Silik and the Militia as the “Doves of Peace”!!

▪️ Khalid Omer Youssef’s article about their visit to London and the protests they faced proves they deserved these protests, and that every time they defend themselves and attack opponents of the militia, they reveal more. The article was completely devoid of any mention of the militia in a negative context, and was filled with lies and scandals. For instance, he says: “The visit to Britain confirmed the clearest truth since the outbreak of war, which is that it is primarily a war against civilians…”:

When I first read this, it seemed to me that he was referring to the war against civilians in their neighborhoods, villages, homes, shops, farms, etc., as is the reality. I wondered: where did Khalid find the courage to speak the truth that exposes the militia? How could he focus on the victims rather than “Tagadom” (Progress) instead?!

But it soon became clear to me that he closed any door to interpreting it this way, and meant by “civilians” only “Tagadom,” which claims this title exclusively for itself. In this exclusive claim, actual civilians who are targeted by the militia are stripped of the victim status in the phrase “primarily a war against civilians” and it is instead granted to him and his group!

▪️ He said: “During those days, the advocates of war forgot their war… they forgot their profiteering off the blood of victims… they turned away from repeating their false claims of military victories and focused on one thing only—Tagadom and its leader, Dr. Abdullah Hamdok.”:

This statement alone is proof of the false label “advocates of war” and of the bias it carries towards the militia. The Tagadom group applies it solely to those who stand against the militia and oppose rewarding it for its crimes. They ensure that no one would mistake the militia as being included under this label!

As for his claim that they “forgot their profiteering off the blood of the victims,” it is a blatant lie because the forces he refers to perform their duty in supporting the victims to the extent that it angers the militia. Had they not, they would have earned the militia’s approval, just as Tagadom did!

This statement exposes Silik’s discomfort with the solidarity shown by political forces with the victims. It reveals his belief that the militia is the perpetrator, as shown in the word “profiteering.” No one describes solidarity with the victims as “profiteering” unless they are the perpetrator or an ally of the perpetrator!

Even if we hypothetically assume that the militia’s opponents truly forgot their “profiteering” off the blood of the victims, is forgetting such profiteering, generally speaking, a bad thing or a good thing, especially for Silik and his group and the militia in particular?!

The question remains: Why hasn’t Khalid and those with him presented a genuine model of solidarity with the victims—one that pleases them, angers the perpetrator, and is completely free of profiteering?

▪️ As for his claim that they “turned away from repeating their false claims of military victories”:

This too is a lie because the victories are real, not mere claims. People talk about them when they happen, and the public celebrates them. Khalid himself was forced to acknowledge this in an interview with Al Jazeera, where he said: “All Sudanese want the war to end and to return to their homes and enjoy peace, however it may come about; this is something that everyone agrees upon.” He thus admitted that the joy of “some” people over the army’s victories is completely understandable!

This statement also exposes his bias toward the militia and his resentment, like theirs, toward these victories. Only those who resent these victories would call them false!

As for the criticisms directed toward “Tagadom”—an entity specifically created to unite militia allies—these are simply an extension of the criticisms directed at the militia and correspond to Tagadom’s roles in serving the militia. Tagadom receives as much criticism as the rewards it seeks if the militia were to win the war or through negotiations. If Tagadom had not provided services to the militia or tied its fate to that of the militia, it would have been spared most criticisms!

▪️ He said: “The state of panic and hysteria that has gripped the war camp only increases our determination to continue down this path. We will keep working to stop the war, expose its advocates and profiteers, and disturb their sleep with action inside and outside Sudan. We will address the world from every platform until the war ends and Sudan returns safe and sound from the evils of those killers who prey on innocent lives and profit from the blood of the Sudanese people.”

The truth is that the “panic” is actually the state that accompanies the leaders of Tagadom whenever they find themselves face to face with the public.

A clear proof of the falseness of this passage is that Khalid Omer did not leave any room for the suspicion that the militia is included in the term “war camp.” He even suggested that it is part of the “peace camp” along with him!

Additional evidence of the falseness of this statement is that he crafted his article in a way that confirms that the militia is not included in his threat: “we will expose its advocates and profiteers, we will disturb their sleep with action inside and outside Sudan.”

The militia, which literally “profits” off the blood of the Sudanese people it kills and loots, and aspires to gain political rewards by threatening further killing and looting, is not included in his words: “so that our Sudan returns safe and secure from the ‘evils of the killers’ who ‘prey on innocent lives’ and ‘profit’ from the blood of the Sudanese people.” Can Khalid Omer even claim, let alone try, to speak about the militia in such terms?