That was the disgust I felt when I saw ‘US Leaders Know UAE Backs Massacres in Sudan. Stopping Them Would Be Too Costly’ today. As I see it, these lies should be set with liability claims towards the Truthout (at https://truthout.org/articles/us-leaders-know-uae-backs-massacres-in-sudan-stopping-them-would-be-too-costly/) and a major claim should also be handed to the writer “By Elfadil Ibrahim, Responsible Statecraft”, but what would I know about that. The inferred claim in the heading is merely the window dressing. What is the real claim that not only are the UAE and the United States mere puppets towards the Sudan, the setting that this (as far as I can tell) mere baseless claims are part of this all. So as I see “El Fasher was the last major city in Sudan’s Darfur region still outside the control of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a paramilitary force that has been fighting Sudan’s national army, the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), in a civil war that recently entered its fourth year. The war has morphed into a regional proxy conflict, with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) backing the RSF, while Egypt and Turkey have emerged as the army’s primary backers, providing weapons, drones, and training.” Comes with several parts. Do you think that the UAE was actually part of this and Egypt and Turkey opposing this? Don’t you think the world news media would have mentioned this at least once? You see, the Human Rights group (a party always in need of media coverage) makes claims that “Rights groups allege the UAE has supplied advanced drones, armored vehicles, and weapons to the RSF. Evidence indicates the UAE has also facilitated the transit of foreign mercenaries and private military contractors to aid the paramilitary group” If this was true and if there was any kind of evidence the word ‘allege’ would not be added, there would be statements ‘this evidence is provided’, it seemingly was not. Then the BBC makes claims that “The RSF has been widely accused of war crimes and ethnically targeted mass killings in Sudan. Because of the UAE’s alleged enabling role, Sudan filed a case against the UAE at the International Court of Justice, citing complicity in genocide” again with the words ‘allege’ in it, as such no evidence exists. Then we get a more ‘varied’ setting with “Mounting global evidence has led to growing demands from organizations like Human Rights Watch for international actors to break their silence and hold external backers of the Sudan conflict accountable” as such what mounting global evidence, where is it? What international actors? What external backers and why are they not clearly named? I get that an insignificant party like the Human Rights Watch loves the limelight, but they are not giving anyone any clear evidence. So as we get “The same day that Boulos spoke before the Security Council, the U.S. Treasury Department announced sanctions on individuals and entities linked to both sides of Sudan’s civil war. Four days before that, State Department Spokesman Tommy Piggot warned that “mass atrocities could be imminent” in El Obeid.
At the time of these warnings from Trump administration officials, Secretary of State Marco Rubio had just completed a Gulf tour, reassuring allies shaken by the U.S.- Iran war. During the trip, Rubio told reporters in Kuwait that Washington “continues to engage” on Sudan with Gulf states at every opportunity.” We wonder what sanctions on which individuals? We see the mention of a spokesman and we see political truths, but connected to whom, to what?
These questions keep on mounting liabilities. So when we see “a finding that Washington effectively endorsed through its own sanctions, having designated multiple UAE-based companies in January 2025 for providing the RSF with weapons and financial cover.
Despite Washington’s own warnings of what’s to come, the political inaction means that the situation for the people of El Obeid is bleak. The RSF has set its sights on El Obeid because of its strategic location, linking Darfur to the Nile Valley and the capital, Khartoum. Whoever controls the city controls the central axis of movement across Sudan.” We merely see “UAE-based companies” is too shallow to be used as an instance. You see Microsoft, Oracle & Cisco Systems are based in the UAE. Are they responsible? Aren’t they American? As I see it, someone wants to make hay out of a small spot of grass and there isn’t any. No naming of any kind and seeing the evidence of “weapons and financial cover” usually comes with evidence. So if these weapons are AK-47, would that evidence not be Russian? Merely touching the setting, If the weapons were FN materials wouldn’t the evidence be Belgium? I am merely asking the obvious and whilst we like a good tale like the continuing stories of some president who went to the dogs (which is a muppet show reference) we need to see that evidence. And as we are given “An investigation by The Sentry found that Ahmed al-Humairi, a senior Emirati official, founded and once fully owned the company at the center of that network. He has since divested his shares, but he remains closely linked to the company’s current CEO, fellow Emirati businessman Mohamed Hamdan al-Zaabi. The UAE denies all of this, but members of Congress and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have all openly acknowledged the UAE’s role in arming the RSF. Despite the fact that this is now public knowledge, arms sales to the UAE have not been conditioned, nor has Abu Dhabi faced any real consequences from Washington.” I wonder who is the Sentry? What exactly is the connection to Ahmed al-Humairi, a senior Emirati official? Perhaps he is in charge of parking meters? And the reference is as shallow as anything I have ever seen. It’s like finding an embroidered tissue at a fire with “DT” and then claiming that President Donald Trump set the fire. It is that level of shallow. And the article ends with “This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.” When anyone hides behind these lines, you know that the media will not touch this and they keep on making populist statements to anyone without any kind of accountability and I am not having it. I would hope that the UAE looks into the dealings of Ahmed al-Humairi. In this I am not stating that he is guilty of anything, but the setting should be looked at, only to find the ridiculous setting of it. Then there is the setting of Mohamed Hamdan al-Zaabi. What did he do? Did he do anything illegal at all?
So as I am trying to get that fifty taste out of my mouth by this piece, I am hoping my mind spots a lot more worthy material of a decent kind tomorrow. Perhaps I will continue a piece I started last week. It’s better than looking into the present political waves all over the world, so you all have a great day.

