Finally: BBC speaks the truth

[BekaNurdin]

Kuanzia leo sina tatizo tena la kujibu nyie watu, jibu langu litakuwa moja tu na lenyewe ni hiii link ya documentary ya BBC:

https://www.jamiiforums.com/international-forum/736913-finally-bbc-speaks-the-truth.html

BBC wamenirahisishia kazi kwani vitu vyote ambavyo nilikuwa nasema hapa na nyinyi mnapinga kwa kuniitwa interahamwe ndio hivyo hivyo wamesema BBC, this proves kwamba either i wasn't lying, or ME AND BBC are INTERAHAMWE, you take a pick!
Humo kuna idadi ya tutsis waliokufa genocide, ushahidi wa kagame kutungua ndege, mauaji ya kimbari dhidi ya wahutu, political assasinations, Kuzuiwa kwa UN forces by kagame (tena kufukuzwa actually!) na yote ambayo nilishayasema na nyinyi mkabisha. Sasa kila siku you will have to call BBC interahamwe, besides kwa vile kila mtu anaweza kutazama mwenyewe na kuamua, mi nadhani tusipoteze mapovu bure hapa JF.

cc: Talkandtalk murutongore.

BBC ni interahamwe, jenosidere, extremist kama jmali - kwi kwi kwi kwi kwi kwi kwi ........

 

[BekaNurdin]

Yenyewe hii video ina utata kweli, yaani inawezekana kweli Kagame ndiye kalipua ndege na kusababisha hayo maafa yote. Jamaa namuona siku zote kama shupavu na mwenye upendo na kuwaunganisha Warwanda. Sasa hii sijui kama ni propaganda za Wazungu ama vipi. Haya mambo ya Rwanda siyajadili tena, nageuza na kurudi kwenye masuala ya nchi yangu Kenya. Tuna matatizo yetu mengi ya kuhangaika nayo. Nawaacha Warwanda wajijue, waamue kutengeneza nchi yao ama waichome tena.

Kimsingi Kagame uhalifu aliofanya alikuwa- supported na UK, US, Canada & Israel. Wazungu wanaanza kumgeuka, mwishowe atabaki peke yake na kusimama The Hague kupewa haki yake anayositahili!

 

[jMali]

Yenyewe hii video ina utata kweli, yaani inawezekana kweli Kagame ndiye kalipua ndege na kusababisha hayo maafa yote. Jamaa namuona siku zote kama shupavu na mwenye upendo na kuwaunganisha Warwanda. Sasa hii sijui kama ni propaganda za Wazungu ama vipi. Haya mambo ya Rwanda siyajadili tena, nageuza na kurudi kwenye masuala ya nchi yangu Kenya. Tuna matatizo yetu mengi ya kuhangaika nayo. Nawaacha Warwanda wajijue, waamue kutengeneza nchi yao ama waichome tena.

Be honest, taarifa za rwanda wewe kama mkenya unazipata wapi kama sio vyombo vya habari kama BBC? Ulikuwepo Rwanda in 1994? BBC ni independent, sio kama habari za serikali ya Rwanda. Hizi hazina utata wowote kwa mtu ambaye
yuko makini. Ukitaka kujua kaulize hizo sources zako kama THEY CAN POINT ANY LIE, ANY FACTUAL ERROR toka kweye hiyo documentary. Wakishindwa, then jihoji who is telling the truth kati yao na BBC?

 

[jMali]

GACACA lilikuwa jukwaa la maridhiano zaidi kuliko mahakama. Ebu soma maelezo haya hapa.

However, there was no time to waste as the new Tutsi-led rulers were keen on showing the survivors – and the international community – that justice was being done in arresting and putting on trial those who were involved.



During these trials(GACACA), defendants are given shorter sentences in exchange for confessing and are encouraged to seek forgiveness from the victim’s family. The survivors are also able to finally discover how their loved ones were killed and where their remains had been disposed of.



But these trials provoked anger among many genocide survivors who thought the Gacaca courts would let many killers off the hook by allowing them to enter plea bargains.

SOURCE:Rwanda’s Gacaca courts: a mixed legacy -- New Internationalist

Maridhiano gani hayo ambayo msingi wake ni kuwa wahutu ndio wakosaji pekee? na maridhiano ya Rwanda yanatakiwa kufanywa kupitia mazungumzo sio kupeleka watu mahakama za ajabu ajabu.

 

[TUJITEGEMEE]

Maridhiano gani hayo ambayo msingi wake ni kuwa wahutu ndio wakosaji pekee? na maridhiano ya Rwanda yanatakiwa kufanywa kupitia mazungumzo sio kupeleka watu mahakama za ajabu ajabu.

Mpaka hapa utakuwa umekubali kuwa kwa kiasi fulani Kagame alikuwa na nia ya dhati ya kuharakisha maridhiano nchini mwake. Kwa maelezo yako ya awali juu ya GACACA yamekosa ushahidi usiotiliwa shaka kuwa GACACA ilikuwa kwa ajili ya kuwamaliza baadhi ya waafrika wa Rwanda na kuwaacha wengine.

Sasa waweza kuendelea na mkakati wako juu ya serikali ya waafrika wa Rwanda....lakini ukijichanganya tena sisi waafrika (sina hakika kama na wewe ni mwaafrika mwenzetu) tutakurudisha kwenye mstari.

 

[majorbuyoya]

Toka lini mzungu akaitakia mema afrrika?

.....hiyo video haiongelei Africa inaongelea Rwanda. We vipi mbona una-generalize vitu!

 

[nzalendo]

.....hiyo video haiongelei africa inaongelea rwanda. We vipi mbona una-generalize vitu!

wafukunyuku wa mambo ya rwanda si wa rwanda,vita inayopiganwa misitu ya congo nani anafadhili buti,chakula ,silaha,mahema,radio comm,etc ni nani? Na kwa faida ya nani? Ili iweje?
My ndugu nimeona kwa macho midege inayotua misitu ya congo na mambo yanayoendelea .
Kagame anafahamu hili ndo mana anakuwa mkali at any cost kwa faida ya vizazi vijavyo.
(wakipanua wigo hata tz hatuko salama wanaanza kuja wataingilia either chadema au ccm)

 

[nzalendo]

.....hiyo video haiongelei africa inaongelea rwanda. We vipi mbona una-generalize vitu!

hii ni sehemu ya afrika,

 

[jMali]

Mpaka hapa utakuwa umekubali kuwa kwa kiasi fulani Kagame alikuwa na nia ya dhati ya kuharakisha maridhiano nchini mwake. Kwa maelezo yako ya awali juu ya GACACA yamekosa ushahidi usiotiliwa shaka kuwa GACACA ilikuwa kwa ajili ya kuwamaliza baadhi ya waafrika wa Rwanda na kuwaacha wengine.

Sasa waweza kuendelea na mkakati wako juu ya serikali ya waafrika wa Rwanda....lakini ukijichanganya tena sisi waafrika (sina hakika kama na wewe ni mwaafrika mwenzetu) tutakurudisha kwenye mstari.

1. Maridhiano yalishafikiwa Arusha. Mkataba wa kugawana madaraka ulishasainiwa na RPF/kagame na serikali hiyo hiyo ambayo anadai eti ilipanga kuwamaliza watutsi. Kagame alipoingia madarakani akavunja mkataba. Sasa hapo kuna maridhiano gani? Wanyarwanda hawajakubali uhalali wa Kagame ku-dictate maridhiano yaweje wakati yeye alikuwa ni upande wa RPF! Nani anawakilisha serikali ya Habyarimana?
2. Nimewahi kusingiziwa Uhutu lakini hii ya kuambiwa sio mwafrika kwangu mpya...kama "huna uhakika mimi ni mwafrika" unadhani mimi ni nani? mchina? mzungu? ....

 

[Bongolander]

Kimsingi Kagame uhalifu aliofanya alikuwa- supported na UK, US, Canada & Israel. Wazungu wanaanza kumgeuka, mwishowe atabaki peke yake na kusimama The Hague kupewa haki yake anayositahili!

Mkuu sidhani kama uhalifu wa Kagame ulikuwa supported na UK, US, Canada au Israel. Sidhani kama kuna ushahidi huo, nadhani uhalifu wa USna UK unafanana na uhalifu tuliofanya watanzania na jumuiya ya kimataifa kwa ujumla wakati interhamwe wanaua wenzao. Kutochukua hatua. Nadhani tunafanya hata sasa maana nasikia miili ya watu imeanza kuokotwa kwenye mto mmoja Burundi.

Lakini nadhani wadau wenzetu hasa kutoka Rwanda wanaweza kuwa na la kuchangia. Maoni ya jamaa waliokuwa na Kagame nadhani si ya kupuuza hata kidogo, tena yametolewa kupitia BBC. Ingekuwa ni media ya kijinga nadhani ningepuuza, lakini BBC si media blog au sio extremeist media outlet.

Ila Koba kwangu kwa sasa hana maana tena, kwanza nina wasiwasi huenda hata yeye mwenyewe alikimbilia US kuhofia maisha yake. Murutongore if need be, huna haja ya kujibu au kuchangia post hii, naweza kuelewa kabisa. Siasa zilizomo kwenye issue hii na hatari yake.

 

[TUJITEGEMEE]

1. ....... Mkataba wa kugawana madaraka ulishasainiwa na RPF/kagame na serikali hiyo hiyo ambayo anadai eti ilipanga kuwamaliza watutsi....... Kagame alipoingia madarakani akavunja mkataba..... Sasa hapo kuna maridhiano gani? Wanyarwanda hawajakubali uhalali wa Kagame ku-dictate maridhiano yaweje wakati yeye alikuwa ni upande wa RPF! Nani anawakilisha serikali ya Habyarimana.....?

2. Nimewahi kusingiziwa Uhutu lakini hii ya kuambiwa sio mwafrika kwangu mpya...kama "huna uhakika mimi ni mwafrika" unadhani mimi ni nani? mchina? mzungu? ....

1. Ni kweli maridhiano yalifikiwa Arusha. Na yalitakiwa kueshimika na pande zote mbili serikali ya wakti huo na RPF....Lakini kabla ya kuanza kutekeleza maridhiano hayo, inatokea kadhia inayoondoa uhai wa mtu/watu muhimu katika makubaliano hayo, Rais wa Rwanda (Mungu amurehemu) na kufuatiwa na mauaji ya kutisha yanayosemekena kufanywa kwa kiasi kikubwa na baadhi ya viongozi na askari wa serikali ya wakati huo, na kikundi cha RPF kilichokuwa kikipigana kuiteka Kigali kwa madai ya kukomesha mauaji. Mpaka RPF wanafika Kigali viongozi wa serikali ambao walitakiwa kutekeleza kwa pamoja na RPF, makubaliano ya Arusha walikuwa ama wamekimbia nchi au kuuwawa wakati wa harakati za RPF kuikamata Kagali. Sasa katika mazingira haya RPF/Kagame angetekelezaje makubaliano hayo bila kuwepo upande wa pili?

Kagame kwa kutambua umuhimu wa upande wa pili katika kuwaunganisha tena waafrika wa Rwanda akaona ni vyema kuwa na mfumo wa kimaridhinao ambao ulikuwa na lengo kama lile la makubalino ya Arusha. Mfumo huo ndiyo GACACA. Na ni katika GACACA ambapo upande wapili ulikuwa umepewa nafasi ya kurudi mezani kutekeleza maridhiano (rejea post na.44 ya uzi huu na soma nukuu ). Upande wa pili haukukubali...wakaenda mafichoni huko misitu ya Kongo(FDLR) wakaanza kuleta chokochoko za kuhatarisha usalama wa waafrika wenzao walioko Rwanda.....kilichoendela unakijua. Narudia tena katika mazingira haya utamlaumu vipi Kagame kushidwa kutekeleza maridhiano ya Arusha?

2. Nashukuru sana kwa kukutambua kuwa na wewe pia ni mwafrika mwezetu. Ni wie radhi kwa kutokutambua mapema kuwa na wewe ni mwafrika mwenzangu. Na sababu ni moja tu ya kutokukutambua nikuwa nilipoangalia JF ID yako nikaona wewe siyo Verified user hivyo imeniwia vigumu kutumia mbinu za kukutambua kuwa wewe ni Mwaafrika.

Uwenda ukawaza kuwa nilifanya makusudi kuwa sijakutambua kuwa wewe ni mwafrika kwani unaweza kuandika lugha ya kiswahili vyema! kwamba hiyo inatosha kukutambua. Siku hizi kiswahili kinazungumzwa na kuandikwa kwa ufasaha na wachina, wazungu, nakadhlika nakadhaliaki.

Kwa leo naishia hapa.

 

[TUJITEGEMEE]

......

Lakini nadhani wadau wenzetu hasa kutoka Rwanda wanaweza kuwa na la kuchangia. Maoni ya jamaa waliokuwa na Kagame nadhani si ya kupuuza hata kidogo, tena yametolewa kupitia BBC. Ingekuwa ni media ya kijinga nadhani ningepuuza, lakini BBC si media blog au sio extremeist media outlet.

......

Nashukuru mimi hujanipiga ban kuchangia post hii...

Mimi sikubalini na wewe kuwa BBC ni chombo cha kuaminika asiliamia mia moja kwa kila tahariri, habari ama makala yoyote inayoandaa. Kuonyesha udhaifu wa BBC katika hili rejea uchaguzi wa juzi huko Scotland. BBC waliegemea upande mmoja...wamefanya hivyo Iraq wamefanya hivyo Libya wamefanya hivyo Syria na wanendelea huko Ukraine; ushahidi upo.
mfano suala la scotland


https://www.jamiiforums.com/interna...ill-go-to-the-wire-bbc-biased-to-no-vote.html

 

[kadoda11]

Yenyewe hii video ina utata kweli, yaani inawezekana kweli Kagame ndiye kalipua ndege na kusababisha hayo maafa yote. Jamaa namuona siku zote kama shupavu na mwenye upendo na kuwaunganisha Warwanda. Sasa hii sijui kama ni propaganda za Wazungu ama vipi. Haya mambo ya Rwanda siyajadili tena, nageuza na kurudi kwenye masuala ya nchi yangu Kenya. Tuna matatizo yetu mengi ya kuhangaika nayo. Nawaacha Warwanda wajijue, waamue kutengeneza nchi yao ama waichome tena.

wewe nilisha wai kukuonya uachane na issues za wanyarwanda ukanipuuza.matokeo yake wakakuhisi ni mtutsi uliyekimblia kenya na kujifanya mkikuyu.angalau sasa umeanza kujielewa.haya rudi kenya forum ujibu hoja zetu.

 

[Mudawote]

Aisee inasikitisha sana

 

[jMali]

1. Ni kweli maridhiano yalifikiwa Arusha. Na yalitakiwa kueshimika na pande zote mbili serikali ya wakti huo na RPF....Lakini kabla ya kuanza kutekeleza maridhiano hayo, inatokea kadhia inayoondoa uhai wa mtu/watu muhimu katika makubaliano hayo, Rais wa Rwanda (Mungu amurehemu) na kufuatiwa na mauaji ya kutisha yanayosemekena kufanywa kwa kiasi kikubwa na baadhi ya viongozi na askari wa serikali ya wakati huo, na kikundi cha RPF kilichokuwa kikipigana kuiteka Kigali kwa madai ya kukomesha mauaji. Mpaka RPF wanafika Kigali viongozi wa serikali ambao walitakiwa kutekeleza kwa pamoja na RPF, makubaliano ya Arusha walikuwa ama wamekimbia nchi au kuuwawa wakati wa harakati za RPF kuikamata Kagali. Sasa katika mazingira haya RPF/Kagame angetekelezaje makubaliano hayo bila kuwepo upande wa pili?

Kagame kwa kutambua umuhimu wa upande wa pili katika kuwaunganisha tena waafrika wa Rwanda akaona ni vyema kuwa na mfumo wa kimaridhinao ambao ulikuwa na lengo kama lile la makubalino ya Arusha. Mfumo huo ndiyo GACACA. Na ni katika GACACA ambapo upande wapili ulikuwa umepewa nafasi ya kurudi mezani kutekeleza maridhiano (rejea post na.44 ya uzi huu na soma nukuu ). Upande wa pili haukukubali...wakaenda mafichoni huko misitu ya Kongo(FDLR) wakaanza kuleta chokochoko za kuhatarisha usalama wa waafrika wenzao walioko Rwanda.....kilichoendela unakijua. Narudia tena katika mazingira haya utamlaumu vipi Kagame kushidwa kutekeleza maridhiano ya Arusha?

2. Nashukuru sana kwa kukutambua kuwa na wewe pia ni mwafrika mwezetu. Ni wie radhi kwa kutokutambua mapema kuwa na wewe ni mwafrika mwenzangu. Na sababu ni moja tu ya kutokukutambua nikuwa nilipoangalia JF ID yako nikaona wewe siyo Verified user hivyo imeniwia vigumu kutumia mbinu za kukutambua kuwa wewe ni Mwaafrika.

Uwenda ukawaza kuwa nilifanya makusudi kuwa sijakutambua kuwa wewe ni mwafrika kwani unaweza kuandika lugha ya kiswahili vyema! kwamba hiyo inatosha kukutambua. Siku hizi kiswahili kinazungumzwa na kuandikwa kwa ufasaha na wachina, wazungu, nakadhlika nakadhaliaki.

Kwa leo naishia hapa.

1. Nashukuru kuwa umekubali kuna ombwe la serikali ya Habyarimana kutokana na serikali hiyo kupinduliwa na kagame. Katika hali hiyo tunakubaliana kuwa Kagame hakuwa na uhalali wa kukamata madaraka and therefore jukumu la kujifanya analeta maridhiano wakati upande mmoja wa maridhiano ni yeye mwenyewe, na upande wa pili uko msituni DRC.
Serikali ilishakubali maridhiano via Arusha accord, na hata sasa FDLR ambao baadhi yao ni "serikali ya habyarimana" wako tayari kwa mazungumzo.
Tatizo hapa ni kuwa mazungumzo yoyote yale kagame hayuko tayari, kwa sababu mwisho wa mazungumzo atapoteza madaraka.

2. Inaonekana historia yako ya FDLR imeathiriwa na propaganda za kagame. Usichanganye serikali ya Habyarimana na FDLR. FDLR ni kitu tofauti na serikali ya Habyarimana ingawa baadhi ya waliokuwa wanajeshi wa Habyarimana wamo ndani ya FDLR. FDLR is a different entity iliyoundwa mwaka 2000, kutokana na mashambulizi ya kagame ndani ya DRC ambayo documetary imeonyesha, mashambulizi ambayo hata UN inayaita genocide kwenye report zake ambazo ziko suppressed kutokana na shinikizo la kisiasa. FDLR ni defense force, na kwa maneno yao wenyewe walishasema hawawezi kuvamia Rwanda kwa sababu hiyo itahatarisha usalama wa wahutu majority ambao wanaishi chini ya udikteta wa Kagame. Silaha ambazo wanazo ni kwa ajilii ya kujilinda na mashambulizi ya kagame huko huko waliko.
mashambulizi yote yanayodaiwa na kagame kuwa yanatoka FDLR ni matukio ya kutunga, FDLR wamekataa na independent sources pia zimebaini kuwa kagame ni muongo. Just like the recent UN report on DRC ilivyothibitisha kuwa kagame alikuwa analipua mabomu Rwanda akisingizia yametoka Monusco ili apate kisingizio cha kupeleka majeshi yake DRC. Na indeed alifanya hivyo!
However, while FDLR does not represent serikali ya habyarimana per se, it is the closest representation of the Hutu majority ndani ya Rwanda.
Kilichotakiwa kufanyika ni kwa kagame kutochukua madaraka, kuacha international community ihukumu wahusika wa genocide ndani ya serikali halafu Arusha accord iendelee.

3. Hapo kwenye uafrika wangu naomba nikuulize nini kilifanya udhani kwa maneno yako kuwa mimi sio mwafrika? Kuna mahala popote pale kwenye data ninazotoa kuhusu mjadala huu ambazo labda zimekosewa sana kiasi cha kuleta shaka uafrika wangu? what was your basis of your assumption?

 

[Bongolander]

Nashukuru mimi hujanipiga ban kuchangia post hii...

Mimi sikubalini na wewe kuwa BBC ni chombo cha kuaminika asiliamia mia moja kwa kila tahariri, habari ama makala yoyote inayoandaa. Kuonyesha udhaifu wa BBC katika hili rejea uchaguzi wa juzi huko Scotland. BBC waliegemea upande mmoja...wamefanya hivyo Iraq wamefanya hivyo Libya wamefanya hivyo Syria na wanendelea huko Ukraine; ushahidi upo.
mfano suala la scotland


https://www.jamiiforums.com/interna...ill-go-to-the-wire-bbc-biased-to-no-vote.html

Mkuu nakaubalina na wewe kuwa BBC haiko sahihi kwa asilimia 100. Umetoa mifano mingi mizuri, lakini kama ulivyosema hawako sahihi kwa asilimia 100. Lakini uzuri ni kuwa hawapiki habari, na hasa ukisikiliza waliohojiwa uondoe line of argument ya BBC unaweza kuona hiyo chin ya asilimia 100 ina mantiki fulani ambayo si ya kupuuza.

By the way sizui mtu, lakini si vizuri kuwaweka wenzetu kwenye mazingira magumu na kutonesha madonda yao kwa kuwafanya wachangie kwenye mabandiko kama haya.

 

[jMali]

Nashukuru mimi hujanipiga ban kuchangia post hii...

Mimi sikubalini na wewe kuwa BBC ni chombo cha kuaminika asiliamia mia moja kwa kila tahariri, habari ama makala yoyote inayoandaa. Kuonyesha udhaifu wa BBC katika hili rejea uchaguzi wa juzi huko Scotland. BBC waliegemea upande mmoja...wamefanya hivyo Iraq wamefanya hivyo Libya wamefanya hivyo Syria na wanendelea huko Ukraine; ushahidi upo.
mfano suala la scotland


https://www.jamiiforums.com/interna...ill-go-to-the-wire-bbc-biased-to-no-vote.html

Katika hili BBC wanaaminika 100% hakuna chochote ambacho kinapingika. To make it worse upande unaotuhumiwa wote wamekataa japo kutoa maoni yao. Lakini kagame huyo huyo akiandaliwa mahojiano na BBC hiyo hiyo kupitia PR companies anakwenda kwa moyo mmoja. Kagame huyo huyo akitoa press release anatumia BBC hiyo hiyo. Sasa kwa nini BBC hiyo hiyo ikifanya independent documentary kagame akatae.

 

[Talkandtalk]

https://www.jamiiforums.com/interna...a-the-untold-story-questions-for-the-bbc.html

 

[TUJITEGEMEE]

.....

By the way sizui mtu, lakini si vizuri kuwaweka wenzetu kwenye mazingira magumu na kutonesha madonda yao kwa kuwafanya wachangie kwenye mabandiko kama haya....

Ni sahihi kabisa "...si vizuri kuwaweka wenzetu kwenye mazingira magumu na kutonesha madonda yao kwa kuwafanya wachangie kwenye mabandiko kama haya..." lakini inapotokea mtu anapost vitu ambavyo kwa namna moja ni vyakutiliwa mashaka, a vinalega kuumiza upande mmoja hapo inabidi kuingilia kati.

Ni kweli post zenye mlengo wa kuamsha hasira na chuki ni za kuepukwa.

 

[Talkandtalk]

Katika hili BBC wanaaminika 100% hakuna chochote ambacho kinapingika. To make it worse upande unaotuhumiwa wote wamekataa japo kutoa maoni yao. Lakini kagame huyo huyo akiandaliwa mahojiano na BBC hiyo hiyo kupitia PR companies anakwenda kwa moyo mmoja. Kagame huyo huyo akitoa press release anatumia BBC hiyo hiyo. Sasa kwa nini BBC hiyo hiyo ikifanya independent documentary kagame akatae.

[h=2]Rwanda: The Untold Story": questions for the BBC[/h]ANDREW WALLIS 6 October 2014

A deeply flawed BBC documentary on Rwanda's genocide raises serious questions over the corporation's ethics and standards.

"There is no reasonable basis for anyone to dispute that, during 1994, there was a campaign of mass killing intended to destroy, in whole or at least in very large part, Rwanda’s Tutsi population… That campaign was, to a terrible degree, successful; although exact numbers may never be known, the great majority of Tutsis were murdered, and many others were raped or otherwise harmed." [International Criminal Court for Rwanda, 16 June 2006]

It is not often a documentary comes along that totally reattributes the historical reality of a genocide in a mere one hour. Indeed the BBC programme Rwanda: the Untold Story, broadcast at prime-time on 1 October 2014, managed this in a record ten-minute section of its airtime. Twenty years of scholarly research by academics such as Gérard Prunier, Linda Melvern, Mahmood Mamdani,Howard Adelman, Jean-François Dupaquier, Jean-Pierre Chrétien and Allan Thompson (to name just a few) was pushed aside.

Thousands of witness interviews for the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), archived documents and judgements were made equally redundant. So were many official reports by the United Nations Security Council in 1994 and 1999; the African Union; and human-rights groups - especially the landmark work by Alison des Forges at Human Rights Watch and Rakiya Omarat African Rights.

Instead, the BBC entrusted the exposure of the "true" story of the genocide to two American academics, Allan Stam and Christian Davenport, who had travelled to Rwanda in 1998 and found everyone they spoke to telling the same story about the genocide. This, they decided, was not because people were recounting what had actually happened but because they had been brainwashed or frightened into a massive cover-up.

Standing in front of a scientific-looking multi-coloured "results" map of Rwanda, they flashed up impressively scientific-looking statistics of troop movements across Rwanda in 1994 to prove their point. In essence, they alleged that instead of 800,000 Tutsi deaths there were only around 200,000. Even more incredibly, they proposed at least 800,000 Hutus had been killed at the hands of the Rwandese Patriotic Front (RPF), as they pushed the genocidal Rwandan army and Hutu militias from the country. The accepted death-toll figures by researchers such as Gérard Prunier, Alison des Forges and Marijke Verpooten’s forensic examination in 2005 are simply dismissed. As indeed are all legal judgments from the ICTR where hundreds of investigators, scholars and acute legal minds have worked for two decades.

Edward Herman and David Peterson were to use the "results" in their book The Politics of Genocide, published in 2010. It was swiftly discredited by scholars who ridiculed both the methodology of the research and its suspected underlying motivation. For example, Gerry Caplan, author of the African Union report Rwanda: the preventable genocide, criticised Herman and Peterson as being part of an ideologically driven core of genocide-deniers, genocide-revisers and opponents of the current Rwandan government. The main aim of this small group, Caplan argued, was to shift the blame for the tragedy to theirbête noir Paul Kagame, the current Rwandan leader, who has become for them (and some western media) a figure of intense, almost pathological, dislike. The BBC film certainly reflects this view.

The constant thread throughout the hour-long film was the desire to denigrate Kagame, through a cast-list of eight long-time enemies of the Rwandan leader. There was no balancing view, no attempt to analyse in depth or understand the history that brought Rwanda to the events of 1994. Instead viewers were treated to crushing tabloid accusations, pithy soundbites from the selected group of carefully chosen interviewees, sly insinuations and slo-mo shots of the Rwandan leader looking suitably diabolical. There was no new "untold" evidence to back up claims. Here was a chance for the highly complex, emotionally-charged Rwandan story to be considered on prime-time television. Instead it was reduced to a good vs evil parody that left anyone with knowledge of the country and its history, who surely included many genocide survivors in Europe, with a feeling of frank disbelief and anger.

What's untold

The event many see as the trigger for the genocide is the shooting down of the plane of President Juvenal Habyarimana on 6 April 1994. The film's cursory "explanation" for what happened was based on the claim by a single RPF defector, now in France, that he heard Kagame order the destruction of the plane. The programme also cited the report by French judge Jean-Louis Bruguière, published in 2006. This report has long since been derided for relying on half a dozen Rwandan defectors, many of whom swiftly went public to say that their statements had been corrupted to meet Bruguière's requirements, and that they had been promised French visas should they comply with his wishes. Wikileaks subsequently showed Bruguière’s none-too-subtle political agenda. The judge is currently under investigation for perjury, withholding evidence and obstruction of justice in other cases he handled.
Unsurprisingly, there is no mention of the more recent independent and meticulous report in 2012 by the investigating judge Marc Trévidic that showedclearly the missiles were fired from an area controlled by extremist Hutu units of the presidential guard; nor of research in 2008 by the UK’s Cranfield University that came to the same conclusion. Instead another academic is extensively cited: the Belgian professor and vociferous opponent of Kagame, Filip Reyntjens. Again, no mention of the fact that he was a long-term advisor to Habyarimana and has not been in Rwanda for twenty years. All this is a mockery of supposed investigative journalism.

The two main beneficiaries of the film are high-profile RPF defectors: Theogene Rudasingwa and General Kayumba Nyamwasa. Their views are unchallenged and taken, in effect, as gospel. No attempt is made to explore their own backgrounds and current political ambitions. Nyamwasa was head of Rwanda's army after the genocide, and was accused both of trying to build a separate power-base within the military and of involvement in a series of corruption scams and illegal land-grabs while in office. Rudasingwa was said to be implicated in a lucrative financial scam while employed in the office of the president. Rwanda’s zero tolerance of corruption, as witnessed byTransparency International, makes it unsurprising that both fled the country rather than face the charges against them. The two men, along with two other defectors (Patrick Karegeya and Gerald Gahima), founded an opposition party in exile, the Rwanda National Congress [RNC], in 2010 aimed at unseatingKagame.

Nyamwasa’s RNC is alleged to be allied to the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda [FDLR] in the borderlands of eastern DRC and Rwanda. The FDLR is made up of many genocidaire who fled to the region after the RPF pushed them from Rwanda, and has become synonymous with terrorising the local population over the past fifteen years, including the mass rape and murder of tens of thousands of innocent civilians. Its leader Sylvestre Mudacumura iswanted at the ICC for gross human-rights violations. FDLR atrocities inside Rwanda in recent years have left scores dead and injured from grenade attacks, with the RNC implicated in assisting funding and supply of arms to the group. Both Nyamwasa and Rudasingwa were sentenced in their absence by Rwandan courts - in Nyamwasa’s case not to life imprisonment (as the film affirms) but to twenty-four years for corruption, misuse of office, and threatening state security. Rudasingwa was given the same sentence in absentia.

The film features numerous such factual inaccuracies, misleading generalisations and omissions. There is no mention of the genocidal pogroms that caused hundred of thousands of Tutsis to flee between 1959 and 1972-73; nor of the fact that the RPF chose a military path back into Rwanda in 1990 precisely because Habyarimana had consistently blocked the peaceful return of the refugees to their homeland; nor of the genocidal massacres of thousands of Tutsis in 1990-93 by Habyarimana’s army and militia. The two terribleCongolese wars (1996-97, 1998-2003) are explained in a few short sentences though the motivation of the belligerents involved the highly complex interplay of six countries and dozens of militias, and originated in the border camps that were filled with genocidaire as well as innocent Hutu refugees. Both United Nations and Amnesty International reports have testified that these camps had become a launchpad for a planned re-invasion by the genocidal interim government and its forces.

What next?

The ethics of the BBC programme makers are extremely questionable. There was no evident attempt to talk to Tutsi survivors or survivor groups. The Rwandan organiser who assisted the film crew in practical arrangements was told it was purely a film about the twentieth commemoration; months afterwards he was called suddenly by the BBC producer, told the film was highly controversial, his life could be in danger, and that he should flee. The very serious implication is that the documentary makers were prepared to put his life, and that of his wife and children, in danger, without ever mentioning this to him until too late.

The site director of the genocide memorial at Murambi, Gaspard Mukwiye - who tends the place and the memories of its 50,000 Tutsi victims, and is himself a Tutsi survivor - was also persuaded into taking part in a film that effectively denied his acute suffering and personal loss, still vividly etched on his face. It should be noted the "repressive" regime the film portrayed gave the BBC complete open access to its media archives and to film wherever and whatever it wanted.

The BBC has since 2006 many times reaffirmed its editorial guidelines, including that "we should do all we can to ensure that controversial subjects are treated with due accuracy and impartiality in all relevant output." Viewers can make up their own minds how accurate and impartial this programme is and wonder if other genocides are next on the BBC revisionist menu, subsumed under its current obsession to "break news" and controversies. That is the best-case interpretation. It can only be hoped the corporation is not home to senior executives who actively hold malevolent views of genocide denial which they are misusing public money and privilege to promote.