3 ms·
It was "war" (civil war or foreign war, choose whatever you want) and not genocide: the aim was not to kill the whole population but to keep the territory. It'
by olivierduval 6y ago
It was "war" (civil war or foreign war, choose whatever you want) and not genocide: the aim was not to kill the whole population but to keep the territory.
It's quite concerning to see so much lack of the least basic subtelity these times... are you spending too much time on social networks ?
- mtphil 6y agoThis is a common propaganda talking point propagated by the Hutu Power movement both during and after the genocide - that what occured was "spontaneous political violence" and not "targeted or planned". Demonstrably false. To quote from Linda Melvern's excellent "Intent to Deceive: Denying the Genocide of the Tutsi": "The genocidaires continue to maintain that the mass murder of the Tutsi resulted from a 'spontaneous uprising' by an angry population. They argue there was no genocide of the Tutsi. With no planning or preparation, they argue the intent to destroy a human group was lacking, and so with no intent, the 1948 Genocide Convention does not apply. The idea of a spontaneous slaughter is not borne out by direct witnesses, by survivors or by the collective research of internationally recognized experts." Case closed.
- nix23 6y ago>the aim was not to kill the whole population but to keep the territory. That's NOT the definition of Genocide. >It's quite concerning to see so much lack of the least basic subtelity these times Samesame, is it because it's about the "good guy" france, or are you really so arrogant about it?