Video

Rwanda, 20 years after: the fake story

This is the title of a new film about Rwanda which is far better than Hotel Rwanda.

Twenty years after the tragedy, the President of Rwanda Paul Kagame, the media, the “humanitarian” organizations, much of the political class and the pro-Israeli networks continue to accuse France of involvement in the Rwandan genocide. For those behind the dominant narrative since, Tustis are the victims of crimes against humanity committed by the Hutus pro-French; never their share of blame is highlighted; never the sordid reasons behind the massacres are explained; never the negative role of foreign powers who had an interest in causing the disaster is mentioned. It is time to take the case to square one and dare say, with supporting evidence that the official story was manipulated.

This film asks the forbidden questions:

Which foreign power has trained Tutsi rebel leaders, including the current President of Rwanda Paul Kagame?

Who shot down the plane of President Juvenal Habyarimana, an assassination that triggered the largest massacre that Africa has seen since World War II?

Why some NGOs have cultivated strange close relationships with the RPF? Under whose pressure did the Arusha Peace Agreement (1993) pave the way for the victory of the RPF?

What is the geostrategic objective pursued by the United States, Britain and Israel in these dramatic events?

With assistance from journalists and authors Pierre Péan and Patrick Mbeko, the former U.S. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, Colonel Robardey, technical assistant judicial police in Rwanda, and the ultimate interview with Michael Hourigan, the investigating ICTR to the UN.

Video

Justifying the 1959 Hutu popular revolution

By Jean Paul Romeo Rugero

Dr. Theogene Rudasingwa, former Paul Kagame’s adviser, chief of staff and Rwandan ambassador to US, explained once out of RPF favors, that when he was still a member of the organization, he lied lied lied to propagate RPF narrative of the genocide and ideology.

The problem I have is this: once one has been used to lying when do they stop and reconvert to telling truth. And when they ever do, how much truth are they able to provide. That has been my main question with people who are not consistent, or are consistent in their inconsistency.

I had some sort of apprehension about the speech of Rudasingwa as does the author of the following article on the same topic. However my question was more on some others of the former ambassador views not necessary reflected in his speech. I disagree with him for example when he justifies that RPF had to invade Rwanda in 1990 knowing well that the Tutsi refugee question was at the point of being solved by the Habyarimana government.

Another point of disagreement is on his particular request for protecting Tutsis from Hutus knowing again well that Tutsis extremists have always been in Rwandan history the troublemakers of any harmony that the country has ever had.

I just read the speech Dr Rudasingwa gave in France Senate, It is easy for an everyday citizen to see fairness and truth in this story. In reality the speech itself is a downgraded version of our history, especially history of Hutu population. 

“http://www.therwandan.com/blog/remarks-by-dr-theogene-rudasingwa-the-colloque-au-palais-du-luxemburg-paris-france-april-1st-2014/« 

The very first thing i noticed is how he changed the timeline of Tutsi dynasty in Rwanda, by telling these Frenchmen that “Monarchial rule came under German Colonization at the end of 19th Century”. The truth is Germans only went along with already established Tutsi absolute monarchy, which was ruling Rwanda since 1450’s. And why would Dr. Rudasingwa make such an inaccurate statement? I don’t know. He went on by defining moments in 1959 with passion, once again within truth started appearing downgraded terms. Those small terms carefully chosen are the main explosive ingredient of our history.

The term ‘marginalized’ also means demean, depreciate, …by definition, it means to make someone or something seem not important or relevant. This choice of the term above, was used to set tone for what Dr. Rudasingwa was about to explain. By telling his audience that “The Pre-1959 period saw the rise of a marginalized Hutu”, it automatically discredits the 1959 popular revolution. Marginalized group are not pushed enough to commit to a revolution, marginalized people are not in pain enough to join a revolution movement.

Then to justify Tutsi (Inyenzi rebels) attacks in 1960’s, he added that the 1959 revolution marginalized Tutsis, massacred many of them, and sending hundreds of thousands (exaggerated number) in exile. This is no surprise as we all know. RPF members claim that a million people have died in their so called genocide against Tutsis, even though there was barely under one million Tutsi in Rwanda by 1994. So where did “genocide survivors” came from? Dr Rudasingwa proceeded with accusing the first Republic of closing political space to become one party state, under MDR-PARMEHUTU. This statement is far from truth, there has been no law abolishing multiparty system during Kayibanda’a presidency. Due to overwhelming popularity of MDR, parties simply grew weaker.

So why did I dissect that particular term “marginalized”? I did so because it matters than the entire seven pages of this document. It matters because it sat the tone for those who were listening to Dr. Rudasingwa. To the French men and women in audience who were sitting listening to Dr.Rudasingwa, left with a clear false understanding that Hutus and all their leaders are equally barbaric, and Tutsis are gentle and everyday good citizens except the Evil Kagame and his friends.

The real term or terms Dr Rudasingwa failed to utilize for Hutu situation Pre-1959 should be “Oppressed and enslaved Hutu population ». Each of these two terms justifies revolution of any type. The Hutu population lived as slaves (abaja, abagaragu) during Tutsi monarch. They were not human beings but properties, and Tutsi kings, and rulers could treat however they pleased. In addition to being slaves in their own land, Hutu were regularly whipped, severely beaten all in front of their families. Then by using the proper terms “oppressed and enslaved” the audience would have understood the inevitable popular revolution of 1959.

Let’s not forget gross crimes committed against Hutu males by Tutsi kings prior to revolution. Tutsi monarch symbol “Kalinga”, hidden somewhere in best kept secrecy, is decorated by genital parts, from then live young Hutus. Which by the way makes the last King Kigeli (who resides in United States) a criminal, who should be tried for crimes against humanity. For Kigeli the last king, things get even worse. When Hutus begun asking nicely their freedom, he responded by assassinating Hutu leaders in their own homes. Men like Kayuku, Secyugu, Mukwiye, Kajangwe and many more were murdered by Kigeli’s assassins in cold blood. No Tutsi in country or in exile ever mentioned these true events, which triggered the 1959 revolution.

So since we now know the truth about “The 1959 Popular Revolution”, let’s see what Hutus were and are entitled to.

  • Hutus during pre-1959 were entitled to basic human rights and their land. They were entitled to be free from slavery and oppression they were subjected to by the Tutsi ruling dynasties.
  • Hutu had right to make a revolution by any means necessary to make social, and economic positive changes in their own land.
  • In 1959 Hutu mass population did what was way overdue by abolishing the King and his throne, and establish Republic
  • The Republic of Rwanda had legitimate reason to fight and defended its population against King Kigeli’s rebels in 1960’s
  • Rwandan government had the right to defend its territories in 1990 when RPF supported by Museveni invaded Rwanda
  • Hutu population still have right and obligation to defend their people wherever they are, as long as they are targeted specifically because they chose democracy, and refuse to accept Tutsi dominance.

We must not stay silent, or settle for less. We must understand our rights and defend our revolution at all cost. It is a beautiful thing for a people to be liberated. Live long the spirit of freedom fighters of 1959, live long the freedom fighters of today, lets shape the freedom fighters of tomorrow.

Source: Ikaze Iwacu

Was Clinton’s “No Genocide” Dictate On Rwanda Meant To Ensure Kagame’s Military Victory In 1994?

By Milton Allimadi

Who killed Juvenal Habyarimana?
[Black Star News Commentary]

It’s generally accepted that Bill Clinton opposed a vigorous international community- and American armed intervention when the massacres erupted in Rwanda in 1994 because he feared this country could get bogged down in a messy operation with unpredictable outcome.

There has never been an internationally supervised research to estimate the numbers of civilians murdered in Rwanda however the figure of “nearly 800,000″ has been widely quoted and accepted for years.

It’s also generally accepted that Clinton wouldn’t allow his administration officials to use the term “genocide” to describe the mass killings in Rwanda because the word carries legal connotations that would have obligated intervention.

But how credible is this explanation as to why Clinton opposed use of the word and outside intervention?

If that was indeed the true motive for barring the use of the term and opposing intervention how did Clinton hope for the killings to come to an end? He was president of the United States, the world’s only remaining superpower.

Is it conceivable that Clinton was willing to let the U.S. stand aside and risk the possibility of Hutus, the 85% majority population in Rwanda, annihilating all Tutsis?

This is a difficult proposition to accept or believe.

The killings had been triggered when on April 6, 1994 the plane carrying Rwanda’s Hutu president Juvenal Habyarimana and Burundi’s Cyprian Ntaryamira was downed by two missiles as it approached Kigali airport.
Is it more likely that Clinton in fact knew that the massacres would come to an end — with victory by the RPF, under its leader Paul Kagame?

So, in fact, by refraining from calling the massacres a “genocide” and triggering an international armed intervention did Clinton’s decision at the time actually buy time for Kagame and allow his RPF to seize power?

Former Rwandan President Juvenal Habyarimana assassinated by current president Paul Kagame

Former Rwandan President Juvenal Habyarimana assassinated on April 6th, 1994 by current President Paul Kagame

Habyarimana was returning from Tanzania, where regional leaders were pressing the warring parties to carry out the Arusha Peace Accord to halt fighting between his army and the opposing force, which included units of Uganda’s army and the Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF).

The Arusha deal was detrimental to the RPF’s goal and U.S. interests which included displacing France’s influence in the region.

Arusha called for a Transitional government, power-sharing between Habyarimana’s party, Kagame’s RPF, and other parties. It also called for elections and given that Hutus comprised 85% of the population, Kagame wouldn’t have become president. Continue reading

Bantu people should vigorously respond to Museveni for his insults

Joweri Museveni - President of Uganda

Joweri Museveni – President of Uganda

In his speech during the 20th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide, which was held in Kigali on Monday April 7th, 2014, Ugandan president Joweri Museveni uttered that the first Rwandan president Gregoire Kayibanda was a traitor for emancipating his Hutu people from slavery imposed on them by Tutsi and their parasite feudal system. Continue reading

Video

The Rwandan genocide: What Africans should learn?

On April 6th, 2014, it is exactly 20 years since the assassination of two African presidents namely Juvenal Habyarimana of Rwanda and Cyprien Ntaryamira of Burundi occurred, and US, UK and other interested parties have obstructed every effort to get the perpetrators of that horrible act prosecuted. Continue reading