Coup d'etat in Mali

[politicus]

A consequence of the fall of Qaddafi in Libya. Tuareg's who where serving as mercenaries in Libya returning to resume their rebellion against the Blacks and the military not liking the Presidents "soft" approach to fighting them. So expect lots of massacres on Tuareg's, torture, mass rape, killing of livestock etc. now and Tuareg retaliation on "black" villages. Tragic.

[politicus]

Well, Sudan is really just the historical name of what later came to be known as the Sahel - the zone of somewhat marginal agriculture between the desert and the forest, with closer links across the desert than across the forest, and Muslim as a result. The real divide-bridging monstrosities are Cote d'Ivoire, Ghana, Nigeria, not Mali, Tchad and Niger.

I disagree. The divide in those countries is religious. Black Africans with fairly similar peasant cultures on each side. The divide between (generally) more light skinned nomadic/semi-normadic pastoralists and sedentary Blacks in the Sahel is more important. Race matters in Africa and the agriculturaist/pastoralist divide is always a source of confict.

That said Nigeria is obviousy a monstrosity. Should be divided into 3 countries - Hausa/Fulani, Yoruba, Igbo dominated respectively.

[politicus]

Obviously the other divide exists as well, and obviously the forest belt has much diminished and had roads and settlement corridors carved through at European orders a century ago, but disagreeing with me is, in this case, simply identical to admitting you don't know the first thing about the history of the area.

The fault line running through Sudan andTchad around the twelfth parallel continuing across Niger/Mali and dividing Moslem, "Arab" north and non-Moslem African south is the major dividing line in Africa and has caused numerous conflicts. The states divided by this are clearly the most "monstrous" on the Continent.
Of course there is a north/south divide in Ivory Coast and Ghana, but the differences are definitely smaller.

[politicus]

Tuaregs are linguistically very near to the Berbers in Morocco and Algeria. In West Africa the different groups are very mixed with each other, but is clear that the whole are between Senegal and Northern Nigeria is a complex chunk languages. In contrast the easiest new nations should be achieved in countries like Zimbabwe, Angola and Zambia.

Yes but with Zimbabwe (Shona/Ndebele) as a possible exception, the need to divide those countries is smaller than Nigeria or Tchad.

[politicus]

The Tuareg aren't Arabic in the slightest...

No one said they where. I wrote "Arabic" (not Arabic), because I was talking about Moslem North Africans in general - including Berbers, Tuareg's etc. Arabic speakers are just the majority of North Africans, so its a convenient label. Like calling the British for English etc.

[politicus]

What the heck?  I got death points and a censorship just for mentioning that George Lucas based a fictional alien people on the Tuareg? I don't understand?  How is this offensive?  How is it 'trolling'?  Its a simple fact, and a prominent appearance of the Tuareg in Western culture. Why on earth would anyone receive death points for something like that? 

Seems a bit over the top. I suppose it was trolling, but the semi-relevant kind.

Bad news: Tuareg leaders are meeting Al Quaeda bosses in Timbuktu and they are about to impose Sharia law in the areas they control.

[politicus]

What the heck?  I got death points and a censorship just for mentioning that George Lucas based a fictional alien people on the Tuareg? I don't understand?  How is this offensive?  How is it 'trolling'?  Its a simple fact, and a prominent appearance of the Tuareg in Western culture. Why on earth would anyone receive death points for something like that? 

Seems a bit over the top. I suppose it was trolling, but the semi-relevant kind.

Bad news: Tuareg leaders are meeting Al Quaeda bosses in Timbuktu and they are about to impose Sharia law in the areas they control.

Link? The MNLA has been mostly secular throughout this entire rebellion, so I'd have to see some evidence before I believe that. And if it's from a Malian state news source, I wouldn't trust it.

Denmarks Radio (DR) our public service TV channel. Normally reliable.

[politicus]

You know, I get the feeling that Sanogo won't last the month. He's going to get overthrown or killed before April ends. Anyone else think so?

It's possible he'll just bow down, as well.

Thats the most likely IMO.

[politicus]

Why are the South Sudanese separatists called Freedom Fighters, when the Azawad separatists are called rebels and (without any proof) al-Qaida supporters?

The media relies on the Mali for most of their opinion, and that is the line coming out of the south.  What you have here is a case of shoddy journalism.

I think that the South Sudanese being partly Christian and fighting a Moslem government, that has imposed Sharia law, automatically gives them more sympathy in the West.
Both parties are (or in the case of SoSuds were) obviously rebels. FF is always a subjective label, IMO both SoSud and Tuaregs qualify as FF.

[politicus]

Why are the South Sudanese separatists called Freedom Fighters, when the Azawad separatists are called rebels and (without any proof) al-Qaida supporters?

The media relies on the Mali for most of their opinion, and that is the line coming out of the south.  What you have here is a case of shoddy journalism.

I think that the South Sudanese being partly Christian and fighting a Moslem government, that has imposed Sharia law, automatically gives them more sympathy in the West.
Both parties are (or in the case of SoSuds were) obviously rebels. FF is always a subjective label, IMO both SoSud and Tuareg's qualify as FF.

Does knowing that the South Sudanese Liberation Army used child soldiers just like Kony's group dampen your opinion of them at all?

Of course. I don't sympathize with their methods. But their cause is still just. If you fight for freedom and against the oppression of your people you are a freedomfighter in my book - no matter what methods you use.
ANC used child soldiers and tortured perceived traitors in their camps. But they obviously were FF.

[politicus]

Of course. I don't sympathize with their methods. But their cause is still just. If you fight for freedom and against the oppression of your people you are a freedomfighter in my book - no matter what methods you use.
ANC used child soldiers and tortured perceived traitors in their camps. But they obviously were FF.

This is a very dangerous black and white view of the world. The Taliban also fought against oppression of their people and "for freedom". The CIA is now sponsoring perhaps dozens of armed groups in Iran, many of which make the Ayatollahs look like Confucian sages in comparison. And besides, South Africa was only a success because Mandela broke with the ANC's violent past and preached reconciliation. We can easily imagine an alternate ending where the ANC becomes like ZANU-PF where a Freedom Fighter gradually becomes an oppressive dictator.

Yes. ANC could have been another dictatorial one-party (and there is still a small risk they could go that way). But you cant deny that their cause was just - making them FF.
The Taliban didn't fight for freedom. They fought to uphold gender apartheid and religious intolerance. I could never view that as "freedom", even if they believed that themselves.
The people of South Sudan has been oppressed in such an extreme way, that some sort of independence is the only way forward and the Tuaregs have a very good claim to independence from the alien culture in the South.
Both worthy causes.

I don't believe that any group claiming to fight for freedom or against oppression is FFs. An example:

ETA 2000: Clearly not FF since the Basques were not oppressed by the modern Spanish state, which is a democracy and has given them autonomy which protects their language and culture. They could (de facto) obtain independence by getting a majority for it in their parliament and holding a referendum. And a majority of the Basques had accepted autonomy in a referendum.

ETA 1970: Fighting the fascists. Clearly FF - even if they used terror.

So even though ETA had the same self perception, goals, methods and ideology in 1970 and 2000. They changed from FFs to terrorists IMO. But as I said FF is a highly subjective term. "One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter".

[politicus]

Why does everyone have to be "clearly FF" or "clearly not FF"?

They don't. There is an element of FF in most rebel movements, as well as an element of oppression.
You can be a FF in one respect and an oppressor in another. Often FFs become the new oppressors themselves. Like Mao or Mugabe.