The Two Sit-in Dispersals (Political Suicide)

Mohamed Saad Kamil

Since the events of the dispersal of the sit-in, in which hundreds of Sudanese youth were killed, and with tears still raging to this moment, following that terrible massacre, and yesterday, the 29th of Ramadan 2021, the tragedy has been repeated, as it was repeated in the days of the Sudanese revolution two years ago, after which a regime that lasted for thirty years was removed, there is a fundamental question that needs conclusive answers, who benefits from the killing and bloodshed of the young men who went out this day and during the sit-in and during the recent Sudanese revolution?

Yesterday, the army announced the closure of the perimeter of the Army’s Headquarters and issued a statement to that effect. The army is part of the ruling authority, and this decision was based on the government’s desire (civilian-military).

Otherwise, the civilian side would have objected and demanded the leadership be opened so that the revolutionaries would commemorate the anniversary of the sit-in’s dispersal and the prime minister would either attend himself or send someone to deputize for him.

But it is clear that the government, both military and civilian, does not want this celebration to take place. does that mean that the government kills the revolutionaries, and here the answer is a definite no.

The government did not find a way out of the dilemma of dispersing the sit-in, and it does not need more blood. The evidence for the sincerity of this statement is that the army, despite closing the entrances to the leadership, withdrew and left the rebels entering and did not resist them. If it wanted a confrontation, it would choose it from the beginning.

The important question remains: Who shot at the revolutionaries at the commemoration of the dispersal of the sit-in. If the army was the house of intent to kill, the number of dead would have been much greater, as was the case in the dispersal of the Rabaa Al-Adawiya sit-in in Egypt.

I think that the axes that play a major role in Sudan, as well as the third world countries that do not fully and independently of their decisions, have a stake in these files, but political suicide is not one of the demands that politicians agree to, whatever the temptations and guarantees, so it is unreasonable for the army leadership or support leadership The quick to submit to demands that lead them to the dustbin of history and to their destruction, after their popularity reached high ranks during their siding with the revolutionaries two years ago.

It is more appropriate to bridge the gap that occurred by revealing information about the dispersal of the two sit-ins and to quickly conclude the long-running investigation into this case.

The logical fingers of accusation refer to foreign countries that seek to destroy Sudan and its instability in its strategic interests through intelligence and security work and the recruitment of mercenaries on their behalf to create confusion and raise collective sentiment through killing and activating cells experienced in spreading rumors through social media, so the masses come out angry.

And it pours its anger on the army and rapid support, and the government loses the people’s confidence, in contrast to what some are propagating that some Sudanese parties are the ones behind the creation of these crises in Sudan, but if we delve into our thinking, we will find that this act of the parties, if true, will also fall under the umbrella. Political suicide, sooner or later, the facts will become clear about these issues, and it is not in the interest of these parties to be in the dustbin of history.

Back to top button