> Sorry but it's 100% true [1][2][3]. REsisting foreign occupation and colonialism is well-recognized in several UN conventions.

Colonization and occupation is not the same as "imperialism". Please show me where "imperialism" is regulated by the international law. Second, resistance still has to comply with international laws. So, blowing up a bus with kids going to school is not resistance, but terrorism.

> You mean the saudis back the actual government of South Sudan

The government of South Sudan committed atrocities of the same scope as the RSF! Are you letting it slide because SAF is official government of Sudan??

> No, it makes it lesser. "If not more" was your quote. Definitionally, it's not. It's Middle East vs the entire globe.

I would argue it is more.

> It's resistance. Iran up until 1953 was a liberal democracy and the only reason it isn't is because of US interference, imperialism and adventurism. > Resisting the imperial ambitions of a global hegemonic superpower is definitionally good.

I see now. As long as it opposes US, it does not matter who are the victims of the opposition because the opposition is against the US.