Paul Kagame took power in Rwanda after an alleged “Rwandan Genocide.” This massacre of almost 1 million Rwandans now appears to have been a C.I.A.-fabricated eugenics program that also served as a false flag pretext. This pretext provided the cover to seize control of rare earth minerals in the resource-rich neighboring Congo. Those minerals are critical for the manufacturing of computers, military surveillance devices, aerospace, defense, nuclear, satellites, mobile technology and TVs by the rogue C.I.A. Deep State shadow government “Big Data” spy operation globally.
Kagame had been head of military intelligence in the Ugandan Armed Forces after being trained by the C.I.A. at the U.S. Army Command and Staff College (CGSC) in Leavenworth, Kansas.Tellingly, the official “Rwandan genocide” mainstream media and Congressional narrative MAKES NO MENTION of Kagame’s extensive C.I.A. training, much less any U.S. complicity..
Also missing from the official MSM narrative is the sworn testimony before Congress (May 2001) and in France (2002) by NSA military intelligence analyst Wayne Madsen who testified: “A French military intelligence officer said he detected some 100 armed U.S. troops in the eastern Zaire conflict zone,” Madsen’s statement began: “Moreover, the DGSE [French secret service] reported the Americans had knowledge of the extermination of Hutu refugees by Tutsis in both Rwanda and eastern Zaire and were doing nothing about it. More ominously, there was reason to believe that some U.S. forces, either Special Forces or mercenaries, may have actually participated in the extermination of Hutu refugees.” (pp. 9-10).
H. Hrg. 107-16. (May 17, 2001). Testimony of Wayne Madsen. Genocide and Covert Operations in Africa 1993-1999. Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, US 107th Congress, 1st Session. Serial No. 107-16. US House of Representatives.
The beneficiaries from the death and martyrdom of 1 million Rwandans were globalist technology companies who were securing their access to rare earth minerals needed in the manufacture of electronic devices. These minerals are plentiful in the mines of Central Africa. These natural resources should bring great wealth to the Central African economies, but do not because they are extracted under contracts with corrupt, globalist-backed New World Order dictators and strongmen. These companies are members of:
C.I.A.’s In-Q-Tel private venture capital company,
National Infrastructure Assurance/Advisory Council (NIAC),
Obama Silicon Valley outpost of the U.S. Digital Service funded with $1.5 billion in funds from Google’s Eric Schmidt … among others.
President Bill Clinton did nothing to stop this 100-day so-called “Rwandan Genocide” that brought to power The Clinton Foundation protégé, Paul Kagame—a C.I.A.-trained member of the minority (8.4%) Tutsi tribe.
The beneficiaries were global technology players in electronic capacitors essential to aerospace weaponry, mobile phones, computers, TVs, disk drives and chips manufactured by Sony, Compaq, Microsoft, Dell, Ericsson, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Nokia, Intel, Lucent, and Motorola.
The official narrative is suspect and appears to have been a C.I.A. false flag pretext. NSA analyst Wayne Madsen concurs in his book abstract for Genocide and Covert Operations in Africa, 1993-1999 (Mellen Press, 1999): “The USA was not merely an innocent bystander to the events that led to the systematic mass killing of humans. It also introduces the world of international mining and the dubious nature of the network of investors and agents of influence that support the mining industry. It considers how the unlikely confluence of African, American, Southeast Asian and even Arkansas politics had tremendous consequences for many disparate players, including the Clinton administration, the Habyarimana regime in Rwanda, Marshal Mobutu of Zaire, and the peoples of Sierra Leone, Congo, and Angola.”
Hutus were 91.6% of the population. On Apr. 06, 1994, moderate Hutu President Juvénal Habyarimana’s plane was shot down by two French-supplied Russian SAM-16 Gimlet missiles (captured in Iraq in Feb. 1991, Le Figaro) along with fellow Hutu passenger and Burundi President Cyprien Ntaryamira. Habyarimana’s assassination is said to have ignited Hutu-Tutsi ethnic tensions in the region and a genocidal rampage against minority Tutsi. The facts support an opposite story.
On Apr. 07, 1994, the next day, a well-funded and well-armed C.I.A. agent and Tutsi named Paul Kagame, who commanded the Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF) replete with Ugandan mercenaries, said he would resume the civil
" >war if the alleged Tutsi killings did not stop. The next day, he pressed the attack. According to the official narrative, some one million Tutsis were allegedly killed by genocide-incited Hutus angered by Habyarimana’s plane crash—in less than three months! This narrative breaks down when one does the math . . . and also realizes that two million Hutus simultaneously fled to Zaire.
U.N. / U.S. / C.I.A. genocide narrative hides globalist rare earth mineral mining & depopulation agendas
According to the officially-accepted U.S., U.N. and RPF (Kagame, Tutsi) narrative, 1,074,017 Tutsis were killed. However, the total population of Rwanda was 7,099,844. Tutsis comprised 8.4% or 596,387. Therefore, the RPF / U.N. / U.S. / Tutsi claim is twice the total number of Tutsis available to kill! A former RPF officer, Abdul Ruzibiza, testified that the RPF counted Hutu corpses as Tutsi corpses!
Extensive testimony in the Beatrice Munyenyezi trial provides clear evidence that an elite 100-man U.S. force directed Kagame’s RPF forces with the aim of depopulation and plunder of rare earth mining resources in neighboring Congo. Extensive satellite imagery proves that the U.S. Department of Defense, NRO (National Reconnaissance Office), DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) and C.I.A. were fully aware of the slaughter of Hutus and did nothing to stop it. Further, the evidence shows that Kagame killed as many of his fellow Tutsis as he did Hutus, then blamed all the Tutsi deaths on the Hutus.
Why would two million Hutus flee into Zaire if they were about to annihilate Kagame’s Tutsi minority as claimed? In the process, Kagame used the RPF and the genocide pretext to kill some 25-45,000 Hutus in Rwanda. Then, he pursued the two million ***Hutu*** refugees into Zaire where he killed 200,000 more, and in the process overthrew the government of Zaire.
By Jul. 04, 1994—in just three months—Kagami/Clinton completed the Tutsi takeover and the consolidation of globalist power over Central Africa’s rare earth minerals and diamonds, sometimes referred to a “blood minerals” and “blood diamonds.”
Belgian-born Maurice Tempelsman has a long and bloody history in Africa. When Congo’s first Premier, Patrice Lumumba, pledged to return diamond wealth back to the newly independent Congo in the early 60’s, Tempelsman, who began with De Beers in the 1950’s, helped engineer the coup d’etat that consolidated the dictatorship of 29 year-old Colonel Mobutu (Zaire/Congo), and the coup against Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah; diamonds were at stake in each.
Tempelsman has a long and dubious history with the C.I.A. In the 1960s Tempelsman hired as his business agent the CIA station chief in Kinshasa (Zaire/Congo), Larry Devlin, who helped put Mobutu in power and afterward served as his personal adviser. From March 3, 1977, Tempelsman briefly held the title of honorary consul general for the Congo/Mobutu in New York City. With such unfettered access to the Congo’s rich mining resources in diamonds and rare earth minerals needed in high technology manufacturing, Tempelsman is clearly a go-to financier for the globalist New World Order plans.
Tempelsman is a Democratic party deep pocket, a regular supporter of the campaigns of John Kerry (D); Ed Royce (R); Tom Daschle (D); Barack Obama (D); Maxine Waters (D); John Rockefeller (D); Richard Gephardt (D); Howard Wolpe (D); Patrick (D) and Edward Kennedy (D); and the 1988 win of George H.W. Bush (R). Tempelsman also exploited ties with Anthony Lake, Clinton’s National Security adviser, who intervened at the U.S. Export-Import Bank on Tempelsman’s behalf.
According to blood diamond expert Janine Roberts, “Declassified memos and cables between former U.S. presidents and State Department officials over the last four decades directly linked Tempelsman to the destabilization of Zaire/Congo, Sierra Leone, Angola, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Rwanda and Ghana.”
President George H. W. Bush served as an advisor to Tempelsman’s company, Barrick Gold Corporation. Barrick directors include: Brian Mulroney, former PM of Canada; Edward Neys, former U.S. ambassador to Canada and chairman of the private PR firm Burston-Marsteller; former U.S. Senator Howard Baker; J. Trevor Eyton, a member of the Canadian Senate; and Vernon Jordan, one of Bill Clinton’s lawyers. Barrick Gold’s mining partners have included Adastra Mining-formerly named America Mineral Fields (AMFI, AMX, other names), formerly based in, of all places, Hope, Arkansas, Bill Clinton’s hometown.
A major beneficiary of this Central African mining exploitation is Sony Corporation. Sony’s executive vice president and general counsel, Nicole Seligman, worked for Williams & Connolly LLP.
Williams & Connolly LLP is the same law firm that has been representing Hillary Clinton’s stonewalling of the IRS and Benghazi House Oversight Hearings. They incorporated The Clinton Foundation on Apr. 13, 1999. They were also chosen by rogue C.I.A. Deep State shadow government lawyer James P. Chandler to represent the government in the first prosecution of the Federal Trade Secrets Act in 1999. Williams & Connolly’s evident collusion begs the question “When is a law firm engaging in sedition and crimes against humanity?”
There is so much evidence of this collusion around mining. Bill Clinton formally established The Clinton Foundation (Clinton-Hunter Development Initiative (DHDI) promising $100 million over 10 years in Rwanda in Sep. 2005—the same month that he traveled to Kazakhstan with Canadian mining executive Frank Giustra and acquired exclusive uranium mining rights for Giustra’s UrAsia Energy Ltd.
The Rwandan Genocide was one of the most horrific events of the last century. Approximately one million people were systematically tortured, raped, and murdered, and thousands more were displaced. The ethnic tensions in Rwanda had been brewing for decades before the terrible events of the early 1990s. Part I of this paper discusses the history of the Rwandan divide between the Hutu and the Tutsi peoples. Part II details the violence of the Rwandan Civil War and examines the events that ultimately led to the genocide of 1994. Part III covers the tragedies of the genocide with a primary focus placed on crimes committed by the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) during the conflict. Part IV analyzes the aftermath of the genocide, particularly the UN investigations leading to the creation of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). The paper concludes with an examination of the unfortunate and blatant victor’s justice that has occurred at the ICTR, and even at the gacaca courts, and its impact on the legitimacy of these forms of justice.
Despite the accords, the world could sense that “something catastrophic was about to happen in Rwanda.” The fragile peace that had barely existed in Rwanda was shattered completely in April 1994. On April 6, Rwandan President Habyarimana and Burundi President Cyprien Ntaryamira were flying back to Rwanda when their plane was shot out of the sky during its descent. Everyone on board was killed. The Hutus used the assassination “as an excuse for starting the killing.” The killing was supremely well planned, and Hutu forces carried out their plans in an almost robotic fashion. Cohen states that there were primarily “three types of killings” taking place: Hutus killing Tutsis and moderate Hutus; Hutus targeting moderate politicians; and killings from both sides that were occurring “in the context of the civil war,” which had essentially resumed when the Hutu attack began. The end result was a horrific state-sponsored genocide that left between 800,000 and one million dead. In a 2002 report, the Norwegian Helsinki Committee declared:
The genocide was planned and organized by the government party, the army (the Rwandan Armed Forces – FAR) and the militia Interhamwe, together with mayors and leaders of sectors and cells. The purpose was to exterminate the Tutsis and opponents of the government among the Hutus. But the genocide regime also received help from several church leaders, intellectuals and the media, while at the same time the international community acted passively and did too little to stop the madness.
The situation in Rwanda worsened by the minute. No help was coming from overseas. The United Nations essentially stood by idly. Paul Rusesabagina described it bluntly by saying:
The UN was not just useless during the genocide. It was worse than useless. It would have been better off for us if they did not exist at all, because it allowed the world to think that something was being done, that some parental figure was minding the store. It created a fatal illusion of safety.
Hutu civilians were ordered to kill their neighbors or risk being killed. Anti-Tutsi propaganda was fed to the masses through radio station RTLM. For years, the Hutus had been exposed to persistent condemnation of Tutsis and the RPF. The resulting “anti-Tutsi psychosis” exploded across Rwanda in the days after President Habyarimana’s assassination. The Hutus went house-to-house searching for Tutsis to kill on sight. There was essentially no escape for the vast majority.
Slaughter by the Tutsi RPF During the Genocide
While the systematic slaughter of Tutsi men, women, and children is well known and has been highlighted, documented, examined, and condemned through the media and post-genocide prosecutions, the response of the RPF during the genocide has garnered far less attention, particularly from those with the authority to prosecute. When the genocide began, RPF commanders saw the chaos and disarray as their best chance to take control of Kigali. They struggled for many years to regain some form of control in Rwanda, and finally had their opportunity with the advent of the genocide. It might not be difficult to feel sympathetic toward the RPF and Tutsi people, especially after close examination of the extensive Hutu planning that went into making the genocide a reality. Nevertheless, being the victim of a planned targeted genocide does not give that victim the right to retaliate with war crimes of his or her own. While examining the conditions for refugees in Rwanda, Robert Gersony of the U.S. Agency for International Development discovered evidence of systematic massacres perpetrated by the RPF that continued through his October 11, 1994 presentation to the UN Commission of Experts on Rwanda. Katherine Iliopoulos provided details of the RPF reprisals based on a draft UN report leaked to the media:
The common understanding of RPF aggression was that it was directed at those responsible for the genocide committed against the Tutsis; however, the UN report states that the majority of the incidents reported indicate that the Hutus were targeted as such, illustrated by the numerous targeted attacks against non-refugee Congolese Hutus. The report identifies the systematic use of barriers by the RPF, particularly in South Kivu, which “enabled them to identify people of Hutu origin by their name or village of origin and thus to eliminate them.” This tendency to target all Hutus as such is, according to the report, also supported by evidence of declarations made during RPF “awareness-raising speeches” in certain places, “according to which any Hutu still present in Zaire must necessarily be a perpetrator of genocide, since the ‘real’ refugees had already returned to Rwanda.” These speeches were considered to have possibly constituted incitement for the population to look for, kill or help kill Rwandan Hutu refugees, whom they called “pigs.” 
The RPF was also known to have committed mass murders in the communes of Byumba and Buyoga. According to Paul Rusesabagina, “the RPF reportedly killed 20,000 innocent civilians” in the area shortly after the Hutu attacks began. In another example of retaliatory genocide, the RPF arrived at Kiziguro parish, where Hutu militia had just murdered 1000 Tutsis. The RPF response was to kill 10,000 Hutus taking shelter at the parish. In perhaps an even more appalling display of evil, the RPF concocted a cold-blooded murder scheme targeting youths at Kabuye. A squad of RPF executioners recruited team after team of youths into the RPF army. Once a team was recruited, its members were executed. The following team “would be recruited and told that the previous team had already been promoted and assigned to combat duty on the battlefield.” In one month’s time, over 3000 youths were murdered. This barbaric murder plot was yet another example of the severity of RPF war crimes during the period.
On June 5, 1994, “3 bishops, along with 9 priests, 1 friar and 3 girls were gunned down by the RPF on direct orders from their superior.” In the aftermath of those targeted killings, the RPF went door to door in the surrounding neighborhood and killed anyone who witnessed the attack on the clergy. Their aim was to “decapitate” the Catholic Church in Rwanda. Later that month, businessman Josias Mwongereza and his entire family were murdered. The forty-eight members of his family were part of a larger group of people who were separated into Tutsi and Hutu groups, at which point every Hutu was killed. The RPF gained control of the Rwandan capital in early July and the entire country by July 17, 1994. All told, it is believed they were responsible for 25,000 to 45,000 Hutu deaths in response to the genocide, with some reports as high as 60,000 civilians.
IV. Attempts at Justice After the Genocide
Post-genocide Rwanda was, expectedly, a country in shambles. The nation was in economic and political disarray. Rwanda’s infrastructure and social structure were virtually non-existent. Many public officials and politicians had been killed. In addition to the exorbitant death toll, nearly two million Hutus fled Rwanda after the RPF gained control, further complicating efforts to find people to work and help rebuild the country. Shortly before Rwanda transitioned to a new national coalition government, which included both Hutus and Tutsis, the UN Security Council finally entrusted an “expert commission” to investigate whether or not genocide had occurred in Rwanda. The investigation showed undeniable evidence that a systematic genocide had taken place, and the commission called for the establishment of an international tribunal.
The Security Council established the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) on November 8, 1994. Its purpose was “to try the primary perpetrators of the crimes committed in Rwanda in 1994.” It was thought that the ICTR would bring peace and stability to the region by publicly addressing the crimes committed and prosecuting those most responsible. David P. Forsythe rationalized the creation of a new tribunal:
Even if the UN assisted Rwanda to create a functioning court system, states would be unlikely to have enough trust in the new government to extradite refugee leaders of the former regime. Nor could victorious RPF commanders be trusted to hold their soldiers accountable in national tribunals for retaliatory killing.
The new Tutsi-dominated government in Kigali requested the creation of a tribunal, and then, curiously, was the only member of the Council to vote against the ICTR’s creation. The Rwandan government was fearful of prosecution for RPF crimes, and also “objected to the UN locating the tribunal outside its borders [and] giving it primacy over national courts.” Nonetheless, the ICTR was established with the goal of prosecuting and punishing those guilty of violating international law, “instead of trading peace for impunity.”
While the tribunal claimed to fight against impunity, an examination of their prosecutions reveals this to be far from true. Indeed, they have been successful in prosecuting many of the primary Hutu perpetrators responsible for the genocide. However, where the ICTR has failed has been in the prosecution of RPF crimes. This is not entirely the fault of the ICTR. For obvious reasons, the regime in Rwanda has made things difficult for the tribunal. Forsythe states:
Rwanda successfully frustrated efforts to investigate and prosecute allegations of either Tutsi reprisal killings in 1994 or RPF responsibility for the April 1994 assassination of Prime Minister Habyarimana. Although ICTR investigators obtained evidence to support both allegations, prosecutors never completed indictments against any Tutsi.
For all the positive accomplishments attributed to the ICTR, a black cloud is hanging overhead. The tribunal is in grave danger of being permanently seen as a victor’s court. To date, there has not been a single prosecution of the RPF at the ICTR. In fact, the only known prosecution of RPF soldiers for war crimes is explained by Lars Waldorf, in his article, A Mere Pretense of Justice: Complementarity, Sham Trials, and Victors Justice at the Rwanda Tribunal. He writes:
In 2008, [the prosecutor] had agreed to let Rwanda conduct its own domestic trial of a case previously investigated by his office on the understanding that he would reassert jurisdiction if the trial was not fair or effective. Rwanda then put four RPF soldiers on trial for the notorious massacre of the Rwandan archbishop, three bishops, and nine other clergy at Gakurazo in June 1994. This was the first—and only—domestic prosecution of RPF soldiers for 1994 war crimes. The trial opened with guilty pleas from two low-ranking soldiers and ended with the acquittals of their commanding officers. The prosecutor expressed satisfaction with the trial and closed his own investigation.
Human Rights Watch referred to this trial as “political whitewash,” noting that the trial lasted only a few days and had virtually no international attention. Perhaps even more revealing, the ICTR’s Office of the Prosecutor “sent an observer for one day of trial, closing arguments, and the verdict.” While the prosecutor seemed satisfied with this result and Rwanda used these cases in order to claim justice had been done, two guilty pleas and two acquittals does not achieve justice for the severity of that specific crime, let alone approximately 45,000 other victims of war crimes and genocide. The essence of the actions taken by the RPF during the genocide was really no different than that of the Hutu. RPF crimes were well orchestrated and methodical. Alison Des Forges explains:
These killings were widespread, systematic and involved large numbers of participants and victims. They were too many and too much alike to have been unconnected crimes executed by individual soldiers or low-ranking officers. Given the disciplined nature of the RPF forces and the extent of communication up and down the hierarchy, commanders of this army must have known of and at least tolerated these practices.
RPF soldiers tried in military courts were not charged with any war crimes or crimes against humanity, “even in an infamous case involving the massacre of thirty civilians.” President Kagame still asserts that the few rogue soldiers who committed crimes in 1994 have been discovered and sufficiently tried and punished. He stated:
While some rogue RPF elements committed crimes against civilians during the civil war after 1990, and during the anti- genocidal campaign, individuals were punished severely … To try to construct a case of moral equivalency between genocide crimes and isolated crimes committed by rogue RPF members is morally bankrupt and an insult to all Rwandans, especially survivors of the genocide. Objective history illustrates the degeneracy of this emerging revisionism.
Waldorf, however, informs us that credible reports indicated Kagame had prior knowledge of the RPF war crimes and allowed them to happen. Kenneth Roth, executive director at Human Rights Watch, warned of the effect the ICTR’s inaction would have on its legacy. He stated, “The tribunal’s failure to address the RPF crimes risks leaving the impression that it is delivering only victor’s justice.” It would be hard to argue against him, as detailed data on RPF massacres has not been utilized to bring justice for those killed. Even ICTR Prosecutor Jallow has admitted to having evidence of RPF atrocities committed, and yet he continued to show reluctance in prosecuting their crimes. Perhaps he was afraid of the Rwandan government interfering with the ICTR and receiving a similar fate as his predecessor, Carla Del Ponte, who was forcibly removed from her position as Chief UN Prosecutor after pursuing RPF prosecutions. This is indeed the position taken by Victor Peskin who believes Jallow has been pacifying the Rwandan government in order “to avoid becoming the target of Kigali’s wrath and to avert the political crisis that might arise if he tried to prosecute the RPF.”
Due to the overwhelming number of cases and its reputation as a restorative justice, Rwanda turned to a traditional form of communal law known as gacaca in an effort to address the many trials that could not be tried at the ICTR and in national courts. Unfortunately, even within gacaca evidence of victor’s justice remained. According to Waldorf, “gacaca has become increasingly retributive in both design and practice.” It will indeed be difficult to make progress “if the suspects feel as if they are being tried as Hutus by Tutsis,” validating the description of victor’s justice. And since the Rwandan government has forbidden the court to hold RPF soldiers accountable for war crimes committed against Hutu civilians, “gacaca is likely to impose collective guilt on most Hutu.”
V. Concluding Thoughts: Will Victor’s Justice Set the Stage for Future Violence?
Perhaps the most significant and worrisome consequence of the victor’s justice prevalent in Rwanda is not the failure of justice, but instead, the possibility of a reoccurrence due to inaction against all sides. Impunity is dangerous because it breeds an attitude of invincibility, which inevitably leads to more violence. Punishment, condemnation, and humiliation of one party but not of another that is guilty of the same crimes can quickly lead to resentment and the growth of hostility between both sides once again. In Rwanda, “the RPF leaves itself open to the possibility that political opponents will inflate the size and nature of RPF abuses” by not addressing the accusations of Tutsi impunity. The ICTR also risks damaging its legacy. With a tainted legacy, its positive work can easily be overshadowed by discussion over what the tribunal failed to address. As Human Rights Watch observed:
It was unfortunate that the Rwanda tribunal’s prosecutor did not charge those accused from all sides in the conflict, as the Yugoslav tribunal and the Sierra Leone Special Court did in the conflicts they addressed. The Rwanda tribunal’s prosecutor failed to bring charges against members of the Rwandan Patriotic Front, which became the Rwandan Army, who had been implicated in war crimes. This failure jeopardizes the tribunal’s long-term legacy.
It is unfortunate that the ICTR and Prosecutor Jallow, in particular, actively and purposely resisted the prosecution of RPF war crimes. The tribunal’s mandate required cooperation from the Rwandan government and empowered the tribunal to take up all cases that qualified. The fact that this has not occurred undeniably stains the legacy of both the ICTR and President Kagame. The crimes committed by the RPF pale in comparison to the large-scale genocide carried out by the Hutus. Nevertheless, this fact is not sufficient justification for a refusal to prosecute them. In order for true peace and reconciliation, all sides must acknowledge their mistakes and be held accountable for them. This is the only way to end the resentment and quell feelings of anger and thoughts of revenge. The ICTR should be commended for its vehement prosecution of Hutu perpetrators of the 1994 genocide. Despite this success, by ignoring the war crimes of the RPF, the tribunal has set a dangerous precedent. As Richard Dicker of Human Rights Watch said, “The tribunal has not prosecuted even one of the serious Rwandan Patriotic Front crimes from 1994. This glaring omission means delivering one-sided justice and risks tarnishing the important work that the court has done to date.” Ultimately, the ICTR has failed at achieving what should have been its true goal, impartial justice.