posted
an estimated 800,000 people were killed . Other estimates of the death toll have ranged between 500,000 and 1,000,000, or as much as 20% of the country's total population.
should the U.S. have intervened militarily to prevent the massacre?
Posts: 42934 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just a mindless repeating of white propaganda.
Before the Civil War of 1994 the Rwandan population was some 6.9 million of which the Tutsis were some 8%. After the war, which the Tutsis won under Kagame[ of ES fame] the Rwandan population grew to some 8.5 million in 2006. The Tutsis are now some 15%+ of Rwanda's population(based on the Rwandan census and U.N. sources). Some genocide!
If 800,000 "mostly Tutsis" were killed in 1994 in 90 days with just sticks and machetes then wow!, that's a much better kill ratio than the U.S. ever achieved with napalm, and its showers of big bombs over Vietnam in 13 years of onslaught--including life-stoppers like Agent Orange.
If 800,000 "mostly Tutsis" were killed in such a short space of time then how come the Tutsis are now 15% of Rwanda? Or how come there are any Tutsis at all in Rwanda.
To support the point being made: compare the populations of Rwanda and Burundi in 1994 to what prevails now. Both were almost equal in terms of population and Tutsi percentages at that. time. They are more or less the same now. Some genocide!
Point is that Western media and their "Heart of Darkness" mind-set just go crazy when they report on Africa. It just soothes their racial psyches to bulk up numbers in a negative way when it comes to Africa. It also sells. Plus dumb movies like Hotel Rwanda also sell.
So the U.S. had absolutely no right to set its imperialist paws on Rwanda in 1994. Look at the massive slaughters and general mayhem it has caused in Iraq and Afghanistan/Pakistan.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The same thing on Darfur--a Zionist project. See Mahmood Mamdani's book on Darfur. This scholar(Ugandan) wrote an article raising questions about Darfur in the London review of Books several months ago. The Zionists flooded the letters page all at one time.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, I've heard of African complaints of the West and Kagame but even the author of the book (which I've read, good read) mentioned some **** that didn't really happen happening in the movie (like missionaries not fleeing and opting to stay with people).
I was not there but I can make a few inferential guesstimates.
1) The war lasted 90 days.
2) The weapons used were quite rudimentary--mainly clubs and machetes. Not high tech at all--thus very labour intensive. Compare with the killing power of hi-tech weapons such AKs and RPGs, helicopters, etc. The Hutus were much deficient in such.
3)Assume too that the Tutsis would not only flee from the fighting but would also fight back when cornered.
4) The Tutsis won the war with Kagame coming in from Uganda.
5) When the Hutus were eventually routed by the Tutsis they fled to the Congo where they set up refugee camps.
6) Comparisons: the U.S. were bombing and shooting in Vietnam for 13 years--both on the ground and from the air with weaponry of enormous fire-power. The Cong was also killing people on the ground too. The Vietnamese toll was 2-3 million in 13 years. So that's about 20-25,000 a month--with a stretch.
7) Given what the Rwandans had to work with--weapons-wise--I would say the kill toll was between 15,000 to 25,000. And that's stretching it.
Proof: Otherwise how do you explain the fact that the Tutsis are now 15%+ of Rwanda's present population? And how do you explain the fact that in 1994 Rwanda and Burundi had the same population numbers approximately--and are about the same now. The Tutsi percentages are also about the same. It's all there in the official numbers.
posted
Thanks for that Iamin never heard anyone speak about the exaggeration of the killings in Rwanda.
Posts: 43 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: an estimated 800,000 people were killed . Other estimates of the death toll have ranged between 500,000 and 1,000,000, or as much as 20% of the country's total population.
should the U.S. have intervened militarily to prevent the massacre?
This should be discussed in the political section of the forum, but to answer your question if the US intervened in Iraq and now Libya oh AND Serbia in 1999, then hell yes they should have intervened.
The U.S. as the unofficial leader of the world and greatest power should exercise its power wisely. It hasn't. Interfering in foreign affairs willy nilly is not the answer but if they want to intervene so much they should have not only in Rwanda but also Darfur!
Posts: 26265 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
So therefore when there were the Civil Rights riots in the 1960s--with the peaceful black marchers being hosed down and gunned down by the authorities, should the Soviet Union have intervened? After all, in terms of firepower it was a match for the U.S.
Other hypotheticals based on your logic--i.e. that big powers should intervene anywhere where the local populations are being beaten down:
1) Should China intervene in Israel to restore the 1967 status quo as a bare minimum?
2) Should the U.S. have intervened in the Philippines to rid the Filipinos of Spanish colonialism?
3) Should China and Russia intervene in Saudi Arabia to free the imprisoned and oppressed female 50% of its population?
4) Should the U.S. have intervened in South Africa to drive the racist Apartheid regime from power during the hey-days of Apartheid? The U.S. did not. Explain why.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ironlion, what are your thoughts on this? given that the situation had arrived to the point of violence, before it actually happened should there have been any foreign intervention from somewhere?
Also what is your opinion on how many people were killed?
Posts: 42934 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: an estimated 800,000 people were killed . Other estimates of the death toll have ranged between 500,000 and 1,000,000, or as much as 20% of the country's total population.
should the U.S. have intervened militarily to prevent the massacre?
Lioness
The US was a protagonist in all the events that transpired in Rwanda.
The US and France are as guilty of the war crimes in Rwanda as all the matchete weilding zombies that they used to attain their objective.
Anguish is an expert on this topic. Just ask him...lol! I know you won't dare... Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: an estimated 800,000 people were killed . Other estimates of the death toll have ranged between 500,000 and 1,000,000, or as much as 20% of the country's total population.
should the U.S. have intervened militarily to prevent the massacre?
This should be discussed in the political section of the forum, but to answer your question if the US intervened in Iraq and now Libya oh AND Serbia in 1999, then hell yes they should have intervened.
The U.S. as the unofficial leader of the world and greatest power should exercise its power wisely. It hasn't. Interfering in foreign affairs willy nilly is not the answer but if they want to intervene so much they should have not only in Rwanda but also Darfur!
And in Indochina Philipino too
... to protect the Aceh people from genocide of you yellow arse malayas...
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: [qb] an estimated 800,000 people were killed . Other estimates of the death toll have ranged between 500,000 and 1,000,000, or as much as 20% of the country's total population.
should the U.S. have intervened militarily to prevent the massacre?
Lioness
The US was a protagonist in all the events that transpired in Rwanda.
The US and France are as guilty of the war crimes in Rwanda as all the matchete weilding zombies that they used to attain their objective.
What do you think is a good estimate of the number of people killed?
and what about a foreign intervention from some country other than the U.S. or France?
Posts: 42934 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, there was no intervention in the massive genocide in the final days of the Tamil Tigers resistance movement--where fleeing civilians were just killed off and the Tamil Tigers using them as human shields. The report of the last days of the Resistance is now in the international media. But all in all, the war lasted 27 years with 70,000 killed.
So how can a 90 day war fought with machetes mainly kill 500,000 to 1 million people. Just vile lies from the white media as usual.
And what about intervention in Syria and Bahrain? It will never happen--given that both are U.S. clients. Not so much Syria, but is has been playing a "rent a torturer" role for the U.S. in the last decade. That is when the U.S. doesn't want to torture on its own soil it just sends them over to Assad's torture chambers all equipped with the latest U.S. torture tools.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: [qb] an estimated 800,000 people were killed . Other estimates of the death toll have ranged between 500,000 and 1,000,000, or as much as 20% of the country's total population.
should the U.S. have intervened militarily to prevent the massacre?
Lioness
The US was a protagonist in all the events that transpired in Rwanda.
The US and France are as guilty of the war crimes in Rwanda as all the matchete weilding zombies that they used to attain their objective.
What do you think is a good estimate of the number of people killed?
and what about a foreign intervention from some country other than the U.S. or France?
Maybe 40,000 people died in total in that war.
It was a low tech war, trapping millions of hapless unarmed African people.
The Tutsis have always been between 9 - 10 % of the Rwandan population, since the census of the 1950s.
The Hutus have maintained a steady 90% ever since.
At the start of the war, there were about 600000 Tutsis in total living in Rwanda. Somehow, 1,000 000 supposedly got killed. Where did the other 400000 come from.
After the so-called massacre of 1000000 Tutsis in Rwanda, there was not supposed to be any Tutsi alive living in that land, since their number before the war was just 600,000.
Yet, after the so-called massacre of 1000000 Tutsis, the population of Tutsis magically increased to 12% of the Rwandan population.
France itself was a guilty protagonist in the Rwandan war. If you want to know, it was a cold war, fought between France and the United States, with France coming out the loser. France is a country soaked in the blood of third world population, from its pillage, murders and robberies.
The United States as a nation-state is guilty of the extermination of 300,000,000 native Americans. It was responsible for the enslavement and murder of at least 50,000,000 native Africans.
The United States is the only country in the world that has used the nuclear bomb as a war tool. And most cowardly of all, it dropped this bomb on a civilian city in Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing about 500,000 in an instance.
Have you heard about the war crimes of Britain. The German city of Dreden and Hamburg, where 200,000 civilians were firebombed in one night. It had nothing to do with warfare, but everything to do with terrorism.
My point is that your "white gods" are deadly toxic criminals. They will be tried before the World Seat of Justice and Mercy when the geat Rainbow rises in the East. And they will be convicted and sent back underground, again.
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
My point is that your "white gods" are deadly toxic criminals. They will be tried before the World Seat of Justice and Mercy when the great Rainbow rises in the East. And they will be convicted and sent back underground, again.
what is the great rainbow of the East?
also what about the South?
Posts: 42934 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
My point is that your "white gods" are deadly toxic criminals. They will be tried before the World Seat of Justice and Mercy when the great Rainbow rises in the East. And they will be convicted and sent back underground, again.
what is the great rainbow of the East?
also what about the South?
Come by my pad in that sexy nightgown you had on couple of nights ago and I will tell you about North and South rainbows... Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic