International Rwandan genocide: 25 years later (today)

[EradiatedHaggis]

You're literally encouraging your own emotional fragility.

Still nothing refuted? ...triggers get pulled when people burst the bubble around their fragile beliefs. Try actually challenging mine because your finger aint even on the gun soy boy.

 

[Joe265]

Still nothing refuted? ...triggers get pulled when people burst the bubble around their fragile beliefs. Try actually challenging mine because your finger aint even on the gun soy boy.

I’m sorry my personal attack against you bothered you this much.

 

[BillytheFish]

The U.N. is not a big military power, they can't inject troops into a country and militarily defeat whatever faction they deem as the enemy. Even when they do deploy peace keepers they are very limited in what kind of force they can use. The UN is more useful in preventing wars between countries because it gives nations a channel for diplomacy and helps to establish international norms. Norms and diplomacy aren't going to be very useful for stopping a genocide or a civil war but they might lessen the risk of the U.S. and Russia nuking each other or discourage tinpot dictators from invading their neighbors.

I've worked alongside them both in the military as well as security operations as a contractor in various countries. I know exactly how useful they are (or rather- not). They are notoriously terrible at achieving pretty much any goal they set out.

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

I’m sorry my personal attack against you bothered you this much.

Good to know my points are still triggering you 6 pages later.

 

[trac209]

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.

And in the USA they are still talking reparations for slavery...

 

[woodguyatl]

Can anyone say the word IGNORANT?


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.

How is forgiving because you are told to different from forgiving because a whoever wrote the Bible told you to? Also, it sounds like you would prefer an ongoing civil war resulting in more deaths rather than forgiveness. I'm not sure I could forgive somebody but I can't fault those who choose that path.

 

[Happy Man]

How is forgiving because you are told to different from forgiving because a whoever wrote the Bible told you to?

I see a difference between being basically commanded to forgive and choosing to forgive.

Even though the Bible can be viewed as a command, just as much as a government telling you to forgive and forget.

I think the government has more coercion than the Bible. One is just a book.

 

[woodguyatl]

I see a difference between being basically commanded to forgive and choosing to forgive.

Even though the Bible can be viewed as a command, just as much as a government telling you to forgive and forget.

I think the government has more coercion than the Bible. One is just a book.

I suspect that in Rwanda, a very Christian nation, the government was simply reiterating what the Bible says and the two worked in concert. For many years that is what happened here in US with respect to abortion, gay marriage, and other moral issues.

 

[IGotAHugePeckah]

To hear something from a radio broadcast and then without any thought(I guess? How do 70IQ people think) and immediately start murdering.

Forrest Gump's IQ was 75 and I can't imagine him doing that.

 

[trac209]

Forrest Gump's IQ was 75 and I can't imagine him doing that.

Idk I could see him slapping that stupid bitch Jenny a few times though,she definitely asked for it.

 

[Happy Man]

Idk I could see him slapping that stupid bitch Jenny a few times though,she definitely asked for it.

One of the worst movie villains ever. That bitch makes my blood boil

 

[IGotAHugePeckah]

Idk I could see him slapping that stupid bitch Jenny a few times though,she definitely asked for it.

Forrest would never ever hit maaaah Jennnaay, even though yeah she deserved it

 

[regmma123]

Everyone assumes Africa was fuck all prior to Western colonisation.

maga hats who dont read

 

[Colchonero]

Are there any successful 'black nations' in Africa?
This was an interesting read, to include the 'comments' section...
Story: https://www.quora.com/Why-arent-there-any-successful-black-nations-in-the-world

I wouldn't consider any African nation a success because almost all of them are extremely young. Some of them have very good economics i.e Nigeria or South Africa whilst other nations like Namibia, Botswana, and Senegal have been able to strike a balance. Of course you have The DRC but you also have the ROC where it's almost the complete opposite as far as violence and strife goes. However, I think comparing African nations to western, century old European and Western nations is a stupid metric to go by. Speaking in relative terms, America, when it was as old as most African countries today, was getting its capital burnt to the ground with a brewing civil war not only between abolitionists and anti-abolitionists but between federalists and anti-federalists.

 

[Phr3121]

I wouldn't consider any African nation a success because almost all of them are extremely young. However, I think comparing African nations to western, century old European and Western nations is a stupid metric to go by. Speaking in relative terms, America, when it was as old as most African countries today, was getting its capital burnt to the ground with a brewing civil war not only between abolitionists and anti-abolitionists but between federalists and anti-federalists.

Well, you do have Egypt in Africa, but they were never considered 'black'. Not now and not 5,000 years ago. They are indigenous to the Northern Nile valley.

 

[Colchonero]

Well, you do have Egypt in Africa, but they were never considered 'black'. Not now and not 5,000 years ago. They are indigenous to the Northern Nile valley.

Egypt too has had a pretty rough history even its current iteration.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

I wouldn't consider any African nation a success because almost all of them are extremely young. Some of them have very good economics i.e Nigeria or South Africa whilst other nations like Namibia, Botswana, and Senegal have been able to strike a balance. Of course you have The DRC but you also have the ROC where it's almost the complete opposite as far as violence and strife goes. However, I think comparing African nations to western, century old European and Western nations is a stupid metric to go by. Speaking in relative terms, America, when it was as old as most African countries today, was getting its capital burnt to the ground with a brewing civil war not only between abolitionists and anti-abolitionists but between federalists and anti-federalists.

Neither Nigeria nor South Africa have "very good economics" (and even if South Africa did, it wouldn't be a good example of a black African nation, since our economic institutions are entirely the product of the former government - the ongoing economic degradation is what the current government is responsible for).
South Africa's been reduced to junk status by two of the three big international ratings agencies. And Nigeria's economy rests entirely on oil (a sector in decline), which is constantly under threat by Islamic militants.

Calling Africa nations 'extremely young' in comparison to America is also pretty strange.

 

[KBE6EKCTAH_CCP]

I wouldn't consider any African nation a success because almost all of them are extremely young. Some of them have very good economics i.e Nigeria or South Africa whilst other nations like Namibia, Botswana, and Senegal have been able to strike a balance. Of course you have The DRC but you also have the ROC where it's almost the complete opposite as far as violence and strife goes. However, I think comparing African nations to western, century old European and Western nations is a stupid metric to go by. Speaking in relative terms, America, when it was as old as most African countries today, was getting its capital burnt to the ground with a brewing civil war not only between abolitionists and anti-abolitionists but between federalists and anti-federalists.

That is not exactly correct. Some kingdoms in Africa, Abyssinia and Rwanda, for examples, were older than the new world. For the rest, Africa has been populated forever but they were never able to build lasting nations because of tribal warfare and raiding and also the fact that these institutions were extremely extractive, i.e. a minuscule elite that captured all the wealth and political power. And that was long before colonisation & the Atlantic slave trade, which obviously kept Africans down even more.

 

[Colchonero]

Neither Nigeria nor South Africa have "very good economics" (and even if South Africa did, it wouldn't be a good example of a black African nation, since our economic institutions are entirely the product of the former government - the ongoing economic degradation is what the current government is responsible for).
South Africa's been reduced to junk status by two of the three big international ratings agencies. And Nigeria's economy rests entirely on oil (a sector in decline), which is constantly under threat by Islamic militants.

Calling Africa nations 'extremely young' in comparison to America is also pretty strange.

Nigeria and South Africa have fairly developed economics, especially considering the status of many of their neighbors. As for mentioning South Africa, I was looking at the question in the idea of generally successful African nations regardless of their majority race.

Also, most African nations are young even when compared to the U.S. Most of the current political institutions and governments in a lot of countries were not around more than 240+ years ago. They weren't independent and many of them were not in their current shape and status even if they were/are based off of previous iterations of a similar kingdoms or entities i.e DRC, Egypt. Not sure how that's strange.