Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,457,078
You know I never thought about it but given America was founded by the less submissive parts of the British population, naturally you'd just be left with a more submissive population in Britain proper which explains why they've gone down this path. All that were left were cucks
tteh !MemesToDNA replied with this 3 weeks ago, 3 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,457,611
@1,457,111 (G)
I've never really understood why people bring up the Rwandan genocide as an example of the world's total inaction. The UN was already present (UNAMIR) and had ~2,000 personnel, tragically reduced to 270 but then expanded to 5,500 by the UNSC in May 1994. Before the increase, those 270 troops saved thousands of Rwandans sheltering at Amahoro Stadium and other humanitarian zones they'd set up.
The UN's initial reduction (to 270) and the Belgian withdrawal (they left after the massacre of a number of their peacekeepers) were incredibly untimely. At one point twelve UN soldiers protected 10,000 Tutsi civilians sheltering at Amahoro Stadium; imagine what the original ~2,000 could've done once the genocide began. The rules of engagement made the peacekeeping force far less useful than it could have been, too.
But realistically, it was only ~40 days into the genocide by the time the UNSC had reacted by expanding UNAMIR. The UNSC then authorised the French-Senagalese invasion (Operation Turquoise) on 7 April, 76 days into the genocide. They began deploying a day later, so 77 days into the genocide. By day ~100, the RPF captured the capital and the genocide was over. Compare this with any other genocide post-Holocaust (including ongoing genocides) and I think Rwanda is the weakest argument.
(Not that it helps the defence of the international response much, but: Tanzania took 250,000 refugees in the first 24 hours, one of the fastest refugee movements in history. Tanzania took 500,000 in total. Zaire took 1.25 million Rwandans by the end of 1994. Uganda and Burundi took in thousands too.)
People tried, institutions acted, civilians were saved, and an international intervention occurred. The response was nowhere near proportionate to what was happening (political unwillingness, restrictive mandates, withdrawals, enormous delays), but I constantly see this oversimplified narrative that "everyone knew a genocide was happening, shrugged, and literally nobody did anything at all lmao so much for 'never again' lol" and I think it's daft and ahistorical. The Cambodian genocide, the Guatemalan genocide, the Anfal genocide, and the 1971 Bangladesh genocide committed by Pakistani forces (look up the Blood Telegram) are far better exemplars of Never Again™ meaning very little.