"tom" <the.gnu.linux.guy@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:%5i3e.23681$w63.1370125@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Yeah commenting on a post I made about Croatia.
you're a moron and a liar. unfortunately for you, posts are kept so anyone
can go back and see what you actually said.
here it is. notice the topic of discussion is Rwanda not Croatia.
"Fabrikant" <benny_patrick7@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:f855b5d5.0503250608.44be623@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Remember general Dallaire, who was in charge of UN forces in Rwanda in
> 1994, when about a million people were massacred? He knew in advance
> about it. He allegedly informed UN Secretary General and did not get
> any sup****t, so he stood by, while thousands of innocent civilians
> were massacred around him. He claimed that he did not have enough
> people to intervene and stop the murders.
Most of my friends who served there are still ****ed up. And now they have
to read this puke.
The Canadian soldiers and Dallaire weren't acting "cowardly", they were
been
fired @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
day and night and weren't allowed to fight back.
>
> He was a top military officer, who was sent to Rwanda to protect
> civilians there. Here is the question: was it his duty to intervene
> and even die defending civilians there and was it a good excuse not to
> intervene, because he did not have enough forces and because his boss
> in UN ordered him not intervene? First, the order not to intervene
> was illegal and immoral and Dallaire's duty was to disobey this order.
> Second, his job as a military commander is to defend innocent
> civilians, and if he had to die doing it, this is what he and his
> soldiers were obliged to do.
His duty was to follow Elected government of Canada's orders, even if they
were "wrong". An imoral order would be if Dallaire had been ordered to
take
part in the massacre. He wasn't. His hands were tied in regards to what
action he could take. Thankfully he didn't go nuts and murder his fellow
soldiers because he didn't like the orders from Ottawa
|
