International Rwandan genocide: 25 years later (today)

[hillelslovak87]

Can anyone say the word IGNORANT?

So much crazy about this. First that’s a crazy number of people killed in such a small time frame. With machetes mostly. Wow.

Second they started killing “because the radio told them to”. Just try imagine that. The vast low IQ of that. To hear something from a radio broadcast and then without any thought(I guess? How do 70IQ people think) and immediately start murdering.

What’s even crazier is the ignorance of everyone still living next to each other. They are TOLD to forgive, so they do. Boggles my mind. It’s not some high brow sense of Christian forgiveness. It’s just that they are simply told they are a better person if they just let it go.

Fuck that, you literally turn my family into salad, I’m coming for you.

If I believed in Christ, and the people who teach me about Christ (The Catholic Church) were the ones say, telling hundreds of schoolchildren that your church cellars are for safety from the killers only to have done so to herd you for capture, I would want to forget about it.

The genocide was a perfect example of how faith, which requires no rational justification, too reliably brings people to commit atrocities without rational justification. The Church fed the cockroach type of dehumanizing, especially to those in power, nurtured the genocidal hatred, took place in the genocide as a key force, then spent 25 years glossing over their part in the whole affair.

 

[Lord Coke]

. 600,000 people hacked to death by machetes and Cold Steel kept selling and was the number one distributor to Rwanda. Sometime I wonder how their execs feel about tha

 

[hillelslovak87]

At least this time we are discussing a real genocide in Africa and not that imaginary white genocide in South Africa.

That's because the pro white genocide movement is worldwide. We're in stage 6 of 8, according to the UN, the Preparation phase.
Next is extermination, and profit after that. Haggis told me so.

 

[Colchonero]

This is nothing new for many African countries within the last 35 years. The death toll varies by country. Civil war, genocide, and ethnic cleansing. With very few exceptions, Africa as a continent has been a 'shithole' post-colonial era. Most governments and leadership are corrupt.
. South Sudan's war death toll: 383,000.
. Democratic Republic of Congo: 5.4 million people have died since 1998 because of conflict.

I don't think you ready my post thoroughly enough.

 

[Phr3121]

I don't think you ready my post thoroughly enough.

Yes, I read your post. It does not mean I agree with what you are saying. There is no 'African World War', you are referring to war in the Democratic Republic of Congo which I already listed on post #56.

Regarding Rwanda. This was an excellent documentary on the subject. Basically how the UN did not do shit to stop the slaughter. "Shake Hands with the Devil", 2005.

"In 1994, one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century unfolds when nearly 800,000 men, women and children are murdered amid civil unrest in Rwanda. This documentary tells the story of Roméo Dallaire, a Canadian general who is in charge of the United Nations' unsuccessful peacekeeping mission in the country prior to the killings. Returning to the nation for the first time in ten years, Dallaire recalls his painful memories of the event and wonders if he might have been able to stop it."

 

[Phr3121]

But the point was your original comments were not really helpful and bizarre. What target would you have preferred as far as using the atomic bomb? Not a lot of targets left by that point of the war.

Well, you can think what you want about my comments. I don't think they were bizarre to the people I was responding to. I can say the same about your comments. Different people, different points-of-view.

Now, we will get way off topic talking about Japan in WWII, but they too did their own 'genocide' in China.
"...between 1937 and 1945, the Japanese military murdered from nearly 3 to over 10 million people."

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were never firebombed by the U.S. So, they were not key targets. By 1945 the U.S. had the much more powerful B-29 to carry out the 60+ cities bombed. Tokyo was completely burned to the ground. Roughly 105,400 confirmed dead. It was the deadliest conventional air raid ever, worse than Nagasaki and on a par with Hiroshima -- between 90,000 and 146,000. Roughly half of the deaths in Hiroshima occurred on the first day, roughly 60,000 vaporized within the first second of the explosion.

Like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there were still close to 20 targets left untouched. The Hiroshima bomb was exploded at a height of 1,870 ft. for maximum effect, aimed at the center of the city (a bridge) not the factory outside the city. Like I mentioned before, the aim was to kill the workers from the factory, to include women and children.

I would have gone with a smaller city. A ground detonation for minimum effect, targeting the outskirts of the city. The Japanese were ready to surrender, but not unconditionally. Firebombing (not nuclear bombs) could have lasted forever.

When we (the U.S.) entered the war in 1941, killing civilians was unheard of. By 1945 we didn't really give 'two shits' about who was dying as long as it brought the war in Europe and the Pacific to an end.

So, war is hell. We go from killing the enemy, to killing civilians, to killing each other (U.S. soldier kills 5 of his comrades in Iraq), to killing ourselves. 25 U.S. veterans (on average) commit suicide per day. Some never saw combat. That would be roughly 9,125 veterans a year...

 

[tramendous]

Can anyone say the word IGNORANT?

So much crazy about this. First that’s a crazy number of people killed in such a small time frame. With machetes mostly. Wow.

Second they started killing “because the radio told them to”. Just try imagine that. The vast low IQ of that. To hear something from a radio broadcast and then without any thought(I guess? How do 70IQ people think) and immediately start murdering.

What’s even crazier is the ignorance of everyone still living next to each other. They are TOLD to forgive, so they do. Boggles my mind. It’s not some high brow sense of Christian forgiveness. It’s just that they are simply told they are a better person if they just let it go.

Fuck that, you literally turn my family into salad, I’m coming for you.

How is that any different than a bunch of smart people believing an angry guy with a weird moustache that they are the master race.

 

[Stoic1]

I remember this on the news. It barely made a blip.

 

[TheGreatA]

THe west watched and didnt do shit because there was No oil. God damn shame

If the West got involved, the conflict would still probably be going on.

Sometimes these things happen and there's not much you can do about it. There wasn't much that the Middle East could've done about a bunch of Europeans killing each other, and vice versa, as recent times have shown.

 

[TheGreatA]

I find the Russian narrative on this very enlightening.

Basically RT has stories saying the side that got slaughtered had been the elite class of Rawanda for many decades, and that the genocide was actually the lower class rising up, and slaughtering the upper class.

Sounds like a good old Lenin-style plot:

 

[Joe265]

Sounds like you need to attack personally to cover for your lack of actual refute.

You're crying about how you were "personally attacked" on a messageboard. More running and hiding from the point, like an excuse making coward.

P.S. This is why you suck at debating. You can't see certain words without reacting like you're being bullied.

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

More running and hiding from the point, like an excuse making coward.

Just allowing you to out yourself as Trotsky's sock-poppet since all you do is post "running and hiding" ever since you were outted for actually running and hiding when challenged.

But thats your shtick...to accuse others of doing what you actually do.

P.S. This is why you suck at debating. You can't see certain words without reacting like you're being bullied.

Debating requires information being refuted, not just a personal attack. Perhaps if your IQ was above 60 you would understand that. Next time try refuting proof with an insult, even though everyone here already knows you are not capable of doing that.

Now get back to watching women get date rape drugs put into their drinks and run away like the coward you are because like the guys drugging them, my original points are still standing...while you lay drugged on the ground about to get an anal pounding.

 

[tonni]

. 600,000 people hacked to death by machetes and Cold Steel kept selling and was the number one distributor to Rwanda. Sometime I wonder how their execs feel about tha

I had no idea. If I ever need something I will skip past their brand, hard.

 

[Big Tim]

Yes, I read your post. It does not mean I agree with what you are saying. There is no 'African World War', you are referring to war in the Democratic Republic of Congo which I already listed on post #56.

Regarding Rwanda. This was an excellent documentary on the subject. Basically how the UN did not do shit to stop the slaughter. "Shake Hands with the Devil", 2005.

"In 1994, one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century unfolds when nearly 800,000 men, women and children are murdered amid civil unrest in Rwanda. This documentary tells the story of Roméo Dallaire, a Canadian general who is in charge of the United Nations' unsuccessful peacekeeping mission in the country prior to the killings. Returning to the nation for the first time in ten years, Dallaire recalls his painful memories of the event and wonders if he might have been able to stop it."

I was ashamed America lacked the moral and political courage to intervene.

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

I had no idea. If I ever need something I will skip past their brand, hard.

You are better than that...it was a 100 day long massacre, there is no way the company could have taken advantage of that or done anything to stop it especially when you factor in that the massacre wasnt exactly covered by the media until long after it started.

 

[tonni]

You are better than that...it was a 100 day long massacre, there is no way the company could have taken advantage of that or done anything to stop it especially when you factor in that the massacre wasnt exactly covered by the media until long after it started.

I'm not better than that at all what are you talking about

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

I'm not better than that at all what are you talking about

Better as in smarter.

 

[avenue94]

Well, you can think what you want about my comments. I don't think they were bizarre to the people I was responding to. I can say the same about your comments. Different people, different points-of-view.

Now, we will get way off topic talking about Japan in WWII, but they too did their own 'genocide' in China.
"...between 1937 and 1945, the Japanese military murdered from nearly 3 to over 10 million people."

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were never firebombed by the U.S. So, they were not key targets. By 1945 the U.S. had the much more powerful B-29 to carry out the 60+ cities bombed. Tokyo was completely burned to the ground. Roughly 105,400 confirmed dead. It was the deadliest conventional air raid ever, worse than Nagasaki and on a par with Hiroshima -- between 90,000 and 146,000. Roughly half of the deaths in Hiroshima occurred on the first day, roughly 60,000 vaporized within the first second of the explosion.

Like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there were still close to 20 targets left untouched. The Hiroshima bomb was exploded at a height of 1,870 ft. for maximum effect, aimed at the center of the city (a bridge) not the factory outside the city. Like I mentioned before, the aim was to kill the workers from the factory, to include women and children.

I would have gone with a smaller city. A ground detonation for minimum effect, targeting the outskirts of the city. The Japanese were ready to surrender, but not unconditionally. Firebombing (not nuclear bombs) could have lasted forever.

When we (the U.S.) entered the war in 1941, killing civilians was unheard of. By 1945 we didn't really give 'two shits' about who was dying as long as it brought the war in Europe and the Pacific to an end.

So, war is hell. We go from killing the enemy, to killing civilians, to killing each other (U.S. soldier kills 5 of his comrades in Iraq), to killing ourselves. 25 U.S. veterans (on average) commit suicide per day. Some never saw combat. That would be roughly 9,125 veterans a year...

Fair enough. I suspect the reason a smaller target wasn't chosen was to make it harder for the Japanese military to cover up what happened, which in reality they attempted to do with both atomic bombings. I would also disagree with Japan being ready to surrender as, while true superficially, the problem is that pro-militarist coups were a huge problem. Factor in the faltering public support in the U.S. for continued casualties and it's not a lot of room for protracting the war. Anyways though, it's a gray area.

Finally, is disagree with WWII being a change for U.S. soldiers. There was a change in scale and means to commit atrocities, but brutality from troops was nothing new that point. See the occupation of the Philippines or any number of earlier massacres in U.S history.

 

[My2Cents]

If the West got involved, the conflict would still probably be going on.

Sometimes these things happen and there's not much you can do about it. There wasn't much that the Middle East could've done about a bunch of Europeans killing each other, and vice versa, as recent times have shown.

I hope you are joking. Easy to solve by the west: no of course not. Could we have prevented millions being killed: of course If we would have sent in the full military

 

[Joe265]

Just allowing you to out yourself as Trotsky's sock-poppet since all you do is post "running and hiding" ever since you were outted for actually running and hiding when challenged.

But thats your shtick...to accuse others of doing what you actually do.



Debating requires information being refuted, not just a personal attack. Perhaps if your IQ was above 60 you would understand that. Next time try refuting proof with an insult, even though everyone here already knows you are not capable of doing that.

Now get back to watching women get date rape drugs put into their drinks and run away like the coward you are because like the guys drugging them, my original points are still standing...while you lay drugged on the ground about to get an anal pounding.

You literally changed the subject to complain about being "personally attacked". You ignored the point to complain about your irrelevant feelings being hurt. The matter has already been decided. You lost because you took your ball and ran. All you're doing now is just whining.