Comments by "Samson Soturian" (@samsonsoturian6013) on "" video.

  1. IIRC, Ethiopian states have a constitutional right to succeed but Abbis Abba never honored that. I haven't seen any specific casus belli for this war, but the state has been ruled by a local armed party since the Ethiopian Civil War.
    7
  2. We could end this war any time we wanted to, but we have no interest in the region.
    5
  3. No casus belli is given. But the Ethiopian states have been on and off at war with each for as far back as records go. The current situation is on paper each state has the right to succeed, but each successionist movement has had to fight the government in practice.
    2
  4. These days in the turdworld they're called "armed political parties" but they have the same structure and function.
    2
  5.  @user-pi4su6je8p  Almost. The emperor and Britain argued over terms, so the emperor started kidnapping Brits and held them for ransom. Britain seized Abbis Abba, but didn't think colonizing the place was worth the effort, so they left after freeing the captives.
    2
  6.  @user-pi4su6je8p  except Ethiopia wasn't. Again, Parliment did the math and found the garrison would cost more than the amount of profits a trade monopoly offered due to the remote rugged terrain.
    2
  7.  @A.D.540  you're mixed up. That was the DERG during the Ethiopian Civil War AFTER colonialism ended in the Horn of Africa.
    2
  8.  @Freddy-ih4xo  wut? You saying the Tigrayans are working with Eritrea?
    2
  9.  @Tribuneoftheplebs  what caused the split between him and those parties to begin with?
    2
  10. It's often used when describing state-like entities whose leaders/boundaries/organization are unknown. For instance, the Kosovar rebels were often referred to "ethnic Albanians" because in the chaotic series of microwars there was no permanent organization above the municipal level.
    2
  11. Confronting/harassing alleged badguys doesn't get anything done nor does it require bravery.
    2
  12. This part of the world is so remote that Britain thought colonizing it wasn't worth the money.
    2
  13. 3:00 it looks more like they brought dug up bodies in order to put on a show for the cameras.
    1
  14.  @johnnyfives5416  what you mean blank page?
    1
  15.  @averagecitizen4122  business as usual
    1
  16.  @averagecitizen4122  because you have no idea what you're talking about. I'll bet you don't even know who was whose side during the Ethiopian Civil War.
    1
  17.  @averagecitizen4122  that's where you're mistaken, as Ethiopia has seen minimal western involvement. It's so remote that not even colonial powers bothered to claim it.
    1
  18. Who said the Tigrayan's wanted to be Ethiopia's ruling party?
    1
  19. They didn't resist being colonized. Nobody simply wanted them. The Brits briefly ousted the emperor but judged it would cost more just to garrison the capital than they'd profit from a trade monopoly in the remote area. Fascist Italy briefly conquered the nation during WWII, but were encircled and defeated by the Brits and their colonial allies.
    1
  20.  @user-qy6tu9ip9v  Read the full comment before posting insults.
    1
  21.  @Zeyede_Siyum  I didn't say anything that contradicted that assertion
    1
  22.  @jh8567  wait... Yeah, I'm mistaken. The royal court was migratory back then.
    1
  23.  @babyhoward6350  you're being insulting needlessly when the battle you're referring didn't decide any war. Almost as if you typed "Ethiopia defeats" into google, saw "Ethiopia defeats Italy" clicked and found this battle for the sole purpose of pretending you're smarter than me.
    1
  24.  @Salassalas8144  Ethiopia isn't rich and green. It's rugged, remote, diverse, and poor. And only Ethiopia and Liberia were not officially a protectorate of some European state back then. Of course, that doesn't count many vast areas which were ruled in name only. With Ethiopia, it came down to a matter of costs. Cost of getting a garrison and railroad into those mountains versus profit from a trade monopoly. More importantly, the Ethiopian emperors were rarely opposed to becoming a protectorate, they just never could agree on terms.
    1
  25.  @Salassalas8144  I mean poor as in the average person makes less in a day than a first world factory worker makes in an hour. And yes they have their fair share of Earth, they lack the expertise, funds, and organization to use most of it. The fools in the video are sustenance farmers/miners, fighting over scraps and trash heeps.
    1
  26. Definitely not. You saw all that unused land? Note no casus belli was given, but thus part of Ethiopia has been ruled by a local armed political party since the Ethiopian Civil War.
    1
  27.  @zzyzx2297  No one wants war. War is costly and risky and nothing from war cannot also be gained by underhand methods and racketeering. We actually don't know why these guys are fighting, but several reports established there's actually a bunch of local militias involved on both sides. It is likely the allies of one side started an independent war with allies of the other and it escalated from there.
    1
  28.  @zzyzx2297  A few lucky individuals may, yes. But on aggregate no one gets richer from sin, they just make everyone else poorer. Also, wars involving precisely two parties are actually pretty rare, usually there are several competing groups that all want their cut.
    1
  29.  @zzyzx2297   everyone obsesses over the plight over common people but extortionists and taxmen alike are mainly concerned with men who can pay large sums... for obvious reasons. Although yeah, in a kleptocracy only the elites make a decent living and armed men do what they want and they are generally one and the same. I recall in post-colonial DRC all the white farmers were quickly killed or driven off by gangs and rogue army units. The robbers didn't hate them because they were white, they thought "They're white, maybe they have money."
    1
  30.  @zzyzx2297  and when everyone does so at least a little you get this sort of hellhole.
    1
  31. This has nothing to do with us.
    1
  32.  @rigbeqi  oh really. Which side are we on?
    1
  33. There are none.
    1
  34. She's a reporter. She damns whomever is winning at the moment.
    1
  35.  @lankypalpitations  That reflects your priorities, not anyone elses.
    1
  36.  @JaysonT975  That's actually a bit preposterous if you've been paying attention. And I'll wager you'll blame white people for starting those wars?
    1
  37. Militiamen and their brothers and employees, makes sense.
    1
  38.  @Zeyede_Siyum  then bug off
    1
  39.  @bereketeabteshome8126  I missed the part where she gave an opinion.
    1