Kade, I'm glad you brought up the "G-word." My question is, WHY do we sugarcoat the subject? Douglas Jehl published on June 10, 1994, Washington, June 9, Trying to avoid the rise of moral pressure to stop the mass killing in Rwanda, the Clinton Administration has instructed its spokesmen not to describe the deaths there as genocide, even though some senior officials believe that is exactly what they represent.
(CAM, please insert this image while I'm talking.)
http://kaganof.com/kagablog/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/rwanda-genocide300.jpg
WEBSITE: kaganof.com
So, because they don't want us to protest, be unpatriotic, or wait, lastly, stop the mass killing, the truth is being sugarcoated? This seems like an ongoing trend that the government will never breakfree of.
David Rawson, the United States Ambassador to Rwanda, said in an interview, "As a responsible Government, you don't just go around hollering 'genocide,'" "You say that acts of genocide may have occurred and they need to be investigated." Cries of Hypocrisy
(DAVID RAWSON IMAGE)
http://www.maadichurch.org/images/rawson.jpg
WEBSITE: maadichurch.org
I couldn't agree more with Ambassador Rawson. This lets the nation be a bit more knowledgable to what's really going on, the truth, with a bit of compassion. The fact that he adds, "they need to be investigated," lets us know the military isn't just out there killing one another, but who, what, and why it occured.
No comments:
Post a Comment