cedorsk
Amicus
Kosovo Je Srbija
Posts: 304
|
Post by cedorsk on Mar 5, 2008 6:59:08 GMT -5
Some 800,000 Rwandans were killed in three months Between April and June 1994, an estimated 800,000 Rwandans were killed in the space of 100 days. Most of the dead were Tutsis - and most of those who perpetrated the violence were Hutus. Even for a country with such a turbulent history as Rwanda, the scale and speed of the slaughter left its people reeling. The genocide was sparked by the death of the Rwandan president Juvenal Habyarimana, a Hutu, when his plane was shot down above Kigali airport on 6 April 1994. A recent French official report blamed current Rwandan President, Paul Kagame. The report - extracts of which appeared in the daily, Le Monde - said French police had concluded that Mr Kagame gave direct orders for the rocket attack. Rwanda has rejected the report, describing it as a "fantasy". Within hours of the attack, a campaign of violence spread from the capital throughout the country, and did not subside until three months later. But the death of the president was by no means the only cause of Africa's largest genocide in modern times. I posted this for 2 reasons; 1. Where was USA / NATO 2. Does USA/NATO really give a shyte about Albanians in Kosovo ? 3. Why has NATO chosen Kosovo and not Rwanda
|
|
|
Post by Duke John on Mar 5, 2008 7:38:29 GMT -5
btw you have 3 reasons!
beacuse the serb barbarians were similar to Rwanda barbarians and nato did not want that kind of terrible things happen again!
e tasht shko n´pajdh somes!
|
|
|
Post by captainalbania on Mar 5, 2008 7:57:01 GMT -5
The difference is nobody cares what happens in Africa because this shit is normal and happens all the time there. Its called tribal warfare and they've been killing and enslaving each other since the first African looked in his neighboring village and saw some women/goats or food.
|
|
wbb
Moderator
Posts: 733
|
Post by wbb on Mar 10, 2008 5:49:10 GMT -5
exactly Captain Albania, not like the stupid Serbs from Russia killing ancient Illyrian Albanians in Kosova. Cedosk, the West is more worry about Illyrians to survived instead of this stupid Hutu, Mutu, Mobutu, or Mobabubu or fukin whatever backward people in Africa.
|
|
donnie
Senior Moderator
Nike Leka i Kelmendit
Posts: 3,389
|
Post by donnie on Mar 10, 2008 13:47:08 GMT -5
The difference is nobody cares what happens in Africa because this s**t is normal and happens all the time there. Its called tribal warfare and they've been killing and enslaving each other since the first African looked in his neighboring village and saw some women/goats or food. Genocide, i.e. killing one million people within a mere 100 days is a 'common feature' of the African 'tribal life'? Apart from this statement being disgustingly racist and full of bigotry, it is also incorrect. Tribal warfare has existed everywhere, in every part of the world, and is not anything like this. What occured in Rwanda 1994 is something with roots in the imperialist policies of colonial Belgium. The Belgians made use of the Roman saying divide et impera -- divide and conquor. Rwanda's population was divided into two 'racial' subgroups; the more 'noble' Tutsi (who were described as having 'Caucasian features') and the Hutu of Bantu origins. Belgian racialists claimed that the Tutsi were newcomers, and being that they possesed a 'higher intellect' than their Hutu counterpart, they were seen as fit to assist the Belgians in ruling this former colony. Now, regardless of whether the tribal Tutsi were or were not originally newcomers from the north, this was and remains irrelevant. The two populations were heavily mixed either way, and the attributes given to each 'ethnicity' (Tutsi for instance being 'taller') were unscientific. This left the Hutu people, a social classification at best, frustrated and exploited. After the Belgians left, the division was still intact, the damage already inflicted. And above all, the harsh feelings and resentment of the Hutu for the Tutsi remained and strengthened. Now the Hutu wanted to cease power, because 'they', whatever 'they' were, composed the artificial majority. And so, they conducted a rebellion which in turn evolved into a conscious and systematic effort to physically annihilate the Tutsis from the face of the earth. In other words; the racial obsession of the 19th century and early 20th century Europeans was exported to Africa. The concept of genocide is an attached byproduct. This phenomenon is anything but 'common' or 'indigenous' to Africa, but rather an evil import from our continent. Cedorsk To answer your question; the reason for not intervening in Rwanda has to do with geopolitical interests. The International Community let it happen because they did not see much gain to be made in intervening between the two fighting parts. The same is ocurring now in Darfur, Sudan. This does not, however, change the fact that the intervention in Kosova still was humanitarian; if not in intention, definetely in result. It stopped the ethnic cleansings of the Albanians as well as the brutal crimes that were being carried out by Serbian military and paramilitary on Albanian civilians.
|
|
|
Post by tripwire on Mar 10, 2008 21:38:21 GMT -5
The difference is nobody cares what happens in Africa because this s**t is normal and happens all the time there. Its called tribal warfare and they've been killing and enslaving each other since the first African looked in his neighboring village and saw some women/goats or food. Genocide, i.e. killing one million people within a mere 100 days is a 'common feature' of the African 'tribal life'? Apart from this statement being disgustingly racist and full of bigotry, it is also incorrect. Tribal warfare has existed everywhere, in every part of the world, and is not anything like this. What occured in Rwanda 1994 is something with roots in the imperialist policies of colonial Belgium. The Belgians made use of the Roman saying divide et impera -- divide and conquor. Rwanda's population was divided into two 'racial' subgroups; the more 'noble' Tutsi (who were described as having 'Caucasian features') and the Hutu of Bantu origins. Belgian racialists claimed that the Tutsi were newcomers, and being that they possesed a 'higher intellect' than their Hutu counterpart, they were seen as fit to assist the Belgians in ruling this former colony. Now, regardless of whether the tribal Tutsi were or were not originally newcomers from the north, this was and remains irrelevant. The two populations were heavily mixed either way, and the attributes given to each 'ethnicity' (Tutsi for instance being 'taller') were unscientific. This left the Hutu people, a social classification at best, frustrated and exploited. After the Belgians left, the division was still intact, the damage already inflicted. And above all, the harsh feelings and resentment of the Hutu for the Tutsi remained and strengthened. Now the Hutu wanted to cease power, because 'they', whatever 'they' were, composed the artificial majority. And so, they conducted a rebellion which in turn evolved into a conscious and systematic effort to physically annihilate the Tutsis from the face of the earth. In other words; the racial obsession of the 19th century and early 20th century Europeans was exported to Africa. The concept of genocide is an attached byproduct. This phenomenon is anything but 'common' or 'indigenous' to Africa, but rather an evil import from our continent. Cedorsk To answer your question; the reason for not intervening in Rwanda has to do with geopolitical interests. The International Community let it happen because they did not see much gain to be made in intervening between the two fighting parts. The same is ocurring now in Darfur, Sudan. This does not, however, change the fact that the intervention in Kosova still was humanitarian; if not in intention, definetely in result. It stopped the ethnic cleansings of the Albanians as well as the brutal crimes that were being carried out by Serbian military and paramilitary on Albanian civilians. Well said Donnie. You should be the Secretary General of the United Nations. Of course, after you become the first President of the United States (Cantons) of Greater Albania, also containing Chamerie and Prespa and Ulcjin districts.
|
|
cedorsk
Amicus
Kosovo Je Srbija
Posts: 304
|
Post by cedorsk on Mar 12, 2008 8:09:20 GMT -5
Donnie - So the NATO power chooses to interven where it benefits them ? So, wouldn't you say, that conradicts your statement, that it was a humanitarian intervention ? After all their intention wasn't to help Albanians in Kosovo untill they saw something in it for them ?
|
|
donnie
Senior Moderator
Nike Leka i Kelmendit
Posts: 3,389
|
Post by donnie on Mar 12, 2008 11:49:25 GMT -5
Their intervention cannot be explained by one factor alone. This is the case for most issues dealing with international politics, even if we deal with something such as subsidies to third world countries. Many countries who send subsidies do so with a twist; you can for instance request that the receiver of the subsidies concentrate on buying products from your country etc. And so, humanitarian causes or interventionism does not exist in a pure form when we deal with international institutions, both states or transnational organizations.
Conclusively, the intervention of Nato was indeed humanitarian, especially in result, but it was not the sole reason behind the decision to repress Milosevic's violent policy.
|
|
|
Post by captainalbania on Mar 12, 2008 19:22:33 GMT -5
Genocide, i.e. killing one million people within a mere 100 days is a 'common feature' of the African 'tribal life'? Apart from this statement being disgustingly racist and full of bigotry, it is also incorrect. Tribal warfare has existed everywhere, in every part of the world, and is not anything like this. What occured in Rwanda 1994 is something with roots in the imperialist policies of colonial Belgium.
Look at you trying to justify Genocide by blaming it on the Belgians instead of the perpetrators. Dijedon, it is well known that the problem in Rwanda has to do with 2 competing ethnic groups that hate each other sharing the same country. The two tribes hated each other way before the Belgians arrived on the scene. Perhaps the Belgians only fault was to carve out the country to their liking instead of on ethnic lines, but it wasn't the Belgians that killed 1 million people, it was the Africans. Tribal warfare happens in Africa all the time. Kenya is now in a civil war as we speak. Is that the fault of Colonialism that these people cannot get along? You try to justify their behavior but in fact, they were killing and enslaving each other before the Europeans came to the Dark Continent. Who do you think sold the first slaves that were shipped to the New World? Our only responsibility is to stop the proliferation of weapons to those countries, but what then? They will continue killing each other with machetes, clubs, whatever they can get. The average IQ of a sub-saharan African is 70. Thats 30 points under the average IQ of an average European. Colonialism exploited their country, but gave them technology and a good standard of living in comparison with their neighbors, but it didn't stop their tribal behavior. The genocide was a result of their own making.
|
|
donnie
Senior Moderator
Nike Leka i Kelmendit
Posts: 3,389
|
Post by donnie on Mar 13, 2008 8:23:29 GMT -5
Do not misinterpret me. I did not say that the radical faction of the Hutu people is not responsible. They were the ones to actually carry out the genocide against the Tutsi "tribe". However, nothing of these proportions had occured prior to Belgian arrival. Disprove me if you can. But facts speak clearly for themselves; the divide between Hutu and Tutsi was very artificial, and the two "tribes" were heavily mixed with each other through intermarriages. But it was the Belgians who insisted on emphasizing the differences, introducing skull measurement and height statistics to 'proove' the racial differences between the two "tribes".
Belgian politics clearly aimed to aggravate the relations between the Hutu and Tutsi, which was a prologue to the upcoming genocide.
Tribal warfare and organized genocide aren't necessarely the same thing. And yes, I believe the interethnic conflicts in Kenya and elsewhere is, partially, a legacy from colonial times. Most modern African states are entirely artificial, in the sense that when their borders were drawn, cultural, ethnic and linguistic factors were not taken into consideration at all. That is why so many African states are so diverse in terms of languages.
Just as in Europe. Slavery has been present throughout much of our modern history. It still does not excuse the slave trade with Africans in Europe and America.
Help them to revive the local economies. Unlike you, I do not think genocide and bloodthirst is excluded to a race. Far more people have been killed in a barbaric manner in Europe than Africa. World War Two is an excellent example. Africans are mere amateurs in comparison to Europeans.
Yes, tribal warfare existed in Africa prior to European arrival. But there is no evidence of something proportionate to what occured in Rwanda 1994 having occured prior to the colonial era. There is no evidence to suggest that it is something 'traditional' and 'normal' in Africa. What colonialism brought was a new system which broke the old societies of Africa. A new type of economy was introduced, one which left the Africans running in an uphill slope. Emerging as weak states in a new globalizing world, they have been further burdened with loans from the industrialized world which were seen as necessary to develop and keep pace with the rest of the world. The trade of today leaves them disadvantaged with little prospects of making serious progress in a 'free' market which isn't as free as the name makes it seem.
In my opinion, the West has a responsibility to Africa. And it is also in the West's interests to develop Africa. If the African states make progress economically, there will be no need to migrate to Europe or America. And this will perhaps satisfy the Negrophobes.
|
|
|
Post by captainalbania on Mar 15, 2008 18:22:53 GMT -5
How can you be so sure? We have no historical documentation prior to the Belgian arrival? All we know is that no genocide happened when the Belgians were there and when left to their own devices, the 2 tribes fought a civil war.
Yea right, you know nothing of African tribal life. The whole idea of a tribe is you marry within your group. If you married outside your tribe you were ostracized. If anything, the Belgians integrated the people in their country. And thats what the problem was.
The Belgians introduced skull measurements because at the time this was a good method of identifying race. As you know there is a difference between East and West Africans.
Again blaming it on the Belgians. Like I said, the only thing the Belgians did wrong was try to integrate these two tribes that could not get along.
Tribal warfare is genocide on a small scale, but give these mentally deficient people guns and statehood and they take their tribal mentality to a whole new level.
Yes that is true, in the sense that they did not care for tribal borders but created their own thus forcing people that did not like each other to begin with, to share resources. This leads to animosity, but as we have seen only in Africa does this lead to genocide, partially due to the extremely low IQ of the residents and their tribal mentality.
It does not exclude it, but when today it is illegal in all the world, Slavery in Africa is still thriving and is practiced by them to this day.
I did not say they were the only ones to commit genocide, I just implied that the Sub-Saharan Africans are more likely to commit violence than any other race. If you look at violent crime statistics, this will be reflected in the data.
There is no evidence of anything occurring before the arrival of the Europeans because they did not have writing and did not keep a historical record themselves. Perhaps you should dig into what the Arabs had to say about blacks in Africa and their barbarism? I don’t have time to go into it right now, but it wasn’t good.
We can assume that their behaviour today is the same as their behaviour prior to colonialism. Why? Because the Africans have prospered under colonialism and their numbers have swelled. Africa is overpopulated. They are so overpopulated, that they cannot even feed themselves and millions of them die of hunger every year. This is without colonialism, mind you, that actually fed and clothed them because they could not even figure out how to use basic farming equipment.
Zimbabwe was once called the breadbasket of Africa when the white farmers were at work. Now Mugabe’s people are starving while he sits in his mansion with his own private army.
In my opinion, the West has NO responsibility to Africa. Sure Europeans did colonize it, but the colonization only led to increasing the African standard of living and swelled their numbers so much that when the colonists left, the natives could not manage the level of technology of the colonists and now die of hunger. When left to their own devices, Africa only degenerates into tribal society with increased violence and genocide of the weakest tribe.
|
|
|
Post by tripwire on Mar 15, 2008 18:35:05 GMT -5
|
|