Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 40
  1. #1
    Thailand Expat
    dirtydog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Pattaya Jomtien
    Posts
    58,774

    UN investigates claims of mass rape by DR Congo rebels

    UN investigates claims of mass rape by DR Congo rebels

    Thousands of women are raped each year in DR Congo, the UN says


    The United Nations is investigating claims that rebel fighters raped more than 150 women and baby boys in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

    The attacks happened over four days within miles of a UN base, a US aid worker and a Congolese doctor said.

    UN chief Ban Ki-moon is sending two top aides to the country to help investigate the alleged assaults in the country's volatile eastern region.

    Mr Ban also urged the Congolese government to investigate the attacks.

    Aid workers and UN representatives knew that rebels had occupied Luvungi town and surrounding villages in eastern DR Congo the day after the attack began on 30 July, the International Medical Corps (IMC) said on Tuesday.

    They could not get into the town until the rebels left, said the IMC's Will Cragin.

    According to reports, the rebels gang-raped nearly 200 women and some baby boys over four days before leaving.

    The region lies approximately 10 miles (16km) from a UN peacekeepers' base.

    Mr Ban is sending Atul Khare, assistant secretary-general for peacekeeping, immediately to DR Congo to help investigate, UN spokesman Martin Nesirky said.

    He also ordered his special representative for sexual violence in conflict, Margot Wallstrom, to take charge of the UN's response to the attacks.

    A UN joint human rights team confirmed allegations of the rape of at least 154 women by fighters from the Rwandan FDLR militia and Congolese Mai-Mai rebels in the village of Bunangiri, Mr Nesirky said.

    "The secretary-general is outraged by the rape and assault. This is another grave example of both the level of sexual violence and the insecurity that continue to plague Congo," he told the Associated Press.

    'World rape capital'

    The victims are receiving medical and psychological care.

    Ms Wallstrom condemned the rapes. She said: "It should be noted that this incident represents a very extreme case in terms of its scale and the level of organisation of the attacks.

    The "terrible incident" confirmed her findings during a recent visit to Congo of the "widespread and systematic nature of rape and other human rights violations."

    DR Congo has a shocking reputation for sexual violence. In April, a senior UN official said it was "the rape capital of the world".

    A report by the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative showed that 60% of rape victims in South Kivu province had been gang-raped by armed men.

    More than than half of the assaults took place in the victims' homes, the report said, and an increasing number of attacks were being carried out by civilians.

    More than 8,000 women were raped during fighting in 2009, the UN says.

    Eastern DR Congo is still plagued by army and militia violence despite the end of the country's five-year war in 2003.

    UN peacekeeping troops have been backing efforts to defeat the FDLR, whose leaders are linked to the 1994 genocide in Rwanda and who are operating in eastern DR Congo.


  2. #2
    Molecular Mixup
    blue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Last Online
    09-06-2019 @ 01:29 AM
    Location
    54°N
    Posts
    11,353
    and liberals still want african immigrants in the west ?

  3. #3
    I am in Jail
    Butterfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Last Online
    01-02-2019 @ 03:12 PM
    Posts
    39,832
    sorry to say but colonization and decolonization has fucked up those countries for good

    warcrime tribunals would be pointless for those rebels, extermination would be the only humane solution

  4. #4
    Thailand Expat
    Scottish Gary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Online
    28-05-2019 @ 08:43 PM
    Location
    Pattaya
    Posts
    1,323
    Quote Originally Posted by blue View Post
    and liberals still want african immigrants in the west ?
    The African Immigrants in the west are usually in the west because they are fleeing the rape,torture,massacres,war and grinding poverty that these rebel groups along with their financial backers inflict on the general population.
    Its a shame that some racist dickheads want to deprive these people of a safe place too live because they dont like seeing a black face in there local Tesco.
    Last edited by Scottish Gary; 26-08-2010 at 02:04 AM.

  5. #5
    Molecular Mixup
    blue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Last Online
    09-06-2019 @ 01:29 AM
    Location
    54°N
    Posts
    11,353
    Dear Gary
    ''fleeing the grinding poverty '' ?
    look only rich africans have passports ,nevermind the cost of the huge airfare to britain ..
    where are they heading ? the local tesco in the highlands of scotland ? err no , they all going to south east england,
    but let me guess, you are a big scotish nationalist man from a distance, just like that fellow dickhead of yours sean connery
    enjoy tossing the caber tonight
    you plank

  6. #6
    Thailand Expat
    Scottish Gary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Online
    28-05-2019 @ 08:43 PM
    Location
    Pattaya
    Posts
    1,323
    Quote Originally Posted by blue View Post
    Dear Gary
    ''fleeing the grinding poverty '' ?
    look only rich africans have passports ,nevermind the cost of the huge airfare to britain ..
    where are they heading ? the local tesco in the highlands of scotland ? err no , they all going to south east england,
    but let me guess, you are a big scotish nationalist man from a distance, just like that fellow dickhead of yours sean connery
    enjoy tossing the caber tonight
    you plank
    If the African immigrants coming to the UK are rich with passports then what is the problem. They will have money to spend and wont be a burden on the DHSS. In reality i think you will find that the Africans who come to the UK usually illegally because they don't have passports and visas are anything but rich.
    For the record I'm not a Scot Nat i always voted Labour. I also think Sean Connery is a dickhead and Ive never tossed a caber. They are usually tossed by huge hairy arsed Highlanders. I'm from Edinburgh a city just up the road from Newcastle and about 5 times the size of a run down seaside toilet like Scarborough.
    Last edited by Scottish Gary; 26-08-2010 at 03:02 AM.

  7. #7
    Molecular Mixup
    blue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Last Online
    09-06-2019 @ 01:29 AM
    Location
    54°N
    Posts
    11,353
    ahahahaha ok explanation accepted

  8. #8
    Member
    njdesi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Butterfly View Post
    sorry to say but colonization and decolonization has fucked up those countries for good

    warcrime tribunals would be pointless for those rebels, extermination would be the only humane solution
    Who decides who is a "rebel" and who the "freedom fighter" is? Who determines what legitimacy does the government have? Some Western diplomat / government trying to ensure the flow of raw materials out of there at cut rate prices?
    Extermination is the right solution, but the people that should be doing it are the Africans themselves. Let them fight it out and let the strongest tribe survive. Rape is nasty, but it is weapon of war. Everyone has short memories and forgets what a nasty, brutal war-like place Europe was just a few generations ago. Best to stay the hell out and let them figure it out.


  9. #9
    Thailand Expat
    Scottish Gary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Online
    28-05-2019 @ 08:43 PM
    Location
    Pattaya
    Posts
    1,323
    Quote Originally Posted by njdesi View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Butterfly View Post
    sorry to say but colonization and decolonization has fucked up those countries for good

    warcrime tribunals would be pointless for those rebels, extermination would be the only humane solution
    Who decides who is a "rebel" and who the "freedom fighter" is? Who determines what legitimacy does the government have? Some Western diplomat / government trying to ensure the flow of raw materials out of there at cut rate prices?
    Extermination is the right solution, but the people that should be doing it are the Africans themselves. Let them fight it out and let the strongest tribe survive. Rape is nasty, but it is weapon of war. Everyone has short memories and forgets what a nasty, brutal war-like place Europe was just a few generations ago. Best to stay the hell out and let them figure it out.
    I honestly cant believe you are trying to justify rape as a weapon of war. Its a disgusting heinous crime that has no place in any society. Its not a weapon of war its a crime perpetrated by psychopaths who are taking advantage of the situation they find themselves in.

  10. #10
    Thailand Expat
    keda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Last Online
    17-12-2010 @ 12:06 PM
    Posts
    9,831
    Quote Originally Posted by Butterfly View Post
    sorry to say but colonization and decolonization has fucked up those countries for good

    warcrime tribunals would be pointless for those rebels, extermination would be the only humane solution
    Sure, buttfrier, they're fcuked up because they were colonised and decolonised, not because they're a genetically fcuked up bunch anyway.

    Sort of idiocy that can be expected from you, but only on your most lucid days.

  11. #11
    Member
    njdesi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Scottish Gary View Post
    I honestly cant believe you are trying to justify rape as a weapon of war. Its a disgusting heinous crime that has no place in any society. Its not a weapon of war its a crime perpetrated by psychopaths who are taking advantage of the situation they find themselves in.
    Not justifying, just stating it that it used in that way. What is missing from this BBC report is the relevant facts, like what tribe is doing this, what tribe are they targeting, etc. This might give you a better idea of what is happening in eastern congo.

    http://exiledonline.com/nkunda-is-nkool/all/1/

    If you ever want to find a real hero, here’s one way to recognize him: the TV news will be making him into a monster 24/7. Today’s monster hero is the Tutsi general Laurent Nkunda, the leader of the “rebel” forces that are supposedly “closing in” on Goma in Eastern Congo.
    The BBC, the only news agency that even pretends to take Africa seriously, has its number-one ghoul reporter, Orla Guerin, on Nkunda’s case every day.

    You may not know Guerin’s name but if you like war news you’ll recognize her, because you’ve probably seen her reporting from some African death zone. She fits right in in those places, really comes into her own. She’s got the face of a skull, except skulls smile, and some creepy accent that makes you think of cold porridge and leftover damnation. Wherever she’s from, they must have had a party when she left.

    In this BBC video you’ll see Orla talking about what a shame it is that the “refugees” at Kibati Refugee Camp have to stampede for food, worried as they are about being overrun by Nkunda’s “rebels.” The way Orla and the other networks are telling it, everything was just fine in Eastern Congo until the bad “rebel” leader Nkunda ordered his troops to advance. When the innocent “refugees” heard Nkunda was coming, they started running, creating a “human rights crisis.”

    The print media is getting in on it too, with the Brit rag The Guardian saying that Nkunda’s troops may have actually “killed civilians,” as if that was anything unusual in Central Africa.
    The Guardian’s account barely mentions that the “civilians” killed were in a “stronghold of Hutu militias”—the same militias that killed most of the Tutsi population in Rwanda back in ‘94. It’s like if the Jews had formed an army to push back the Nazis, and when the poor Nazis fled next door, the Jews did an occasional incursion to discourage the Nazi “refugees” from returning to their genocidal ways. And that’s an atrocity. Except the Nazis, give them their due, were brave as Hell and fought to the last man; the Hutu “militias” were only good a hacking babies and raping little girls, and fled at the first rumor that the enemy was approaching. That’s why they’re still around.

    Every word, every disgusting damn word, of these BBC and Guardian stories is bullshit. actually makes me sick, listening to these stupid lies over and over. The reason Nkunda’s little army (estimates range from 5000 to 10000 men) advanced into Eastern Congo this week is that the Hutu gangs were getting a little too aggressive about jumping ethnic-Tutsi villages in eastern Congo, killing the men and kidnapping women and girls as sex slaves. Nkunda knows very well nobody else will protect the Tutsi, for the simple reason nobody ever has. So he went in to do it himself.

    Nkunda is a great man, a brilliant man, a hero, a military genius who speaks four languages and has beaten the biggest armies around with a force of less than 10,000 men. He’s the only decent leader that part of Africa’s ever seen. It’s worth looking at the way they’ve been slandering him, because you’ll see the same techniques used to slam any real hero.
    Let’s start with the oldest trick in the book, calling somebody you don’t like a “rebel.” How did the BBC decide that Nkunda is a “rebel”? Doesn’t there have to be a government, law and order, before you can rebel against it? Who is Nkunda supposed to be rebelling against? There’s no law in the forests of Eastern Congo. The UN has a pitiful token force of blue helmets wandering around slapping mosquitoes and bargaining for blow jobs with the local girls, but the real power there before Nkunda’s forces marched in was held by the leaders of the Hutu “refugees.”

    “Refugee”; now there’s another wonderful word, a good match for “rebel.” It makes the Hutu the innocent victims, shivering in fright at the approach of the bad ol’ Tutsi. Well, of course that’s another do-gooder lie. These “refugees” are gangs run by the worst people in the world: the leaders of the Interahamwe and Impuzamugambe, the Hutu “militias” who massacred 800,000 Tutsi men, women, children and babies in Rwanda in 1994.
    In fact, “militia” is way too good a name for these overgrown death squads. You’ll find the BBC and the other networks have a whole range of names for kill groups: “terrorist” if they hate you, “paramilitary” if they’re not sure but wouldn’t invite you to their kids’ birthday parties, and “militia” if they like you. Calling the Hutu genocide squads a “militia” is like calling Columbine a kids’ prank.

    The reason these Hutu are out in the jungle is simple: they massacred almost a million fellow Rwandans in less than four months, back in those happy Clinton years, and then ran when the Tutsi, who’ve always been braver than the Hutu, formed a small army, the RPF, and chased the much bigger “militias” out. The truth is that the Tutsi behaved so well through the whole thing that the world ought to be cheering them. I tell you, if I’d been in command of the RPF when it marched back into Rwanda stepping over piles of stinking corpses chopped up with machetes, I would have taken my cue from Foday Sankoh’s name for his nutcase army’s advance on Freetown up in Sierra Leone: “Operation Kill Every Living Thing.” But the Tutsi didn’t do that. They took no revenge, let the Hutu live and even tried to set up a decent government from both tribes. They’re fucking saints, and they’re supposed to be the bad guys here?

    Let me remind you again, since nobody seems to want to remember: eight hundred thousand Tutsi civilians chopped to death with machetes in less than four months. It was a real community effort by the Hutu, like one of the Amish barn raisings, only bloodier. If you want a good look at how they did it, I recommend a book called Machete Season.

    It’s very simple, totally straightforward, just interviews with a gang of Hutu farmers who spent three months making daily expeditions into the local swamp, where surviving Tutsi civilians were trying to hide. They all tell the same story: “Every morning we got up, took our machetes and looked for Tutsis to hack to death. Sometimes we gang-raped the pretty girls, because those Tutsi girls have such soft skin from all the milk they drink. But we’d kill them too when we were done. After weeks of killing the Tutsi didn’t even resist any more. They just stood there and waited for us to finish them off. We had the time of our lives.”

    If you have friends or relatives who believe people are basically good or any such nonsense, give them this book for Christmas. It’ll straighten them right out. People talk about “the banality of evil” but this is so much gnarlier than that. These guys wouldn’t even get that notion. The only people they feel sorry for are themselves, because they have to sit in prison for a while before the UN lets them go. They talk about their “misfortune” meaning the fact that they got arrested. In a way they’re right, because they’re just about the only Hutu murderers who got caught and punished at all.

    The rest fled into the forests of Eastern Congo. They’re the “refugees” that Orla Guerin feels so sorry for: the frickin’ monsters who did their best to kill the whole Tutsi population of Rwanda in ninety days, like they were on one of those timed shopping sprees.

    They didn’t change their ways in Congo, either. The Hutu militias kept their machetes (“pangas”), kept tight control of their people, and kept in practice by raiding local villages for women and girls. They’re famous for branding the women they capture like cattle, marking them as sex slaves forever. Sometimes they let them go, when they’re pregnant, so they can go back to their villages with a Hutu rapist’s baby in their belly. That must be a fun homecoming. But most of the time, when they get tired of the woman they drag her into the forest, hack her to death, and leave her there for the animals.

    You might be wondering where these fine specimens of humanity get their food and water. Well, the UN, always ready to take the wrong side in any conflict, was right there to help them with food and water as soon as they fled from Rwanda when the Tutsi RPF advanced and retook the country in a few weeks.

    It’s a funny thing, the way the UN was there so fast to help these miserable pigs, because nobody did a thing while almost a million Tutsi were being killed. It takes a while to kill that many people by hand. It’s downright aerobic. And nobody, absolutely nobody, did a thing while machete season was in progress. Oh, but the second the defeated Hutus, still dripping babies’ blood, fled across the border, the blue helmets and white trucks were there with sacks of rice and consolation.

    Until recently there was no real explanation for this. Me, I didn’t think we even needed one: that’s how it is, especially in Africa. The bad guys always win, and the virtuous BBC reporters always take their side. Well, I still think that’s generally how it is, but one piece of the puzzle has gotten a lot clearer lately. I’m sad to say that the French were knee-deep in blood themselves, all through machete season, according to an independent report that came out in August 2008. Even I was shocked by how bad it was. According to this report,
    “France was responsible for killing some of the 800,000 people slaughtered in Rwanda between April and July 1994, most of them minority Tutsis or moderate Hutus killed by Hutu militias.

    “French soldiers themselves directly were involved in assassinations of Tutsis and Hutus accused of hiding Tutsis,” the report said. “French soldiers committed many rapes, specifically of Tutsi women.”

    France’s late president, Francois Mitterrand, and former prime minister Dominique de Villepin were among a dozen French officials fingered in the report for providing support of ‘a political, military, diplomatic and logistic nature.’”

    I wish now I’d never defended the French’s military rep the way I did back when all the NeoCons were bashing them. Got a ton of abuse for that, and for what? So they could help wipe out the Tutsi, “the tall people,” one of the bravest, smartest, most soldierly tribes in the world. And all because the French liked the way the Hutu spoke French. That has got to be the most fucked-up reason for backing a genocide I’ve ever heard: “Ah, M’sieu, eez true zey killed babeez, but zey are so fluent! Zee Hutu would nev-air use zee wrong pronoun; when zey said, “We have come to Keel you, leetul child,” it was al-vays ‘tu’ and when zey said ‘Now we will keel you, old man,’ or ‘old woman,’ eet was zee respectful ‘vous’! And zeir accent, so Parisian!”

    Yeah, a little revenge for the French I had to take in high school. The pious Europeans love to talk about how Central Africa is the heart of darkness, how deep and dark and existential it all is, but they never want to mention how much they help keep it that way by always, always, always backing the most evil fuckers in the whole forest. I knew that about the Brits; they’ve done things so awful in Africa that there’s a whole publishing industry in London with the job of making sure the truth never comes out. Which is why you get stories like Orla Guerin’s or that crap in the Guardian. And the funny thing is that the “progressive” newspapers and networks over there are the biggest liars, the best genocide-enablers around.

    Well, now I see better that the French are just as bad. I kind of thought they might not be; there’s always been this joke among military buffs that the French lose wars because they actually believe in fighting by the rules. I remember reading this furious letter Queen Elizabeth sent to Henri IV—a really great man, greatest man of his time—cursing him for not wiping out the whole population of this Catholic town during the wars of religion. But nah, this current crop of French, they’re just as bad.

    Nkunda will be dead soon. You can count on it, when all the “good” people are lined up against him. And those poor, poor “refugees” will be free to kidnap Tutsi girls and rape them and hack them up with their beloved pangas, and Orla can report that peace has returned to Congo now that the “rebel” is gone.

  12. #12
    Member
    njdesi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    652
    More fun facts about Bush Wars:

    Writing up the Congo is like dying: you have to deal with it sooner or later, but you're not looking forward to it.

    I've tried to get out of talking about Congo every way I could, but the time has come. It's just too big and bloody a mess for an honest war-fan to ignore. Nobody knows exactly how many people have been slaughtered in Congo over the past few years, but the BBC estimates 2.5 million. That's a lot of zeroes, a lot of bodies -- especially for a war without battles. These people didn't die in the trenches. They died African-style: chopped to death with machetes, mowed down by squads of stoned twelve-year-olds, or just driven into the bush to die of hunger or malaria.

    There's this term for what's going on in the Congo: "Primitive Warfare." It doesn't mean simple weapons or illiterate soldiers. It means the way people fought before there were any nation states. It's not pretty. It means avoiding combat, slinking around looking for unguarded villages, and then going in and killing everybody in the place, except a few you think you can sell at the nearest slave market.

    "Ethnic cleansing" is just a soft word for primitive warfare. It's always been the way people fight. I once took a first-year course in "World Literature" at SCS -- it was required -- and I pissed off the professor good when he had us read a piece of the Iliad. It was about Achilles fighting with Agamemnon about a slave girl, and I just said, "Hey, that's just the way they fight in Africa right now!" He made me pay for that, the PC bastard. Naturally he was white, and naturally he made a big speech that had "racism" in it about a hundred times -- you know, looking around at all the "people of color" in the room to make sure nobody was going to turn him in.

    But I wasn't being racist at all, he was. And I still say if people thought about Congo when they were reading "Classics" they'd understand it better. Achilles raids a village, grabs the best-looking girl, moves on to ambush another village. In the meantime one of Achilles's friends, some other ganja-smoking kid with an AK, decides he wants the girl instead. They settle it out in the bush somewhere. Boom: that's the Iliad. But damn it, the one thing people don't want to do is connect the Classics with war, Congo style-"primitive warfare."

    First thing: borders. In primitive warfare there are no borders. You know, these spoiled "Anarchy" kids who like to draw a big "A" in a circle, they talk about "no borders" like it's a good thing. You think so? Go to Africa. Congo isn't really a country at all. It's lines on a map. The lines were drawn up by European colonizers at Berlin in 1884-5. Most of the people at the table, the men chopping up Africa, had never even been there. They didn't know or care about tribal boundaries, they were just playing politics. The Congo borders got defined by where the colonies around it ended. It wasn't worth much back then, so they let King Leopold of Belgium take it. I mean, for himself. Private property. The whole frickin' country.

    A few years after they gave Leopold the country, rubber got big. Suddenly Leopold's jungle was worth something, and he pushed his luck as far as he could -- drafted every thug he could get in Europe or Africa to go in there and break heads to make sure the rubber quota was filled. Leopold was what you call a bottom-line guy. His goons had this habit of chopping off hands when people were slow getting their rubber. Maybe that sounds familiar? You may remember a lunatic named Foday Sankoh, up in Sierra Leone, who told his "soldiers" to chop off hands and feet to keep villagers in line. Maybe you think that's just the Africans being primitive, but it was the cute li'l Belgians who showed'em how.

    Look at Central Africa with the borders erased. Hundreds of tribes, overlapping districts like Bosnia. Worse still, some of the tribes have millions of people and others amount to some schmo and his cousin and their dog. Not exactly nation-building material, even if the fucking Europeans had had the decency to leave them alone. The tribe that gave Congo its name, the baKongo, don't even live in Congo -- most of them are down south in Angola, where they were one side of the big triangular US/Soviet proxy war they had in the 70s. There are at least 280 tribes in the Congo, and the dense rain forest means most are pretty small, isolated groups.
    A lot of African countries got lucky when independence came in the 60s. Either there was one dominant tribe covering most of the country, or there'd been a century or so of "civilization" that built some sort of educated class who were ready to take over. Congo didn't have either. Leopold hadn't even bothered to teach the Congolese a thing. He just wanted the rubber -- or the hands. Most of the country was thick jungle, with the river the only way to travel.

    The biggest, strongest tribes in Central Africa were the Hutu and the Tutsi, who were based in Rwanda and Burundi. They ended up in power over various parts of Congo at the end of the century just because nobody in Congo had the organization. The Hutu and the Tutsi are real law-abiding, organized people. If you've only heard about them from the genocide news out of Rwanda, that might seem surprising. But...well, to understand this you have to be willing to tell the bitter truth. And here it is: the people who do genocide best are law-abiding, decent, stand-up folks. Strange but true. Take the Germans: wouldn't hurt a fly...unless someone in uniform told them to. Then they would fry every fly on the planet.

    The Tutsi and Hutu had been lucky -- in a way. The European colonists liked hanging out in the Hutu and Tutsis' homelands, Rwanda and Burundi -- cool mountain air, fertile volcanic soil. And they liked these two intelligent, obedient tribes. So they, um, "civilized" them. The Hutu and Tutsi turned into the most literate, Christian, tidy, hard-working people in Central Africa. Then the Europeans overseers left...and after a little while these two tribes get that old itch to wipe each other out. It was all organized. The churches helped out. Two of the big war criminals were nuns. It's like Invasion of the Body Snatchers, imagining hundreds of thousands of neat, clean Hutus with machetes running around cheerfully hacking every Tutsi or Tutsi-lover they catch. The old line, "I was just following orders," may seem pretty lame, but after you read about the Hutu killers you end up kind of believing it. They did it because they were told to.
    Rwanda and Burundi are two small, heavily-populated countries due east of Congo -- so you could guess their well-trained killers might be looking west and getting excited. Meanwhile, who was running the store in Congo? Bad news: it was a corrupt, superstitious, stupid, dying old jerk-off named Mobutu -- a guy only a CIA bagman could love. (We can really pick'em, all right!) With Mobutu in charge, Congo wasn't a country, it was a racket. You always hear reporters jabbering about what a shame it is that, "...with all its mineral riches and natural wealth," Congo is still a hellhole. Well, with leaders like Mobutu, Heaven would be a hellhole in no time. He knew how to do two things: steal, and play one tribe against another. That was all he needed to stay in power for life -- meaning until '97, when the bastard finally died.
    Under Mobutu, Congo was officially "at peace." Which meant it was small-scale stuff, murder and torture, instead of big armies. It'd be a lie to call that "Peace," but it kept Congo out of the headlines. When "war" came, it was thanks to that dynamic duo, the Tutsis and the Hutus. Congo was too fucked up to have a war by itself. To have a war, you need organization. Soldiers who obey orders. Lines of communication. The only people in the neighborhood who had what it took to make a war were...you guessed it! Those Hatfields'n'McCoys of Central Africa: the Hutus and the Tutsis!

    The bloodbath really got going in the early 90s, after a suspicious plane crash that killed the leaders of Rwanda and Burundi. The Rwandan Hutus polished up their machetes and started killing Tutsi. Maybe a million or so. Only then did the feud spill over into that big stinking power vacuum to the west: Congo.

    One thing you notice about African bush wars: when one side is pushed to the edge of extinction, it can strike back against the enemy's soldiers, who aren't as willing to die. This happened in Uganda, in the Lowery Triangle (see my Uganda column), and it happened in Rwanda. The Tutsi had nothing left to lose, and they started retaking the country. The Hutu, who'd been so brave when it was a matter of chopping kids' heads open like coconuts, weren't so brave going up against real soldiers. They lit out for the jungle -- for Congo. The Tutsis' new army pursued, and realized it had marched into the biggest power vacuum since Gerald Ford got sucked into Nixon's slipstream. There was just nobody to stop them. Mobutu had never wanted or allowed any power in Congo other than him. Now that he was dead, there was nobody at all.

    Mobutu had an old enemy, Laurent Kabila, who'd been hiding out in the bush preaching rebellion for decades, getting exactly nowhere. Kabila wasn't classic hero-rebel stuff. He was a fat man, for one thing. They always mention that in the wire stories, like getting fat is the biggest sin anybody could ever commit. Pisses me off. Us fat people have dreams too, you know. You know the saddest thing about being fat? Having some kind of heroic daydream, then suddenly seeing your reflection in a window or mirror. Suddenly you realize whoa, I'm not entitled to dream about that stuff.

    Well, to be fair, fat old Kabila wasn't very heroic by anybody's standards. Just another killer/thief with a taste for chorus girls and a history of ivory-poaching and gem-smuggling. But in the waste of Congo, Kabila was the closest thing to new blood you could find. When Mobutu saw how the Tutsi revenge strike just kept moving west toward the capital, Kinshasa, without meeting any armed opposition, he suddenly saw the light. After thirty years of preaching Maoism, Kabila started talking free enterprise. And even though he was from the Luba tribe, he became a born-again Tutsi for the duration.

    Nobody, not even Kabila, expected this ragged little army to make it all the way to Kinshasa. But they did. Kabila was so shocked he had no idea what to do next. Then it came to him, the traditional Central African formula: embezzle, lie, and murder your enemies! One of the fat man's bodyguards got sick of it and shot Kabila dead in January 2001.

    Kabila's worthless son Joseph took over for his worthless dad. The Tutsis' brief period of clear-headed soldierly discipline was over. Hell broke loose, on cue, back in the homelands of Rwanda and Burundi. Every Cub Scout Pack in Congo declared itself a Liberation Movement and declared its independence. In December 2002 the CIA dragged all the camo-wearing generals together, and all the crazy gangs in Congo signed a peace pact.

    Last time I checked, every party was accusing of everybody else of violating the agreement. Now there's a surprise: a Congo peace deal breaking down. Who could have guessed? You wonder why the Foreign Service types even bother setting these conferences up. Who's kidding who?

    Just figuring out who's who in this boneyard rumble is impossible. As near as I can tell, here are some of the factions:
    The Mai-Mai: my personal faves. Hicks with bows and arrows. They believe charms make them immune to bullets. Funny how that notion hangs on.
    MLC: run by a big Congo businessman. Imagine if Ross Perot had his own army. They're backed by Uganda and call the shots in most of northern Congo.
    RCD-Goma: this group is based, not so surprisingly, in Goma. They're Rwandan, originally, and run a big swathe of Eastern Congo.

    There it is, friends. Not a pretty picture. Remember what I said about borders? At the moment, there is no Congo. Uganda runs the North, Rwanda the East, Angola the south, and a bunch of stone-age loonies stalk around the backwoods bushwhacking anybody they think they can overpower.

    Meanwhile a few thugs in Mercedes tool around Kinshasa running over stray corpses.
    Now you know why I didn't want to talk about the place.

  13. #13
    Banned

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Online
    03-06-2014 @ 09:01 PM
    Posts
    27,545
    Quote Originally Posted by Butterfly View Post
    sorry to say but colonization and decolonization has fucked up those countries for good
    Indeed, as they learned well by copying the righteous reflective character of their highly civised Western overlords. Influence is everything, you know.

  14. #14
    Banned

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Online
    03-06-2014 @ 09:01 PM
    Posts
    27,545
    Quote Originally Posted by njdesi View Post
    Best to stay the hell out and let them figure it out.
    Hindsight is lovely some 200 to 300 years after the fact, isn't it? Predictable Eurocentric insight.

  15. #15
    Molecular Mixup
    blue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Last Online
    09-06-2019 @ 01:29 AM
    Location
    54°N
    Posts
    11,353
    they sub human animals , leave them too it ,and put up a sturdy fence to stop them coming to the west ,untill they evolve to our level

  16. #16
    Thailand Expat
    Scottish Gary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Online
    28-05-2019 @ 08:43 PM
    Location
    Pattaya
    Posts
    1,323
    Quote Originally Posted by blue View Post
    they sub human animals , leave them too it ,and put up a sturdy fence to stop them coming to the west ,untill they evolve to our level
    Would you allow the women and kids who were gang raped to seek sanctuary in the UK ?

  17. #17
    Mid
    Mid is offline
    Thailand Expat
    Mid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    1,413
    Quote Originally Posted by blue View Post
    they sub human animals , leave them too it ,and put up a sturdy fence to stop them coming to the west ,untill they evolve to our level
    not interested in evolving to your level , thank you very much .

  18. #18
    Thailand Expat
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    3,600
    ^ here's an evolved one who integrated well.
    http://teakdoor.com/world-news/78561...ne-hijack.html (Somali woman jailed for attempted plane hijack in NZ)

    New Zealand took in groups of Ethiopians and Somalis and housed them in Wellington's Newtown suburb in council flats. Well they're all African, surely they'll get on?
    Freezing, shitty climate. Gangs, knives, rapes and robberies. And fear for local residents.

    I do not believe they can integrate successfully. Ever.

  19. #19
    Thailand Expat
    koman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 09:07 PM
    Location
    Issan
    Posts
    4,234
    What to do with the Congo...or much of the rest of Africa for that matter. The UN has been issuing the same statements for as long as I can remember about how they "deplore" the abuses and how they urge "restraint"... The UN or AU can sent in more "peace keepers".... that way at least the women can be raped and the small boys buggered by guys in proper uniform and with better equipment. The rebels look awful in Wellington boots, dirty T-shirts and old battered Russian assault rifles....They don't look like the kind of guys who spend a lot of time listening to speeches from the UN.
    Many of them will be arriving at an airport near you claiming refugee status in a few years...the women will still be in Congo, awaiting the next wave of freedom fighters.
    Seems to be how things work in our brave new world.

  20. #20
    Thailand Expat
    Pol the Pot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Online
    22-02-2012 @ 03:37 PM
    Location
    Phnom Penh
    Posts
    1,643
    Two words that have come out of the Congo in the last couple of years, 're- rape' and 'auto- cannibalism', says all there's to say.

    No need to talk about Africa, it'll remain what it is.

  21. #21
    Molecular Mixup
    blue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Last Online
    09-06-2019 @ 01:29 AM
    Location
    54°N
    Posts
    11,353
    Quote Originally Posted by Scottish Gary View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by blue View Post
    they sub human animals , leave them too it ,and put up a sturdy fence to stop them coming to the west ,untill they evolve to our level
    Would you allow the women and kids who were gang raped to seek sanctuary in the UK ?
    Whats its got to do with the west ?
    so you are saying any women raped anywhere in the world should be given a British passport ? -when they gey get one one, first thing they do is go on a holiday to the Congo to show off thier new passport , and return to britain with a suitcase full of bush meat - bits of monkies etc
    SOONER we stop the Scots voting what happens in England the better
    if it wasnt for you lot ,the dumb Labour party would not have got ,and stayed in power ,to ruin Britain with mass immigration and ,DUMB wars

  22. #22
    Thailand Expat
    kmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Online
    Today @ 08:15 AM
    Location
    Rayong.
    Posts
    10,702
    Quote Originally Posted by Rural Surin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Butterfly View Post
    sorry to say but colonization and decolonization has fucked up those countries for good
    Indeed, as they learned well by copying the righteous reflective character of their highly civised Western overlords. Influence is everything, you know.
    Right. Everything is the white man's fault. We taught those lovely harmonious Africans that lying under a tree all day with an AK47 is a productive way to spend time, etc.

  23. #23
    Member
    njdesi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by blue View Post
    they sub human animals , leave them too it ,and put up a sturdy fence to stop them coming to the west ,untill they evolve to our level
    Don't think they are sub-human at all. We're lucky we live in countries where the nation state has been established. Our system of courts, democracy, and human rights are a result of having a cohesive nation state, not the other way around. If I was born there, I would have to be as ruthless to ensure my survival.

    I personally believe that the West likes the present situation. We get slave labor that mines coltan (the metal in basically every electronic device) at cut rate prices. A functioning state with bargaining power would probably add a few dollars per pound to the cost, which would hit the shareholder earnings. Throw in a few south african mercenaries, covertly fund multiple tribes, and have that fuckin leprechaun bono hug a few kids with a malaria. Keeps the place an easily controlled hell hole.

    If we really gave a shit, we would let them fight it out and have the best organized tribes win and determine who owns what. This would provide a real peace. Civil society would then naturally develop once their is basic security.

  24. #24
    I am in Jail

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Online
    22-10-2011 @ 02:56 PM
    Location
    Republic of the Union of Myanmar
    Posts
    3,081
    Quote Originally Posted by njdesi
    If we really gave a shit, we would let them fight it out and have the best organized tribes win and determine who owns what. This would provide a real peace. Civil society would then naturally develop once their is basic security. __________________
    Heard it all before re mining Columbite-Tantalite funds the civil war in the Congo.

    The problem with that argument is they've been fighting there a lot longer than we've had DVD players,computers etc.etc.

    However, I'm not sure how long your planning to hang about for the born again civilisation?

    But I'm sure of one thing those f*ckers will never evolve to any degree worth calling a civilised society! Not in the next 10,000 years will that happen.

    As the old song goes..."they swing through the trees with greatest of ease"

  25. #25
    Member
    njdesi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    652
    ^
    Watch this interview with Nkunda and then tell me that Africans are incapable of civilization.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •