[RwandaLibre] Response to genocide expert Dr. Gerald Caplan’s most recent hysteria about Rwanda on Rabble.CA

By Keith Harmon Snow

Dear Rabble:

Since the 80s the Great Lakes region has experienced genocides, war crimes, crimes against humanity, so much so that the entire area has become like a cemetery with dead on display. There are human skeletons everywhere, some more respected than others. Picture – Courtesy of Keith Harmon Snow

While Dr. Gerald Caplan is often appropriately ranting about some huge injustice or other, on the subject of Rwanda you (Rabble) do your selves and your readers a grave disservice by allowing him free rein to pontificate hysterically about something he needs to be deeply challenged on: his understanding, position, "facts" and diatribes on "genocide in Rwanda". If you want to allow him to present his (often) venomous position, you should also allow this to be challenged on your pages.

For example, where does Rabble (or Caplan) elucidate his interests on the matter? He is a close confidante of one of the world's leading terrorists — President and former General Paul Kagame — but he does not disclose his financial and other ties to the regime in Rwanda.

For example, he claims in his most recent attack on truth (above) that: "There has never been a debate among experts as to whether the genocide [Rwanda] was planned. All agree it was."

This is an outright falsehood. Dr. Caplan knows perfectly well that there is a huge debate about the question of the "planification" of genocide according to the official narrative that he espouses. What Dr. Caplan fails to elucidate to readers (and Rabble editors) is that even the International Criminal Tribunal on Rwanda (ICTR) has determined that there is no plannification of the genocide — again, according to the definition of "planned" advanced in the official narrative. By this is meant that "Hutu extremists" planned and committed genocide in Rwanda. Instead, there is plentiful evidence that the Rwandan Patriotic Front, Kagame at the helm, planned genocide against the HUTU people, which began on Oct 1, 1990, the day that the RPF — with Pentagon support — invaded Rwanda from Uganda. Then, advancing through the country, the RPF slaughtered everyone in its path – Hutus, Tutsis, and Twa.

Why would the RPF — a bunch of Tutsis — slaughter Tutsis? It makes no sense to Dr. Caplan, because he is blinded by his interests and his position (as "genocide" expert). The answer is that Kagame and the RPF — Ugandans who had established themselves quite sweetly in Uganda — having helped bring their Tutsi ally Yoweri Museveni to power (in another bloody conflagration where they committed genocide against different ethnicities in Uganda), spoke ENGLISH, and they did not trust the FRENCH-speaking Tutsis who "stayed behind" in Rwanda from 1959-1990: Why, these Francophone Tutsis must be Hutu collaborators. So, the evidence of a "plannification of genocide" in Rwanda includes a profound collection of documents, facts, details, witnesses — and obvious conclusions — that it was Kagame, the RPF, Museveni, the UPDF, and their western backers who both committed genocide against the Hutu masses and facilitated and provoked acts of genocide against the Tutsi people — the latter of which WOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED if Kagame was not allowed to advance (again, with full Pentagon and other support) as he did, marching the RPF forward to murder in teh coldest of cold blood. The further genocide(s) in Congo are even more clearly shown to be the work of Kagame et al.

There are MANY genocide experts, even amongst the western human rights and genocide nexus, who have seen through the official narrative and conclude today that there was no plannification of genocide by the so-called Hutu extremists, or by the so-called "government" of Rwanda. (The "government" was decapitated on April 6, 1994, and the "interim" government of April 1994 did not function in any manner capable of such organization.)

Finally, Dr. Caplan rails against Clinton on moral terms — citing the egregious hypocrisy of supposedly caring about human beings after "standing by" in 1994 while the Tutsis in Rwanda were slaughtered — yet it is a mere hop-skip-and-a-jump to the obvious truth that Clinton and the US Gov did not "stand idly by" and allow genocide to unfold: they facilitated mass muder. it was a U.S.-backed coup d'etat: the presidents and top military of Rwanda and Burundi were assassinated on April 6, 1994, and we all (who are not protecting someone's interests) know who did it (RPF/CIA).

If Dr. Caplan would open his mind, examine his interests (and the concommitant self-delusions and denial that come with interests) he would see this truth clearly, and then his (confused) positions would make far more sense to himself and to others.

As it is, his position amounts to support for the ongoing genocide against the Hutu people and further war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide against the peoples of Burundi, Rwanda, Sudan, Uganda and the Dem. Rep. of Congo (the Rwandan Defense Forces and Ugandan Peoples Defense forces, their allies in Uganda, are occupying and committing atrocities in Congo and Sudan, while they project their violence into Burundi). The Ugandans are also supporting Pentagon operations (atrocities) in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Please, editors, lets see some due diligence in vetting the truth about "genocide" in Rwanda (and Rwanda's terrorist occupation of neighboring countries).

FB FRIENDS: Please support my important work on the politics of genocide with a donation through my web sites today.

CAPLAN —http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/gerry-caplan/2014/02/inflammatory-falsehood-poor-homage-to-twentieth-anniversary-rwan#comment-1429357

Le Troisième Mandat de Louise Mushikiwabo à l'OIF : Entre Précédent et Principe Démocratique.

Le Troisième Mandat de Louise Mushikiwabo à l'OIF : Entre Précédent et Principe Démocratique. L'Alternance à l'OIF : Pourquoi un Troisième Mandat Fragilise la Crédibilité de la Francophonie. Introduction Louise Mushikiwabo veut un troisième mandat à la tête de l'Organisation internationale de la Francophonie. Son annonce, faite bien avant l'émergence d'autres candidats, rappelle une tactique familière en Afrique : affirmer qu'on a le soutien populaire sans jamais le prouver publiquement. La méthode est rodée. Des dirigeants africains l'utilisent depuis des décennies pour prolonger leur règne. Ils clament que "le peuple le demande" ou que "les partenaires soutiennent" cette reconduction. Aucune preuve formelle n'est nécessaire. L'affirmation devient réalité politique. Mais voilà le problème : la Francophonie prêche la démocratie, l'État de droit et l'alternance au pouvoir. Peut-elle tolérer en son sein ce qu'elle co...

Search This Blog