| Submit your comments on this article |
| Africa Subsaharan |
| 'Allowing more genocide isn't an option' |
| 2007-07-05 |
| Jacqueline Murekatete has a simple goal - to end genocide forever. A 22-year-old survivor of 1994's genocide of nearly a million Tutsis in war-torn Rwanda, Murekatete has been speaking on genocide in forums all over the world for six years now. And when she calls on "civilization and morality" to come to the rescue of those about to die, she carries an authority born of having witnessed the collapse of both. "It is not an option to allow the genocide in Darfur to continue," she said vehemently in a conversation with The Jerusalem Post in Tel Aviv last week. "It's a matter of practical self-interest," she warns the West. Genocide happened "not just in Darfur. It happened in Asia; it happened in Europe; it happened in Africa. And it can happen in America." How far does she want the West to go to stop a genocide? "Sometimes military intervention is a necessity, sometimes economic sanctions are enough. The most important thing is that genocide as a crime ends." Does it matter that Darfur and Rwanda, both unstopped, took place in Africa, while Bosnia, which witnessed international intervention, saw whites dying? "There's a racial context," she agrees. "People say, 'oh, Africa, they're always killing each other.' There's more pressure [to stop it] in Europe. But people need to realize that what happens in Africa affects the rest of the world." In a more interconnected world, "what happens in Africa and Asia ultimately will have consequences for the West." Murekatete speaks quietly but firmly, with a poise and free-flowing intelligent conversation that seem older than 22. She is an orphan, her parents, uncles, aunts and six siblings killed during the 100-day massacre of Tutsis that began in April 1994. That massacre, like the one taking place in Darfur now, was an attempt - almost successful - of the majority Hutu ethnic group to eliminate the Tutsis in their midst. At the behest of the government, and especially of the government radio service, neighbors barged into the homes of their neighbors and stabbed, raped or hacked them to death. "Both my parents were farmers, and I had six siblings," she begins, telling her story for the millionth time, but somehow still with a driven urgency. "Growing up, I was very aware that I was Tutsi." Discrimination in pre-war Rwanda was ubiquitous. "Identity cards saying you were Tutsi had to be shown just to go to school, and roll call was separate for Hutus and Tutsis. This was the government's way of discriminating." The constant reminders, official and unofficial, of the distinction meant that "everybody knew who was Tutsi and who wasn't. That's why so many could be killed," she notes, adding that over 90 percent of Rwandan Tutsis were slaughtered in the 1994 carnage. "Once the government ordered the killing, neighbors could kill neighbors, because everybody grew up in this environment." From the early 1990's, Radio Rwanda had broadcast anti-Tutsi propaganda on a regular basis, calling the group "foreigners" and "cockroaches." "When the massacres began," Murekatete continues, "I was caught living with my maternal grandmother in her village." Traveling as a Tutsi was "suicidal," since Tutsis passing through government roadblocks were summarily executed, so Murekatete could not return to her parents' village. "I never heard from them again." |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #10 Zenster, what about the Khmer Rouge? And do you really think there are no Muslim homosexuals? Think again. Most western homosexuals would just go into the caliphate's "closet" to survive. A billion refusing to convert? I'm not that optimistic. I believe my church has about seven thousand "members", but it only seats about 500 and only holds four masses each weekend. And there are empty seats. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2007-07-05 21:08 |
| #9 I'll just add that the last groups to kill far beyond their own number of followers were the Nazis and Soviet communists. They now occupy history's dustbin. So should Islam and for all of the same reasons. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-07-05 20:45 |
| #8 Zenster, very useful big picture calculations. I've saved them for review when I forget the building blocks of the big picture. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-07-05 20:32 |
| #7 Note on my previous post... I meant that better to wipe out the Islamists than be slaughtered. After re-reading my post it sounded like I would let the Jews die rather than us. Anyway, good thoughts Zenster. Don't forget all the stoning and executions that would take place for infractions of the law. Along with all the mutilations. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-07-05 17:04 |
| #6 We should have divided Sudan into North/South long ago. It would ahve sent a strong message to the blacks in subsahara africa that we won't sit and let them be slaughtered and a strong message to the Arabs that we'll divide their nations if they don't act civilized. Darfur would never have happened if Sudan really feared for their territorial integrity. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2007-07-05 17:01 |
| #5 More like "self-preservation". If threatened, then better them than us. This is the corker and so very few people seem to get it. Extermination of the Jews—however horrible—is but a small facet of the genocide planned by Islam. Imagine the death tolls arising from establishment of a global caliphate:
We now have a total of 1.726 BILLION people who would die within the first year of Islam establishing its global caliphate. Millions more would die each year due to Islam’s heavy-handed shari’a law and its frequent demand for capital punishment. Women would keep dying in droves due to the unavailability of female doctors. Emerging homosexuals would be killed as with many other deviants, be they political, religious or otherwise. Do the math. Those six categories above represent a small fraction of the actual death toll that global shari'a law would find worthy of execution. Shari'a has so many offenses meriting death that my own estimates are hopelessly conservative. The global caliphate would rise upon dead bodies numbering greater than this world’s entire Muslim population. My Iranian friend Ray agrees with me that the number who would perish would be closer to HALF this world’s population but that is far more speculative than the conservative numbers I’ve posted above. So, the question remains: HOW MUCH LONGER ARE WE TO PUT UP WITH AN IDEOLOGY WHOSE ULTIMATE GOAL IS TO BRING ABOUT THE DEATH OF MORE PEOPLE THAN ITS OWN FOLLOWERS? I’ve stated before that if Muslims cannot abandon their quest for a global caliphate, then I would just as soon see all of them perish rather than the larger numbers who would ultimately die by Islam’s brutal hand. The numbers—approximate as they might be—do not lie. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-07-05 14:35 |
| #4 And how shall we stop those who are unutterably fixated upon religious extermination of the Jews? Does wiping them out to the last believer count as genocide? If threatened, then better them than us. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-07-05 11:06 |
| #3 Good question Zenster. More like "self-preservation". |
| Posted by: mcsegeek1 2007-07-05 01:36 |
| #2 Genocide happened "not just in Darfur. It happened in Asia; it happened in Europe; it happened in Africa. And it can happen in America." How far does she want the West to go to stop a genocide? "Sometimes military intervention is a necessity, sometimes economic sanctions are enough. The most important thing is that genocide as a crime ends." And how shall we stop those who are unutterably fixated upon religious extermination of the Jews? Does wiping them out to the last believer count as genocide? |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-07-05 00:16 |
| #1 I'm sorry the people in Darfur are up to their asses in alligators, but we are trying to drain the swamp with zero help at home or abroad. It sucks to be Sudanese. |
| Posted by: badanov 2007-07-05 00:11 |