and the militia’s movements. The Guardian published its shocking report, “They slaughtered us like animals,” containing direct testimonies of rape, child murder in front of mothers, and roadside executions. The BBC documented the use of rape as a weapon of war, and the Associated Press described what occurred as “ethnic cleansing clearly targeting specific groups.”

This overwhelming evidence crushed the denial narrative entirely, turning anyone who repeats it into a partner in the crime, not a messenger.

5
Thus, the three narratives—downplaying, false equivalence, and denial—collapse whenever confronted with truth. The rhetoric of Massad Bolus and the “Sumood” platforms cannot cover up a political corpse they refuse to acknowledge as dead. A militia that has committed every imaginable atrocity cannot have its record washed—not by any water on earth. What “Sumood,” its cohort, its mouthpieces, and its sponsors are attempting is impossible. How can the dead within the “Sumood” alliance wash a killer whose crimes and victims’ images stand as undeniable evidence against him?