Rwandan dictator Kagame's sterilisation plan

Post Reply New Topic

Who has heard of Paul Kagame's plan to sterilise 700,000 men. This would amount to about half of the male population between 20 and 50. The plan was to carry this out between 2011 and 2013. The US government is financing this plan. The poor will be particularly targeted. In 2009 Kagame's regime proposed sterilising those with mental problems also. It's very obvious that the sterilisation plan will not target those Tutsis who went to Uganda like Kagame did. In fact, I doubt that very many Tutsis at all will be sterilised.

this is also mentioned in an inteview with Paul Rusesabagina most famous as the hero of "Hotel Rwanda. Here he describes the list of horrors done by Kagame; the murder of 300,000 Hutu refugees in the Congo, the deaths of millions more in the Congo... as well as the sterilisation plan.

Do you have some reputable sources for this? This thread is the top hit on google for "Paul Kagame sterilisation"...

This also caught my eye. Actually, I think it's the 1st, 2nd and 3rd hit on Google.

For context, I just *happened* to stumble upon this post from xenon13 in an earlier thread:


A bold statement considering the FUBAR/SNAFU involved in finding a culprit ever since the attack.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassinat ... onsibility

And the latest developments (a French report, nonetheless):
http://www.startribune.com/137025753.html

And Paul Rusesabagina doesn't become an ultimate authority of facts in Rwanda just because he has been portrayed by Don Cheadle in a Hollywood production. The posted link to his interview contained no evidence for his claims of a sterilisation program.

I'm not going to host a rally for Paul Kagame, but xenon13 does seem to have a serious beef with him, and him alone.

... Ah, the context... can't have that.

Pardon me, I don't spell sterilisation with a "z"...

Google results show a lot...


So, Sarkozy decided that he wanted to suck up to Kagame to show his devotion to certain international powers... so what? Kagame killed Habyarimana.

It's interesting how how so many of Kagame's associates end up in hiding because of attempts to kill them, and some have been assassinated, after having to flee Rwanda. Then you have the likes of Rusesabagina also forced to flee the country even though he was cast in a hero role in pro-Kagame material. Of course in the end Rusesabagina will always be suspect as he is of the wrong tribe.

After carefully reviewing that part of your post... I come to the conclusion that you forgot to provide proof.

Oh, and after a renewed Google search (it would be a lot easier if the OP bothered to post the sources, BTW), it becomes obvious that the sterilisation program does indeed exists, but that it exists to combat the massive overpopulation of Rwanda (serious business, as overpopulation is considered by many as the primary cause of the 1994 genocide).

And last time I checked, Kagame didn't create that problem.

It's well known that Sarkozy came in as an anti-dote to the likes of Dominique de Villepain, who annoyed the Americans at the UN over the Iraq issue, and also to Jacques Chirac. This was someone who was going to be 100% pro neoconservative, meaning fanatically pro-Israeli and pro-whatever the US empire and its British sidekick wants to do. France was attacked in the US and Britain for its opposition to Kagame, France was accused of in fact complicity in Hutu atrocities and so every time France would point out one of Kagame's crimes the Anglo-Americans would go on about how it aided and abetted genocide and so France cannot be trusted at all on this issue. France published a report pre-Sarkozy blaming Kagame for the assassinations of two Hutu presidents in one shot, and this of course is in opposition to the Anglo-American narrative. One thing Sarkozy wanted to do is show his complete agreement with the Anglo-Americans so this involved taking Kagame's side on this issue and this would include suggesting that Kagame was right about this.

As for overpopulation... it's very convenient for Kagame to destroy his tribal enemies through sterilisation... he already slaughtered hundreds of thousands of them. If that's OK then why don't we praise the Interahamwe?

I am well aware of the previous developments before the 2012 report which concluded that Kagame did not carry out the attack against the Rwanda and Burundi presidents. That was the whole point of the link I posted.

You, however, just fired off a very incoherent rant with no actual evidence. If you are in possession of previously unknown facts about the the Habyarimana assassination, then please post it.

Oh, and you have a tendency to attribute the actions of entire countries to single individuals ("Kagame's" flag, Sarkozy, etc.). However, it is naive to assume that the policies of entire countries can be reduced to the machinations of a single individual. Not even Hitler, Stalin or Mao ruled supreme.


I must have missed that memo. I thought you already did that.

Postscript: If you want to have a serious discussion about whether or not sterilisation is a proper/humane/effective initiative to prevent overpopulation in Rwanda, or whether it is truly voluntary in a country with an abysmal track record for human rights, then that would make sense. But it seems that you are more interested in ethnic partisanship than actual solutions to the problems currently facing Rwanda (or Burundi, for that matter).

It's even more galling when most of the people of a country didn't vote for the person he's attacking, yet he uses them to describe and represent the entire country.

(By which I mean that most people didn't vote for Major, Blair or Cameron.)

So you do not know that Chirac's France was at odds with the US on many things? Remember Freedom Fries? Sarkozy very openly and clearly said that he would not irritate the Americans, that in fact he was with them 100%. That he would do a u-turn on France's Rwanda policy to appease the Anglo-Americans was very much expected. A significant ideological shift was represented by Sarkozy's taking over, one acknowledged by all serious foreign policy circles, a victory for George W. Bush against his French critics such as Dominique de Villepain. As for the assassinations of two Hutu presidents in one shot, why would the Hutu side do this? Habyarimana was their leader. Kagame managed to take power as a result of this act.

What with the new claim that the missile was fired from an army camp (though a missile that this army never had and based on info fed to them by the Kagame regime, thus based on this and his own prejudices it's clear that Sarkozy wanted a doctored report) we still have the fact that one of Kagame's own people said that Kagame had confessed to the crime...Kagame henchman says that Kagame confesssed to the assassinations...

Oh, and after Sarkozy's report came out yet another one of Kagame's people let the cat out of the bag... No wonder Kagame is trying to kill all of his own henchmen who have fled his regime.. Now Gen. Faustin Kayumba Nyamwasa, Rwanda’s former chief of military staff claims Gen. Kagame had ordered the downing of the presidential plane. He first made the claim on June 21 at the start of a trial in South Africa of gunmen who are accused of trying to kill him

Ok, now you are just shooting yourself in the foot. You actually did have something insightful to say earlier about the historical background of the Hutu-Tutsi conflict, but when Freedom Fries becomes a part of the discussion about the political situation of Rwanda... well....

And the assassination of the presidents of Rwanda and Burundi actually makes more sense if it was carried out by internal Hutu fractions.

This would explain how it was even possible to swiftly carry out such a massive genocide against the Tutsi and moderate Hutu populations of Rwanda (the logistical challenge of killing 800,000 people in a few months is not negligible). If it was all part of a pre-planned plot, then it is a lot more feasible than a spontaneous gut reaction in the face of a single attack from the Rwandan Patriotic Front.

But as I have mentioned earlier, it is a FUBAR/SNAFU endeavour to conclusively identify the culprits of the Habyarimana assassination. And the latest evidence suggests that Paul Kagame was not involved in it.

Sorry. My reading skills must have deteriorated. Proof?

Oh, and you are still doing the "one person = entire country" thing...

The Freedom Fries mention had to do with the fact that the Jacques Chirac administration was very much at odds with George W. Bush's administration, that it represented a nationalist Gaullism that is very much at odds with the Anglo-American order, and that Sarkozy took power not as a traditional Gaullist but as a pro-American neoconservative. His victory was George W. Bush's victory. The Anglo-American powers have decreed that Kagame is good, and Kagame is great, and those horrible French nationalists who don't understand the superiority of the Anglo-Saxon ways and order were backing those ghastly Hutu 'genocidaires' and participated in the genocide and now are smearing the saintly Paul Kagame by claiming that he knocked off two Hutu presidents in one shot. So in comes Sarkozy who says "We love you Anglo-American Big Brother", and sure enough promotes the Kagame is a saint line from the Elysee.

As for claiming that Sarkozy was France, well, he seemed to believe it for one, and two, both Sarkozy and his foreign minister Kouchner, a very prominent pro-Kagame figure, were quite open about what they wanted and for this particular so-called investigation they allowed Kagame to present the evidence in Rwanda. The results were pre-ordained according to his own desires.

Now you're just being silly. And it is sounding more and more like a big conspiracy theory (the "Anglo-American" order?) rather than an account of actual events.

Oh, and once again. Do you have any actual *proof* that Kagame was involved in the Habyarimana assassination?

A little more background on the latest French report from 2012:

http://world.time.com/2012/01/11/french ... -genocide/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... sfeed=true
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/11/world ... index.html

Two of his former minions say he did it and there's that report that also says he did it. That's a lot of evidence. Moreover, killing two Hutu presidents in one shot is not something a Hutu would do. Really... one Hutu president was murdered just six months earlier.

As for the other stuff, I'm not being silly. Charles De Gaulle was actually the target of US assassination attempts because of his foreign policy. The British have accepeted US hegemony for a long time. Sarkozy was essentially a French president who accepted US hegemony and its narrative. That he is half Hungarian, half Greek Jew, explains that quite well; he was never really French at all, he was half "New European", half Jewish who unfortunately have cast their lot with American hegemony as their service to Israel is quite absolute.

Which - if you followed the links provided - was the 2006 Bruguière report which has been rejected on the grounds that it was prepared solely on the basis of a few witness accounts (one was even retracted subsequently), and that it did not actually involve any investigations in Rwanda.

By comparison, the 2012 report included investigations of the clues from the crash site, analysis by ballistics experts and interviews with more than 600 witnesses.


Hey hey hey. Slow down .

One crazy conspiracy at a time, please. I got lost in your rant between the US assassination attempt against De Gaulle and the anti-Semitic punchline.