Quote:
Originally posted by safar
1.) But why not a museum about the genocide of native Americans or a museum about slavery in the capital of United States? It takes moral courage to look into the face of truth!
2.) In order to avoid the obligation to intervene in Rwanda, the Western powers led by President Clinton put pressure on the United Nations Security Council not to characterize the mass murder of Tootsies as genocide.
|
Ah, another first-rate racist ranting. Whenever confronted with toxic, racist slurrings that involve digging up old graves of native American Indians, one should ask themselves this question: Of this supposed genocide, where and when exactly did the genocide occur?
Was it the Battle of Little Bighorn? But, wasn't that a battle? A battle means people fought a war with death occurring on both sides of said battle. Recently it seems that many neo-nazi-liberals have taken quite sweeping liberties defining the act of being victorious in past wars as an act of unconscionable genocide.
What really defines the depth of racism in the aforementioned statement is the assumption that native American Indians were one peoples. It's like forcing the Ainu to accept the Cherokee as one-in-the-same for the sake of stupefying intellectual laziness of the typical liberal, leftist, loser (a.k.a. the dreaded, frothing LLL).
In general, LLL's tend to accept intellectually inept banter as flag-waving articles of faith, when, in fact, it's regurgitated vile heresy of the first order.
Most sadly for this particular racist LLL, Herr Singh, the fact is there are many native American museums in America. Notwithstanding the more obvious truth that native Americans still live in America and have pledged their own lives in its defense by fighting alongside other Americans in America's military.
In confronting Herr Singh's second opaque lie, #2, one must ask themselves who was in charge of peace keeping in Rwanda at the time of the slaughter. And who was it that ordered those peace keeping troops to retreat? The answer, of course, is Kofi Annon, the former head of the U.N.'s Rwanda operation.
Casting Kofi Annon's lack of brilliance aside, in reality - reality being what those of us outside the herd of LLL's are forced to deal with - it's hardly logical for the U.N. to blame the Rwandan genocide totally on the U.N. itself. What could the U.N. have done to prevent a state sponsored genocide? It's not like the U.N. has the necessary military means to engage in a full-on war.
In other words the U.N. probably shouldn't have retreated, but, in fact, U.N. peace keepers were killed in the fighting before they retreated, but no world body nor any single country has the type of African-based fast-action military force that would've been necessary to stop the combustion of violence that occurred in Rwanda.
G.B. Singh is but another mush-headed, hysterical, quacking liar who flings intermittent oafish historical references to flatter his ego and flower his false propaganda.
One should be skeptical of such.
