Share this page:

Are The French Guilty Of Genocide?

Interested or active in politics, discuss here.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Tab
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 5626
Joined: Wed 16 Apr, 2003 7:09 pm
Location: Southern England
Contact:

Are The French Guilty Of Genocide?

#1 Post by Tab »

Preident Paul Kagame of Rawanda accused France of the direct responsibility for the 1994 genocideof 800,000 people. Mr Kagame claimed that the French Government supplied the weapons, logistical suppourt and even senior military planners. He also states that the French were there when the genocide took place, they set up road blocks
to identify people by ethnic origin, punishing the Tutsis and supporters of the Hutus. There was at least one case where the French moved the Peace Keepers away from college where they where protecting 2,000 Tutsis, and after they had been moved away, they where all slaughtered.
All this from a country that has taken the morale high ground about the war in Iraq and that will tear in to America for their actions at every chance they get.

:drinking: :drinking: :drinking: :drinking: :drinking: :drinking: :drinking: :drinking: :drinking: :drinking: :drinking:

Advertise your company or services here and contact us today!

User avatar
Whitey
Cult Member
Cult Member
Posts: 1631
Joined: Tue 12 Aug, 2003 3:12 pm
Location: Dixie, Well my heart anyway

#2 Post by Whitey »

I was there and don't remember France doing anything, that whole deal was screwy. First they tell us it is a humanitarian disaster because of a flood then we get there and it seems it was a Serb Bosnian thing. Both tribes couldn't agree and just drew lines and started hacking with machetes. We ended up just relocating the Americans to Kenya. I don't know what France would have gotten out of the deal, neither side seemed organized, it was just fudalist blood letting.
Let them call me a rebel and I welcome it, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of demons were I to make a whore of my soul. (Thomas Paine)

User avatar
Tab
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 5626
Joined: Wed 16 Apr, 2003 7:09 pm
Location: Southern England
Contact:

#3 Post by Tab »

Whitey,
It started of when the former President of Rawanda asked France for help, and expressed an interest of all things, making the Frech language the Countries second choice. They supplied weapons, troops, advisors, the whole lot in fact, they were very much envolved on every thing that took place.

User avatar
Whitey
Cult Member
Cult Member
Posts: 1631
Joined: Tue 12 Aug, 2003 3:12 pm
Location: Dixie, Well my heart anyway

#4 Post by Whitey »

I guess you got the history Tab, I never ran into the French there, just Hutu's bent on revenge. We were lied to and told before we left it was a feed the children thing, then realised it was a civil war.
Let them call me a rebel and I welcome it, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of demons were I to make a whore of my soul. (Thomas Paine)

Frank S.

#5 Post by Frank S. »

That's a great question, and I tend to agree with Tab: the French government bears primary responsibility in the genocide.
But without trying to sound like a lawyer, I am not convinced this equates 'direct involvement' in the atrocities committed, in other words French troops physically assisting Hutu troops and militias in the massacre of Tutsis. In the face of possibly 1 million victims, though, the distinction may be moot.
The French did arm the Hutus and claim French troops evacuated 15 to 17000 Tutsis, but in the end the numbers speak for themselves.

usaf2ltdb
New Member
New Member
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed 24 Mar, 2004 7:40 pm
Location: Ft Walton, FL, US

genocide

#6 Post by usaf2ltdb »

If you're going to mention the French involvement in Rwanda, also note their affection for the Serbs during the Kosovo crisis, their embracing of the PLO, their pandering to Libya in the aftermath of Lockerbie, their naval maneuvers with China during a Taiwanese election, and the benefits they gained from supporting Saddam.
"Geez, Jacques...you've never won a war or built a decent car. Your greatest general was a 14 year old girl, and your best soldiers are all foreign!"

User avatar
Whitey
Cult Member
Cult Member
Posts: 1631
Joined: Tue 12 Aug, 2003 3:12 pm
Location: Dixie, Well my heart anyway

#7 Post by Whitey »

Why does everyone hate the Serbs? Atleast they are christian, plus they are tough as hell. I'm lazy, I say back who ever is winning.
Let them call me a rebel and I welcome it, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of demons were I to make a whore of my soul. (Thomas Paine)

User avatar
Bruce McDonald
Familiar Member
Familiar Member
Posts: 213
Joined: Tue 25 Mar, 2003 6:09 am
Location: Canberra, Australia

#8 Post by Bruce McDonald »

And you all wonder why people never ask the French to do anything :wink:.
"E Pluribus Unum"

-Strength in unity-

-"Private! Is that rust on your jump wings? How do you expect to slay the huns, with rust on your jump wings?!!"-

Powder monkey
Familiar Member
Familiar Member
Posts: 104
Joined: Wed 10 Dec, 2003 10:54 pm
Location: West Midlands

#9 Post by Powder monkey »

Whitey wrote:Why does everyone hate the Serbs? Atleast they are christian, plus they are tough as hell. I'm lazy, I say back who ever is winning.
Because people hate what ever the TV tells them to hate.
This post was typed up in front of a live studio audience at pinewood studios England.

User avatar
df2inaus
Rising Star Member
Rising Star Member
Posts: 445
Joined: Sun 14 Sep, 2003 2:29 am
Location: Toronto

Are the French Guilty of Genocide?

#10 Post by df2inaus »

Why does everyone hate the Serbs? Atleast they are christian, plus they are tough as hell. I'm lazy, I say back who ever is winning.
Because the Serbs were a European, cultured, well-educated, Christian people, the world placed greater expectations on them, as with the Germans in the 1930's, that is why military action was taken against them. "Because they are like us" to quote Richard Gwynn (Toronto Star) and should know better.

So when wars rage and unspeakable atrocities are committed in the underdeveloped world why do we turn a blind eye? World leaders, including the African Sec Gen of the UN, ultimately consider them primitive people who are beyond help, and not worth anything beyond token intervention. They know the Western public's limited attention span all too well and know that outrage will pass quickly. While public opinion is hot, they just sabotage military deployments while mouthing platitudes.

That's racism at the highest possible level as far as I'm concerned. The Hutu's aren't ultimately responsible for the genocide, low expectations of Africans from the rest of the world are.
"Poor Ike, it won't be a bit like the Army. He'll find it very frustrating. He'll sit here and he'll say, 'Do this! Do that!' And nothing will happen."
Harry Truman

Frank S.

#11 Post by Frank S. »

Here's a partial timeline of events in Rwanda, for those who are mostly unfamiliar with it:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... ghter.html

April 6, 1994:
Rwandan President Habyarimana and the Burundian President are killed when Habyarimana's plane is shot down near Kigali Airport. Hutu extremists, suspecting that the Rwandan president is finally about to implement the Arusha Peace Accords, are believed to be behind the attack. The killings begin that night.

April 7, 1994:
The Rwandan Armed Forces (FAR) and Hutu militia (the interahamwe) set up roadblocks and go from house to house killing Tutsis and moderate Hutu politicians. Thousands die on the first day. Some U.N. camps shelter civilians, but most of the U.N. peackeeping forces (UNAMIR--United Nations Assistance Mission in Rwanda) stand by while the slaughter goes on. They are forbidden to intervene, as this would breach their "monitoring" mandate.
On this day, ten Belgian soldiers with UNAMIR, assigned to guard the moderate Hutu Prime Minister, are tricked into giving up their weapons. They are tortured and murdered.

Also on this day, President Clinton issues a statement:
"... shocked and deeply saddened ... horrified that elements of the Rwandan security forces have sought out and murdered Rwandan officials ... extend my condolences ... condemn these actions and I call on all parties to cease any such actions immediately ..."

April 8, 1994:
The Tutsi Rwandese Patriotic Front (RPF) launches a major offensive to end the killings and rescue 600 of its troops surrounded in Kigali. The troops had been based in the city as part of the Arusha Accords.
President Clinton speaks to the press about Rwanda--
"... I mention it only because there are a sizable number of Americans there and it is a very tense situation. And I just want to assure the families of those who are there that we are doing everything we possible can to be on top of the situation to take all the appropriate steps to try to assure the safety of our citizens there."

April 9-10, 1994:
France and Belgium send troops to rescue their citizens. American civilians are also airlifted out. No Rwandans are rescued, not even Rwandans employed by Western governments in their embassies, consulates, etc.

April 11, 1994:
The International Red Cross estimates that tens of thousands of Rwandans have been murdered.
At the Don Bosco school, protected by Belgian UNAMIR soldiers, the number of civilians seeking refuge reaches 2,000. That afternoon, the U.N. soldiers are ordered to withdraw to the airport. Most of the civilians they abandon are killed.

April 14, 1994:
One week after the murder of the ten Belgian soldiers, Belgium withdraws from UNAMIR.

April 21, 1994:
The U.N. Security Council votes unanimously to withdraw most of the UNAMIR troops, cutting the force from 2,500 to 270.
The International Red Cross estimates that tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Rwandans are now dead.

April 28, 1994:
State Department spokeswoman Christine Shelley is asked whether what is happening in Rwanda is a genocide. She responds,
"...the use of the term 'genocide' has a very precise legal meaning, although it's not strictly a legal determination. There are other factors in there as well."
However, a secret intelligence report by the State Department issued as early as the end of April calls the killings a genocide.

April 30, 1994:
The U.N. Security Council passes a resolution condemning the killing, but omits the word "genocide." Had the term been used, the U.N. would have been legally obliged to act to "prevent and punish" the perpetrators.
Tens of thousands of refugees flee into Tanzania, Burundi and Zaire. In one day, 250,000 Rwandans, mainly Hutus fleeing the advance of the Tutsi RPF, cross the border into Tanzania.

May 1994:
The White House starts holding daily confidential briefings on Rwanda with various U.S. government organizations via secure video link.

May 2, 1994:
Kofi Annan, head of U.N. peacekeeping, testifies before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:
"When the Belgians left it was clear that the U.N. could not implement the mandate it had, and either the mandate had to be changed, or reinforcements introduced ... I do not know what the Council will decide after they have reviewed and reconsidered the situation today. If the council is going to recommend reinforcement, the reinforcement that goes in has to be well equipped, very mobile, and also able to protect itself. If we do not send in that kind of reinforcement ... then I'm not quite sure they'll be able to bring about a sort of law and order ... that will lead to the end of the massacres ... here we are watching people being deprived of the most fundamental of rights, the right to life, and yet we seem a bit helpless ..."

May 3, 1994:
Clinton signs a Presidential Decision Directive (PDD 25), created after a review of the nation's peacekeeping policies and programs. PDD 25 aims to limit U.S. military involvement in international peacekeeping operations.

May 5, 1994:
Madeline Albright, U.S. Representative to the U.N., testifies at a congressional hearing on funding of U.N. programs:
"But let me just tell you that on the Rwanda thing, it is my sense that to a great extent the Security Council and the U.N. missed the boat. We are now dealing with a situation way beyond anything that anybody expected. And as I mentioned earlier, what happened was that we were on one process where a smaller United Nations force, we felt, could deal with some of the issues in the area, and then all of a sudden with the shootdown of this airplane with the two presidents, it created an avalanche. And so it is hard to judge whether that particular operations started out properly."
Anthony Lake, National Security Advisor, gives a press briefing on PDD 25:
"When I wake up every morning and look at the headlines and the stories and the images on television of these conflicts, I want to work to end every conflict. I want to work to save every child out there. And I know the president does, and I know the American people do. But neither we nor the international community have the resources nor the mandate to do so. So we have to make distinctions. We have to ask the hard questions about where and when we can intervene. And the reality is that we cannot often solve other people's problems; we can never build their nations for them ..."

May 11, 1994:
At a State Department briefing, Mike McCurry is asked, "Has this government been able to determine whether any of the acts committed in Rwanda since April 6 constitute genocide?" He answers, "I don't know that they've made any legal determination on that."

May 13, 1994:
The U.N. Security Council prepares to vote on restoring UNAMIR's strength in Rwanda. However, Madeline Albright delays the vote for four days.

May 17, 1994:
As the slaughter of the Tutsis continues, the U.N. finally agrees to send 5,500 troops to Rwanda. The Security Council resolution says, "acts of genocide may have been committed." However, the deployment of the mainly African U.N. forces is delayed because of arguments over who will pay the bill and provide the equipment.
Albright testifies at a Capitol Hill hearing on tensions in U.S.-U.N. relations and discusses the Security Council's resolution:
"... The United States has been a driving force in the provision of humanitarian assistance, in condemning the violence and in trying to organize a U.N. mission designed not simply to promise, but to deliver what it promises. Sending a U.N. force into the maelstrom in Rwanda without a sound plan of operations would be folly ... The resolution adopted last night requires the Secretary-General to report back before the next phase of deployment begins ... these choices are not easy ones. Emotions can produce wonderful speeches and stirring op-ed pieces. But emotions alone cannot produce policies that will achieve what they promise. If we do not keep commitments in line with capabilities, we will only further undermine U.N. credibility and support. The actions authorized last night will help. They may save lives. But ultimately, the future of Rwanda is in Rwandan hands."

May 19, 1994:
The U.N. requests the U.S. provide 50 armored personnel carriers (APCs). However, there are arguments between the U.S. and the U.N. over the costs.

Mid-May:
The International Red Cross estimates 500,000 Rwandans have been killed.

May 25, 1994:
Mike McCurry, State Department spokesman, is asked at a press briefing, "... Has the administration yet come to any decision on whether it can be described as genocide?"
He answers, "I'll have to confess, I don't know the answer to that. I know that the issue was under very active consideration. I think there was a strong disposition within the department here to view what has happened there; certainly, constituting acts of genocide that have occurred ..."

June 10, 1994:
At a State Department briefing, spokesperson Christine Shelley is asked, "How many acts of genocide does it take to make genocide?"
"That's just not a question that I'm in a position to answer."
"Well, is it true that you have specific guidance not to use the word 'genocide' in isolation, but always to preface it with these words 'acts of'?"
"I have guidance which I try to use as best as I can. There are formulations that we are using that we are trying to be consistent in our use of. I don't have an absolute categorical prescription against something, but I have the definitions. I have phraseology which has been carefully examined and arrived at as best as we can apply to exactly the situation and the actions which have taken place ... "

June 22, 1994:
With still no sign of U.N. deployment, the Security Council authorizes the deployment of French forces in south-west Rwanda--"Operation Turquoise." They create a "safe area" in territory controlled by the government. However, killings of Tutsis continue in the safe area.

Mid-July 1994:
The Tutsi RPF forces capture Kigali. The Hutu government flees to Zaire, followed by a tide of refugees. The French end their mission and are replaced by Ethiopian U.N. troops. The RPF sets up an interim government of national unity in Kigali.
Although disease and more killings claim additional lives in the refugee camps, the genocide is over. An estimated 800,000 Rwandans have been killed in 100 days.

Later....

March 25, 1998:
In Kigali, Rwanda President Clinton apologizes to the victims of genocide.
"... the international community, together with nations in Africa, must bear its share of responsibility for this tragedy, as well. We did not act quickly enough after the killing began. We should not have allowed the refugee camps to become safe havens for the killers. We did not immediately call these crimes by their rightful name: genocide. We cannot change the past. But we can and must do everything in our power to help you build a future without fear, and full of hope ..."

May 7, 1998:
In Kigali, Rwanda U.N. Secretary-General, Kofi Annan apologizes to the Parliament of Rwanda
"... The world must deeply repent this failure. Rwanda's tragedy was the world's tragedy. All of us who cared about Rwanda, all of us who witnessed its suffering, fervently wish that we could have prevented the genocide. Looking back now, we see the signs which then were not recognized. Now we know that what we did was not nearly enough--not enough to save Rwanda from itself, not enough to honor the ideals for which the United Nations exists. We will not deny that, in their greatest hour of need, the world failed the people of Rwanda ..."

December 1998:
A French parliamentary commission completes a nine-month inquiry into France's military involvement in Rwanda before and during the genocide. The commission concludes that most of the blame lies with the international community, particularly the United Nations and the United States. Although France is noted as making "errors of judgment," the government is absolved of responsibility for the killings.

friendlyfireaintfriendly
Casual Member
Casual Member
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu 22 Apr, 2004 5:16 pm
Location: UK

#12 Post by friendlyfireaintfriendly »

Didnt the french supply mirage jets to the iraqi air force? and before that the argentinian airforce in the falklands war, along with exocets?

User avatar
AdamR
Familiar Member
Familiar Member
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon 05 Jan, 2004 11:33 am
Location: Carlisle, Cumbria

#13 Post by AdamR »

friendlyfireaintfriendly wrote:Didnt the french supply mirage jets to the iraqi air force? and before that the argentinian airforce in the falklands war, along with exocets?
What's that got to do with the price of fish. The Iraqis got the jets when they were 'The Good Guys'. And they weren't exactly supplying the Argies with arms during the conflict (quite the opposite, they aided British agents in preventing them from getting more missiles).
What do you know about surfing major, you're from god damn New Jersey

may18
Celebrity Member
Celebrity Member
Posts: 506
Joined: Mon 03 Mar, 2003 9:09 am
Location: UK

#14 Post by may18 »

AdamR wrote:
friendlyfireaintfriendly wrote:Didnt the french supply mirage jets to the iraqi air force? and before that the argentinian airforce in the falklands war, along with exocets?
What's that got to do with the price of fish. The Iraqis got the jets when they were 'The Good Guys'. And they weren't exactly supplying the Argies with arms during the conflict (quite the opposite, they aided British agents in preventing them from getting more missiles).
I have read on a few sites about americans helping the argentinians.

As i was disgusted i looked into it a lot more and it was the opposite in fact

They revealed all the exocets for sale so the uk could buy them up

and where the first to offer support.

from house of commons speech

Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham): The hon. Gentleman will recall that, when the Falklands war broke out and there was some havering in Washington, on the first morning after war started, the first national leader to telephone Mrs. Thatcher to offer her complete and unconditional support was President Mitterrand. He immediately provided to the Ministry of Defence details of how the Exocet missiles were organised and operated. The great complaint was that British arms exporters were running to their clients in Arab countries saying, "You can't trust the French; they'll give away the details of their Exocets. Buy British, not French."


Mr. Blunt: I am grateful for that intervention. The hon. Gentleman's comments are perfectly correct; the French did us an enormous favour in allowing the fleet to exercise against Super Etendards equipped with Exocets on their way down to Ascension island. However, had the Spanish and Italian Governments been part of a European set-up, how keen would they have been to support the policy of retaking the Falkland Islands from the Argentines? It begs the question of what capability the United Kingdom would have had to act in recovering our possessions.


Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way a second time, especially as we are dealing

11 Nov 1998 : Column 290

with a slight distraction from his main theme.Leaving aside the Falklands--although we could discuss the mechanics who were assisting in servicing the Super Etendards that were flying against the British fleet during the Falklands war--

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests