{"id":52017,"date":"2025-07-27T19:37:15","date_gmt":"2025-07-27T16:37:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sudanevents.com\/?p=52017"},"modified":"2025-07-27T19:38:54","modified_gmt":"2025-07-27T16:38:54","slug":"justifying-aggression-why-it-happened-and-why-it-failed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sudanevents.com\/index.php\/2025\/07\/27\/justifying-aggression-why-it-happened-and-why-it-failed\/","title":{"rendered":"Justifying Aggression: Why It Happened and Why It Failed?"},"content":{"rendered":"

By: Ibrahim Othman<\/strong><\/p>\n

If, during the days when “FFC” leaders were chanting the phrase “There is no alternative to the Framework Agreement but war,” someone had said to their supporters: (If the Rapid Support Forces rebel, occupy your homes, and the UAE supports their rebellion, your leaders will defend both), the assured response from all would have been denial\u2014acknowledging such an act as wrong if it occurred. However, some later accepted that very defense when it did happen!<\/p>\n

Exploring this phenomenon reveals patterns of post-facto justification for acts once deemed reprehensible in theory. These patterns have been studied by theorists across disciplines. Their core logic can be summarized as: (When principles vanish, justification becomes a survival art: if it serves political interest, it should be understood\u2014instead of, if it contradicts principle, it must be condemned).<\/p>\n

Psychological and Social Mechanisms of Justification:<\/p>\n

1. Cognitive Dissonance Theory: The principle becomes an internal burden: If the wrongdoing is from my faction, it must be justified \u2014 instead of: If it contradicts my values, it must be rejected.<\/p>\n

2. Hindsight Bias: Aggression appears wise: Since it happened, it must have been justified \u2014 instead of: Since it was wrong, it should\u2019ve been avoided.<\/p>\n

3. Confirmation Bias: The act confirms bias: If it supports my worldview, it must be defended \u2014 instead of: If it violates principles, it must be condemned.<\/p>\n

4. Psychological Cost Minimization: The wrong becomes a tolerable sacrifice: If it lessened greater pain, it\u2019s justified \u2014 instead of: If it\u2019s unjust, it must be rejected.<\/p>\n

5. Group Pressure and Social Identity: Loyalty becomes the moral compass: If it\u2019s from our group, it must be understood \u2014 instead of: If it\u2019s immoral, it must be criticized.<\/p>\n

6. Political Polarization: Criticism becomes betrayal: If it weakens our side, it must be silenced \u2014 instead of: If it\u2019s wrong, it must be spoken.<\/p>\n

7. Normalization of External Justifications: The violation becomes routine: If it happened, it\u2019s normal \u2014 instead of: If it\u2019s aggression, it must be condemned.<\/p>\n

8. Ethics of Principle vs. Ethics of Circumstance: Context rules ethics: If it\u2019s exceptional, it must be understood \u2014 instead of: If it\u2019s unethical, it must be rejected.<\/p>\n

9. Moral Pragmatism: The act becomes utilitarian: If it produces results, it\u2019s right \u2014 instead of: If it\u2019s unjust, no result justifies it.<\/p>\n

10. Practical Moral Relativism: The aggressor becomes the standard: If they\u2019re our ally, it\u2019s permissible \u2014 instead of: If it\u2019s wrong, it must be rejected.<\/p>\n

11. Unconscious Collusion: Justification becomes automatic: If it protects my identity, it\u2019s rational \u2014 instead of: If it\u2019s immoral, there\u2019s no excuse.<\/p>\n

12. Group vs. State Legitimacy: Group loyalty overrides national duty: If it benefits our group, it\u2019s legitimate \u2014 instead of: If it harms the state, it must be rejected.<\/p>\n

13. Post-Act Language Shifting: Narratives become tools of absolution: If it happened, it must be justified \u2014 instead of: If it was wrong, it must be condemned.<\/p>\n

14. Meaning Reframing After Shock: Interpretation becomes a survival mechanism: If it eases pain, it\u2019s acceptable \u2014 instead of: If it distorts truth, it\u2019s complicity.<\/p>\n

15. Necessity and Realism: Reality dictates judgment: If it occurred, it must be accepted \u2014 instead of: If it\u2019s wrong, it must be corrected.<\/p>\n

16. Go-with-the-Flow Theory: Majority view becomes salvation: If everyone in my group supports it, no need to reject it \u2014 instead of: If it\u2019s wrong, numbers don\u2019t change that.<\/p>\n

17. Political Framing Effects: Wrong becomes duty: If it fits our narrative, it\u2019s justified \u2014 instead of: If it\u2019s aggression, it\u2019s condemnable no matter the story.<\/p>\n

18. Targeting the Other: Aggression becomes triumph: If it\u2019s against our enemies, it\u2019s cleansing \u2014 instead of: If it harms innocents, it\u2019s a crime.<\/p>\n

19. Erosion of Personal Values: Conscience goes silent: If it\u2019s from my faction, it\u2019s tolerable \u2014 instead of: If it\u2019s immoral, I won\u2019t justify it.<\/p>\n

20. Absence of Critical Thinking: Reason serves the group: If it helps my group, let it pass \u2014 instead of: If it contradicts justice, it must be opposed.<\/p>\n

Why Did Their Defense Fail and Become a Scandal?<\/p>\n

1. Loss of Core Legitimacy: The defense was built on a position lacking moral or legal foundation.<\/p>\n

2. Value Frame Clashing with Public Values: The ethical frame used in the discourse was out of sync with the broader societal value of sovereignty.<\/p>\n

3. Violation of the Social Contract: When a speaker defends an entity perceived as a threat to collective safety, the audience sees it as moral abandonment.<\/p>\n

4. Boomerang Effect: The message backfires. The more insistent the defense, the more the audience clings to its original stance, interpreting the discourse as coercive or deceptive.<\/p>\n

5. Distorted Identity of the Defender: The speaker appears to adopt the identity of the aggressor, blurring lines and appearing to abandon national allegiance.<\/p>\n

6. Failure of Comparative Framing: Using minimizing or unfair comparisons appears as trivializing national harm and deepens public resentment.<\/p>\n

7. Extreme Logical Bankruptcy: Reliance on hollow arguments reveals a detachment from lived reality, perceived as linguistic arrogance, not rational explanation.<\/p>\n

8. Exposure of Personal Motives: When the defense seems self-serving, the speaker is seen as justifying for themselves, not others, losing credibility instantly.<\/p>\n

9. Emotional Disconnect: Failure to appeal to the audience\u2019s ethical or emotional core renders the speech cold and mechanical, preventing empathy and persuasion.<\/p>\n

10. Contradiction with Collective Experience: When the defense contradicts what people have seen or lived, it is perceived as falsification, not interpretation, triggering public sensitivity to lies.<\/p>\n

11. Abuse of Symbolic Authority: Exploiting former official positions to lend fake legitimacy, especially to convince foreign actors of the aggressor\u2019s innocence.<\/p>\n

12. Residence in the Aggressor’s Territory: The speaker\u2019s presence in the defending country leads to the assumption of geographical bias, tainting their testimony.<\/p>\n

13. Willful Omission of Key Facts: Avoiding core realities and focusing on peripheral issues raises suspicion about the speaker\u2019s true intent.<\/p>\n

14. Funding Influence: Publicly acknowledging Western funding opens speculation about additional financial ties, especially when the defended state is known for funding aligned forces.<\/p>\n

15. Evasion of Direct Questions: Dodging key questions and resorting to empty verbosity undermines the speaker\u2019s credibility.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

16. Underestimating Public Intelligence: Assuming audience naivety and offering flimsy evidence triggers backlash and entrenches rejection.<\/p>\n

17. Lack of Alternative Solutions: Focusing solely on justifying aggression without offering practical alternatives reduces the argument to an abstract defense and raises doubts about the speaker’s real intentions.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By: Ibrahim Othman If, during the days when “FFC” leaders were chanting the phrase “There is no alternative to the Framework Agreement but war,” someone had said to their supporters: (If the Rapid Support Forces rebel, occupy your homes, and the UAE supports their rebellion, your leaders will defend both), the assured response from all …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":6991,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-52017","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-opinion"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sudanevents.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52017","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sudanevents.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sudanevents.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sudanevents.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sudanevents.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=52017"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/sudanevents.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52017\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":52019,"href":"https:\/\/sudanevents.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52017\/revisions\/52019"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sudanevents.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6991"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sudanevents.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=52017"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sudanevents.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=52017"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sudanevents.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=52017"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}