Talk:Rapid Support Forces: Difference between revisions

Line 121: Line 121:

::The RSF is just an opportunist nomadic milita with no cohesive ideology other than being Arab suprecmastics, think of it as if Abu Shabab’s Popular forces had massive funding and arms, their historical alliance and cooperation with Al-Bashir (an Islamist dictator) who empowered them (Janjaweed under hemedti) to fight rebels in Darfur (2003 onward) [https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/05/14/man-who-terrorized-darfur-is-leading-sudans-supposed-transition-hemeti-rsf-janjaweed-bashir-khartoum/ Source], proves just that. I believe that the “secular” and “Anti-Islamist” section should be removed because these they are simply not core ideologies for the movement, It also goes without saying that their opponents “SAF” are backed by [https://sudantribune.com/article/297818 Egypt], Which is strictly anti-Islamist. The entire “Islamist-Secularist” dichotomy, is just not that relevant to this conflict, its a conflict between the interests of UAE, and other regional powers, with the UAE legaltimizing itself by claiming that “SAF” is backed by the MB, while “RSF” Fights for an egalitarian and secular government, Check Amgad Fareid Eltayeb, CEO of the Sudanese think tank Fikra for Studies and Development [https://www.newarab.com/analysis/rsfs-rival-government-sudan-brink-partition Statement] And its absolutely unimaginable that any Secular leader would have 4 wives, or at least pretty oxymoron. [[User:Mahmoud882|Mahmoud882]] ([[User talk:Mahmoud882|talk]]) 11:13, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks for giving another source which proves my point! The article ‘Who Turned the Rapid Support Forces into a Western Secular Project?’ literally explains how the RSF became anti-Islamist and that “{{blue|The UAE managed to alienate Hemeti and the RSF from the Islamists and national forces, driving a wedge between them. Hemeti even publicly declared war on both nationalist and Islamist elements, famously rejecting Sheikh Al-Tayeb Al-Jed’s initiative after it had been finalized.}}” The RSF supporting Omar al-Bashir before is insignificant as they rebelled against al-Bashir’s successors and the RSF officially distances itself from al-Bashir now. With that saying, your point about the SAF being backed by anti-Islamist Egypt is correct. When did I mention the SAF is Islamist and not secular? Both of these forces seem to be anti-Islamist and secular; most of the issue seems to be a tribalistic conflict rather than a religious one. However, it is important to note, based on the sources provided, that the RSF claims to be anti-Islamist and secular. Whether they truly believe in these ideologies is up to them, but for now, I’ve added a “stated ideology” for the RSF. Nevertheless, Hemedti having four wives is again irrelevant. Secularism is a political philosophy that seeks to separate religion from affairs of the state, not of the private individual. Turkey’s president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is known to be a devout Muslim; however the Turkish government remains secular. Similarly, Hemedti may or may not be a devout Muslim but that has nothing to do with affairs of the RSF. [[User:Wazir Pakhteen|Wazir Pakhteen]] ([[User talk:Wazir Pakhteen|talk]]) 13:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

:::The main take from this article is pretty much that Hemedti has no coherect political ideology, and that was exploited by the UAE.

:::”<u>What distinguished the secular and leftist forces and their foreign allies was their persistence in exploiting Hemeti’s wavering positions—until he fully joined their camp in a coalition of bloodshed, war, and the April 15, 2023 coup aimed at seizing power</u>”

:::This was done through UAE’s backing Youssef Ezzat’s secular faction.

:::”it’s crucial to understand that the most influential project affecting the RSF and leading it to its current ruin was the leftist project spearheaded by Youssef Ezzat on behalf of others. He convinced the RSF leader to adopt this leftist secular agenda, leveraging General Hemeti’s immense influence as the RSF commander. This project had external support, most notably from the United Arab Emirates.”

:::But Youssef Ezzat was dismissed later on and now believes that Islamists have inflitriated the RSF.

:::” Youssef Ezzat, claims that the Islamic Movement transformed the war into a tribal conflict in western Sudan. He alleges this was done by infiltrating RSF ranks with its cadres”

:::By the way this also undermines your source in the main page, which includes only one quote from Youssef Ezzat regarding the secular orientation of the RSF, but Ezzat now claims that the movement became inflitrated by the Islamists.

:::And Al-Bashir’s history is absolutely significant, for his alliance with the Islamist governed remained for decades, his moves later on were opportunistic rather than ideological. [[User:Mahmoud882|Mahmoud882]] ([[User talk:Mahmoud882|talk]]) 14:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

:::::Well, that is Youssef Ezzat’s personal analysis on the situation and since he’s an ex-RSF advisor so it may have neutrality issues. Al-Bashir was also not only allied to the RSF but also several other organizations and militias, many of whom were not Islamist, but again, the RSF now does not associate itself with al-Bashir’s ideologies so how is his decades-old governance relevant now for the RSF? And also, again, there are numerous sources that cite the RSF claim’s to be anti-Islamists. Do you have any argument against the sources cited that claim RSF is anti-Islamist? Because nearly all of them are [[WP:RS]] and are highly reliable on the topic. [[User:Wazir Pakhteen|Wazir Pakhteen]] ([[User talk:Wazir Pakhteen|talk]]) 14:23, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

== Israel as an ally – no sources ==

https://jamestown.org/program/sudans-controversial-rapid-support-forces-bolsters-saudi-efforts-yemen/ seems like a good, reasonably NPOV, reference. Boud (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 31, 2019: I’m thinking of removing an unsupported sentence in Rapid Support Forces (a sentence that, coincidentally, also needs rapid support, hee, hee). In the section: Yemeni Civil War, someone from network site:31.216.0.210 contributed this sentence: “Also there evidences that there is many peoples from Boko Haram has joined to Rapid Forces to help Yemen war.” on 3 July 2019‎. Actually, not so much “contributed” as “shoehorned” in front of existing references (gaining only waning, albeit very rapid, support). After searching the four references and the web, I couldn’t find supporting evidence for this statement. I tried and failed. I’m: User:Jeffreydavidspeck talk and I’ll remove this (one) sentence: “Also, there is evidence that many people from Boko Haram have joined the Rapid Forces in order to fight in Yemen.” (after having rewritten it) in about a week unless I hear different. (Done. My first delete on Wikipedia! But this isn’t my area of expertise, anyway.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreydavidspeck (talk • contribs) 8:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

These may be useful:

Boud (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keeps getting vandalized 2600:1700:9125:C010:E989:1C6:CDDC:CE45 (talk) 11:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RVAN for a guide to how to handle vandalism and how to suggest page semiprotection if that seems to be justified. My impression from a quick glance is that currently IP editors (like yourself) are doing more good edits than vandalism. Boud (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn’t seem to be a need for a stand-alone article. Human rights violations can be discussed in the primary article per WP:CFORK. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 11:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: for now, as the current article does not even scratch the surface when it comes to the – very well documented – human rights violations conducted by the RSF. Not to slam the author but you could have just paraphrased stuff from Khartoum massacre, 2023 Sudan conflict, Yemeni civil war (2014–present) and Darfur war and that would have made the article acceptable. I think once the section of violation gets big enough it can be then moved to a separate article. Happy to collaborate FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:54, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Per nom. The Night Watch (talk) 05:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Agree, the issues could just be a subtopic. Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 00:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 13:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you forgot Israel’s support for the RSF. Please add this up.. Ahmad.R.K (talk) 13:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source? FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely unsubstantiated and should be removed from the article. Even the cited source acknowledges the Israeli arms were likely received from sources other than the IDF 2620:CC:8000:1C83:FD97:649F:8E6A:5852 (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done removed FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s been added again, Israel is listed as an ally of the RSF. The citation links to a random article where an RSF commander defended Israel in their war with Gaza, it has nothing to do with Israel supporting the RSF. This seems to be a repeated attempt at misinformation to suggest Israel is allied with the RSF which so set has no evidence. 2601:148:4380:43D0:3D48:EECC:B989:894D (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for keeping an eye out. I removed the edit FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s back 2A0D:6FC7:600:B4E5:5E75:4ED9:F9F6:B591 (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The word ‘Quds’ in the logo was simply an acronym for the Rapid Support Forces in Arabic, which coincidentally shares the same spelling as the Arabic word for Jerusalem. The section attempts to draw connections between this acronym and relations with Israel, but there is no reliable evidence to support this claim. Therefore, I suggest removing the section, as it is redundant and the logo change isn’t significant enough to warrant its own section. Anwon (talk) 09:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s also worth mentioning that the ‘Quds’ part is still present on RSF’s Twitter and their Official site. There are many variations of RSF logo in use such as this one where the text is put into the Sudanese flag. Anwon (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that section is well sourced. Unless you have problem with sources or have reliable sources that support your point, it will be hard to remove that section. FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UAE deniying Support for RSF is not mentioned. This need to be added to the article body. 2001:8F8:1129:87C4:5843:A86F:6BA5:7FCB (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

source? FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be contradicting info on the Houthi’s relationship to the RSF. They are listed as allies, but placed under the opponents category. I was going to remove them completely, as there is no source given, but I figured it would be better to ask first. 206.209.126.241 (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They were opponents when the RSF was part of the Saudi-led intervention in the Yemeni civil war. I am not sure when they became allies or this is just a mistake FuzzyMagma (talk) 06:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What’s the deal with this? It isn’t currently sourced. RSF members look pretty black to me from a quick web search. I feel that perhaps people are misconstruing the ethnic targeting of non-arabized African tribes as being ‘anti-black’. I feel something like ‘Arab supremacy’ would be more appropriate if editors are labelling the group anti-black for the aforementioned reason. Donenne (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is the case, it also used in Janjaweed and Murahleen. FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:10, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The new source that has since been provided illustrates my point. From the source:

Arbab said that sometimes members of her Bargo ethnic group were spared violence, and sometimes they weren’t. “The militia tested us [darker skinned people] on our language,” she said. “If you could speak Bargo then sometimes you were let go. If you couldn’t, you were killed.”

The Bargo speak different languages (Arabic, and their more indigenous Bura Mabang). This is why they were being tested, they were being tested for whether they could speak Arabic or as the individual in the source describes, ‘Bargo’. You would suspect that if the RSF were simply anti-black that they then would not care what language the Bargo would speak. Sure, the RSF seem to have a propensity to target dark-skinned Sudanese/African tribes in Sudan. But they’re not being targeted because they are darker, the RSF is not the Ku Klux Klan. These groups are being targeted because they don’t speak Arabic or are not from a fellow western nomadic Arab tribe in Sudan (‘Attawah). All tribes that predominately make up the RSF (Misseriya, Salamat and Rizeigat) fit a description of being ‘black’. This is why saying the group are tribalists and ‘Arab supremacists’ makes more sense. Donenne (talk) 23:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It surely does. I amended the page and other pre-RSE militias pages FuzzyMagma (talk) 06:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Donenne (talk) 09:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iran is listed as an opponent of the RSF due to the transfer of drones and equipment but would that also then apply to Turkey as well who has supplied the SAF with similar equipment? Source here for details [1] Donenne (talk) 09:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I should add another source, as Iran is an opponents since the Yemen civil war as supported Houthis and the UAE deployed the RSF during the Saudi Arabian–led intervention in Yemen, see [2].

Going back to your points, if we add Turkey for supplying weaponry I think then we will end up adding many other counties like China and CFR, and maybe South Sudan as they also supply weapons. FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:10, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it to avoid WP:RS as Iran being an opponent is a conjecture at best FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:14, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly. Donenne (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey should be listed as opponent. 2601:248:5181:A890:54D5:C767:5032:125A (talk) 09:39, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Needs an equipment tab to list out suppliers. This is listed in the SAF wiki page. 2601:248:5181:A890:54D5:C767:5032:125A (talk) 09:43, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

not mentioned in this article. Guardian report today (Mark Townsend) describes in detail offences in this camp in April 2025. Incident has been hushed up in UK political circles Gemmarajade (talk) 10:26, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wagner was historically an RSF ally, but reliable sources show Russia officially shifted support to the Sudanese Armed Forces in mid-2024 for a Port Sudan naval base deal. The article should reflect this timeline change. 2601:640:8B00:A0A0:2025:C839:9C83:B6 (talk) 06:10, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not elaborated on anywhere in the article, and is contradicted by the cited source—”there has been no evidence of Wagner activity in Sudan for two years…”.

Wagner has since been absorbed by the Ministry of Defense of Russia, which has shifted allegiances towards the government of Sudan. My.fr1end.g00 (talk) 11:55, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RSF was created as a proxy force for Omar AL-Bashir’s Islamist dictatorship
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Rapid-Support-Forces

Their leader Hemedti has 4 wives, which signals non-secular orientation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/15/world/africa/sudan-leader-hemeti.html

They are neither Islamist or Anti-Islamist, its strictly an Arab nomadic supremacist militia, and their pretense of secularism is only meant to garner western support.

Your arguments are clearly original research, please cite a source to support your claims. Hemedti having four wives is completely irrelevant to secularism. Also, Hemedti has openly declared to have an anti-Islamist orientation, which the sources mentioned in the article cite. There’s a reason the anti-Islamist UAE is supporting the group. Wazir Pakhteen (talk) 10:54, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its a widely known fact that Omar Al-Bashir’s Islamist government created the RSF, and the source is already provided. And you are mistaken, the RSF decided to adopt an anti-Islamist stance due to UAE interference, not vice versa.

https://sudanevents.com/index.php/2025/06/09/who-turned-the-rapid-support-forces-into-a-western-secular-project/.

The RSF is just an opportunist nomadic milita with no cohesive ideology other than being Arab suprecmastics, think of it as if Abu Shabab’s Popular forces had massive funding and arms, their historical alliance and cooperation with Al-Bashir (an Islamist dictator) who empowered them (Janjaweed under hemedti) to fight rebels in Darfur (2003 onward) Source, proves just that. I believe that the “secular” and “Anti-Islamist” section should be removed because these they are simply not core ideologies for the movement, It also goes without saying that their opponents “SAF” are backed by Egypt, Which is strictly anti-Islamist. The entire “Islamist-Secularist” dichotomy, is just not that relevant to this conflict, its a conflict between the interests of UAE, and other regional powers, with the UAE legaltimizing itself by claiming that “SAF” is backed by the MB, while “RSF” Fights for an egalitarian and secular government, Check Amgad Fareid Eltayeb, CEO of the Sudanese think tank Fikra for Studies and Development Statement And its absolutely unimaginable that any Secular leader would have 4 wives, or at least pretty oxymoron. Mahmoud882 (talk) 11:13, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving another source which proves my point! The article ‘Who Turned the Rapid Support Forces into a Western Secular Project?’ literally explains how the RSF became anti-Islamist and that “The UAE managed to alienate Hemeti and the RSF from the Islamists and national forces, driving a wedge between them. Hemeti even publicly declared war on both nationalist and Islamist elements, famously rejecting Sheikh Al-Tayeb Al-Jed’s initiative after it had been finalized.” The RSF supporting Omar al-Bashir before is insignificant as they rebelled against al-Bashir’s successors and the RSF officially distances itself from al-Bashir now. With that saying, your point about the SAF being backed by anti-Islamist Egypt is correct. When did I mention the SAF is Islamist and not secular? Both of these forces seem to be anti-Islamist and secular; most of the issue seems to be a tribalistic conflict rather than a religious one. However, it is important to note, based on the sources provided, that the RSF claims to be anti-Islamist and secular. Whether they truly believe in these ideologies is up to them, but for now, I’ve added a “stated ideology” for the RSF. Nevertheless, Hemedti having four wives is again irrelevant. Secularism is a political philosophy that seeks to separate religion from affairs of the state, not of the private individual. Turkey’s president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is known to be a devout Muslim; however the Turkish government remains secular. Similarly, Hemedti may or may not be a devout Muslim but that has nothing to do with affairs of the RSF. Wazir Pakhteen (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The main take from this article is pretty much that Hemedti has no coherect political ideology, and that was exploited by the UAE.

“What distinguished the secular and leftist forces and their foreign allies was their persistence in exploiting Hemeti’s wavering positions—until he fully joined their camp in a coalition of bloodshed, war, and the April 15, 2023 coup aimed at seizing power“

This was done through UAE’s backing Youssef Ezzat’s secular faction.

“it’s crucial to understand that the most influential project affecting the RSF and leading it to its current ruin was the leftist project spearheaded by Youssef Ezzat on behalf of others. He convinced the RSF leader to adopt this leftist secular agenda, leveraging General Hemeti’s immense influence as the RSF commander. This project had external support, most notably from the United Arab Emirates.”

But Youssef Ezzat was dismissed later on and now believes that Islamists have inflitriated the RSF.

” Youssef Ezzat, claims that the Islamic Movement transformed the war into a tribal conflict in western Sudan. He alleges this was done by infiltrating RSF ranks with its cadres”

By the way this also undermines your source in the main page, which includes only one quote from Youssef Ezzat regarding the secular orientation of the RSF, but Ezzat now claims that the movement became inflitrated by the Islamists.

And Al-Bashir’s history is absolutely significant, for his alliance with the Islamist governed remained for decades, his moves later on were opportunistic rather than ideological. Mahmoud882 (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is Youssef Ezzat’s personal analysis on the situation and since he’s an ex-RSF advisor so it may have neutrality issues. Al-Bashir was also not only allied to the RSF but also several other organizations and militias, many of whom were not Islamist, but again, the RSF now does not associate itself with al-Bashir’s ideologies so how is his decades-old governance relevant now for the RSF? And also, again, there are numerous sources that cite the RSF claim’s to be anti-Islamists. Do you have any argument against the sources cited that claim RSF is anti-Islamist? Because nearly all of them are WP:RS and are highly reliable on the topic. Wazir Pakhteen (talk) 14:23, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Israel is repeatedly added as an ally to rsf, @Redworld17 keeps adding it with irrelevant sources. Since there is no serious source saying this, it looks as if someone chose to add Israel as an ally, and then adds whatever sources come out of a google search, regardless of validity. 77.125.76.245 (talk) 12:54, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Leave a Comment