Sudan Airstrike Results in High Casualties at Darfur Market

On Monday, an airstrike by Sudan’s military on a market in Darfur killed at least 54 people and injured many. Local monitoring groups describe the attack as a likely war crime, highlighting the severe human toll of the two-year civil war. Estimates of fatalities vary, with some alleging over 200 dead, underlining the ongoing violence in Sudan.

An airstrike executed by Sudan’s military targeted a crowded market in Darfur, resulting in the deaths of at least 54 individuals and injuring many others. Local monitoring groups have denounced the incident as a potential war crime, highlighting the severe impact of the ongoing civil war. The attack occurred on Monday, amidst the military’s advances in Khartoum where it captured significant locations, including the presidential palace.

Footage from the aftermath of the bombing in Toura, a small town in North Darfur, depicted distressing scenes of charred bodies and dismembered remains scattered throughout the market area. The Sudan Witness Project, a nonprofit organization, has geolocated the videos to the scene. Furthermore, satellite imagery confirmed extensive fire damage covering approximately 10,000 square meters following the airstrike.

While there remains uncertainty regarding the total number of casualties, estimates by various organizations vary widely. Some local groups suggest a death toll exceeding 200, while a handwritten list from activists recorded 54 names. The incident underscores the catastrophic consequences of Sudan’s prolonged civil conflict, which has been ongoing for nearly two years.

The recent airstrike on a Darfur market by Sudan’s military illuminates the tragic human cost of the ongoing civil war in Sudan. With at least 54 confirmed fatalities and conflicting reports of casualty figures, this attack is perceived as a potential war crime. The events serve as a stark reminder of the violence and devastation experienced by civilians in the region as the conflict continues to escalate.

Original Source: www.nytimes.com