My argument with a Rwandan Official, Olivier Ndugungirehe, a.k.a  Rwemalika on the fallacies of Rwandan Genocide in January 2009:

Me:

Mr. Rwemalika,

You have a way of arguing  typical of some of the attorneys we have here in the US. Don't take me wrong. Attorney is an honorable job. Your arguments may be flawed, but you defend them with passion. That is why I like you already, with you human flaws.

My brother, most of your arguments appear fallacious. Whether it is due to the lack of understanding or other motives,  I may one day  be able to find out.

Now, let me tell you a little bit about your problems.

1) Your point 3. I was just pointing out possible incongruences and fallacious arguments that may arise from hasty and illogical affirmations. I did not try to make a point the Rwandan government is in Tutsi genocide denial. That would be absurd and I hope your are not that stupid to think I did ( UN recognized "Rwanda genocide", Rwandan government has created its own Tutsi genocide, but that is another matter for another day). You may simply have missed my sentence just below the points which is: "Beware of such arguments based on political ideology for they can lead to deceptiveness and illogic nightmares. I was reading a translation of the Rwandan history. The Rwandan King Kigeri claimed that there were no ethnic groups in his Kingdom and at the same time, had the motto of advancing the three ethnic groups ("Imbagayinyabutata ")."

By the way, it does not add anything to your argumentation to call me Einstein. This is what we call in English: Appeal to ridicule, ad hominem, or reductio ad Hitlerum, some of the most common fallacies from people short of arguments. Try another way!

2) Your point 1. How do you know that Pascal did not know the identity of those arrested? Where did he say that? (Your apologies are already accepted for your false statements!)

3) Now your point 2.  Again, this is the masterpiece of fallacies in Rwandan genocide and probably a subject for scholars to study. I know the CPPCG provisions. I can send you to so many divergent rulings and opinions on the topic. See Jorgic vs. Germany at the European Court of Human Rights in 2007,  for the intent.  Then see 2004 Prosecutor vs. Radislav Krstic - Appeals Chamber -Judgment -IT-98 33 (2004) ICTY 7 for the access to the group.    Then read the book by M. Hassan Karkar "The Soviet Invasion and the Afghan Response, 1979-1982. After you read them, if you never did, we can talk. Meanwhile, how can one be accused of destroying in whole or in part a group that does not exist, and cannot be identified. Corollary, how can one ignore a group intentionally destroyed in part or in whole, such as Hutu politicians killed in 1994. That is one of the contradictions in the definition of Tutsis and the term "genocide of Tutsis." The UN Security Council  appeared to have a more prudent approach by qualifying it "Rwandan Genocide."

4) Your statements in Point 4 are just amazing. So, by questioning the methodologies used by Guardian, I become an Ex-FAR/ Interahamwe sympathizer.  This may be your lowest point in argumentation. Kangura and RTLM were also media, but would you cite them, now?  what would be their standing in Rwandan media if the Ex-FAR/Interahamwe had won the war?

Where did I define  "academic refereed". If you do not know, refereeing involves subjecting an author's scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of experts in the same field. Journals, like Guardian, are edited. The methodology used by Guardian and that led to he title and the content of the article is flawed and does not meet the standards of reference. If you never published in a refereed academic journal, try it. Guardian presented its findings like it was a result of a research work, when we know articles in new papers often do not meet such standards, and certainly the one in Guardian didn't at all. The journalist may have interviewed "accidents" but made generalizations (dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum) and provided us with his purely personal and irrelevant considerations (argumentum ad hominem and ignoratio elenchi) maybe edited by his journal editors and published by a reputable news outlet (Appeal to authority) and provided us with illogical and possibly erroneous conclusions (all fallacies combined).

You by religiously citing the article without addressing the limitations I pointed out above, you expose yourself to numerous fallacies. And at end you run out of arguments. In other times and places, you would appear stupid.  If you live in the US,  cite  "National Enquirer" in your arguments, and let us have a blast of laughter!!!

By the way, I do not work for an academicaly refereed journal and I do not pretend to. I work for an electronic news media, and I never pretend to use scientific approaches in all our articles. AfroAmerica Network uses journalistic approaches:  gathering, investigating, disseminating fair and balanced news  on events, people, issues, trends, and activities. Nothing less, nothing more.  When ones gives their opinions, we say it.  We systematically refuse to publish outrageous  opinions such as the one published by New Times yesterday claiming Human Rights Watch promotes moral genocide and homosexuality or those published by RTLM and Kangura in their times.  That may say a lot on the work done by New Times, RTLM and Kangura.

In conclusion do not be confused  between these: media, academic journal, judicial investigation, and propaganda.

Enough for the day and I am done on the topic.

Bye good brother.

David O'Brian

DOB, AANET News.

http://www.afroamer ica.net

Théoneste Rwemalika wrote:

>

> Bonjour Monsieur David O’Brien,

> Vous écrivez ceci:

> 1. « Actually, I should even have removed Mr. Kalinganire, as for him, the distinction between Hutu and Tutsi must be clear   ».

> Monsieur O’Brien, je suis désolé de vous le dire mais dans le dernière lettre de Kalinganire, celui-ci n’a jamais affirmé que « the distinction between Hutu and Tutsi must be clear » ! En revanche, il a affirmé que 370 suspects arrêtés dernièrement après les attentats de Kinamba II sont tous d’ethnie Hutu, et ce, avant même qu’il ne connaisse leurs identités respectives ! Pensez-vous alors, cher ami, qu’il soit illogique de demander à Pascal Kalinganire comment il a découvert le groupe ethnique de chacun d’eux ou pensez-vous aussi, comme l’inénarrable Tuvugishukuri, que toute personne arrêtée au Rwanda soit réputée Hutu « jusqu’à preuve du contraire » ?

> 2. « 1) Either Tutsis exist and can be identified or there was no genocide of Tutsis, 2) If there are no Tutsis, then the  Rwandan Government, by claiming genocide of Tutsis,  is de facto a Tutsi extremist government and a liar ».

> Vous devez être dur d’oreille, cher ami, car j’ai suffisamment expliqué cela sur ce site, mais je le réexplique volontiers. Les « ethnies » rwandaises n’ont aucune existence matérielle ou juridique. Bien. Cependant, en 1994 non seulement ces ethnies avaient une existence juridique (figurant sur les cartes d’identité) mais surtout, les Interahamwe et autres génocidaires ont massacré, «  comme tel  », ceux qu’ils considéraient comme Tutsi, qu’ils possédassent les cartes d’identité Tutsi ou pas ! 

> En d’autres termes, le génocide ne se définit pas en fonction de la réalité matérielle ou juridique des ethnies, elle se définit en fonction de l’intention spéciale du génocidaire, qui est celle de « détruire, en tout ou en partie, un groupe national, ethnique, racial ou religieux, comme tel  » (article 2 de la Convention pour la prévention et la répression du crime de génocide ».

> A titre d’illustration, vous êtes d’accord avec moi que les sous-clans transversaux (banyiginya, bega, basinga etc.) ont encore moins de réalité matérielle ou juridique que nos fameuses ethnies. Cependant, si d’aventure un dirigeant rwandais, par exemple « singa », décide de détruire, en tout ou partie, les « groupes » nyiginya ou ega, il s’agira bien évidemment d’un génocide même si la moitié des victimes de ce génocide ne savait même pas à quel « groupe » ils appartenaient !

> Vous commencez à comprendre maintenant, cher David O’Brien ? 

> 3. « 3) If there are no Tutsis, then the Rwanda Government is a revisionist and in genocide denial  »

> Dites-moi Einstein, même selon votre logique, quel génocide aurait donc nié le Gouvernement rwandais, si vous dites vous-même qu’il a fait exactement le contraire, à savoir reconnaître un génocide qui n’existe pas  ? En d’autres termes, comment diable pouvez-vous accuser le gouvernement rwandais tout (reconnaître un génocide qui n’existe pas) et son contraire (nier le génocide)? Heureusement que le ridicule ne tue pas !  

> 4. « Now,  you certainly know that citing the Guardian to make your point is a fallacy in itself. First, because publication does not mean truth,  Guardian is not even an academically refereed journal and the sample drawn for its research may be biased and not statistically sound » .

> Nous y voilà ! Eh bien, il fallait le dire plus tôt, cher ami, que vous n’êtes rien d’autre qu’un sympathisant des Ex-FAR/Interahamwe et autres génocidaires ! Dites-moi, David O’Brien, êtes-vous entrain de nous dire qu’un « academically refereed journal » est seulement un journal qui critique le Gouvernement rwandais mais que tout journal qui ose critiquer les mouvements génocidaires perdent immédiatement cette qualité ? Permettez-moi de rire, cher ami !

> Rappelez-moi, pour quel « academically refereed journal » travaillez-vous déjà ?

> Bonne journée.

>   Rwemalika Théoneste

ME:

--- En date de : Mar 6.1.09, David O'Brian <afro@afroamerica. net> a écrit :

De: David O'Brian <afro@afroamerica. net>

Objet: *DHR* Unanswered Question to Mr. Rwemalika on 370 Hutu arrests

À: rwandanet@yahoogrou ps.com, janvierhabyara@ yahoo.com, agaculama_mu_ ikibunda@ yahoo.com

Cc: "Alison DesForges" <desfora@hrw. org>, Democracy_Human_ Rights@yahoogrou pes.fr

Date: Mardi 6 Janvier 2009, 17h27

Mr Rwemalika,

You know you did not provide answers to my questions. Actually, I should even have removed Mr. Kalinganire, as for him, the distinction between Hutu and Tutsi must be clear.

Your brief and vague answer raised even a more serious issue, which again underlines the fallacies in your argument:

1) Either Tutsis exist and can be identified or there was no genocide of Tutsis,

2) If there are no Tutsis, then the  Rwandan Government, by claiming genocide of Tutsis,  is de facto a Tutsi extremist government and a liar.

3) If there are no Tutsis, then the Rwanda Government is a revisionist and in genocide denial

Beware of such arguments based on political ideology for they can lead to deceptiveness and illogic nightmares. I was reading a translation of the Rwandan history. The Rwandan King Kigeri claimed that there were no ethnic groups in his Kingdom and at the same time, had the motto of advancing the three ethnic groups ("Imbagayinyabutata ")

Now,  you certainly know that citing the Guardian to make your point is a fallacy in itself. First, because publication does not mean truth,  Guardian is not even an academically refereed journal and the sample drawn for its research may be biased and not statistically sound.

For example, the article in Guardian concludes: "It is not that we have to develop an ideology of hatred against the Tutsis. It's just that people should see what's happening."

  And, contrary to your claim, Guardian knows how to tell Hutu and Tutsis apart.

This flies in the face of your using the article itself.  By the way, is it a coincidence that the article was written in May 2008, when the invasion of DRC by Rwandan-led Nkunda's Tutsi forces was being hatched, and suddenly  the Rwandan Government cites the article , the Burundian Tutsis cite the article, and Nkunda's Tutsi cites it, all to justify their actions?

And now you cite it.  Beware of such articles. Word of a journalist.

Regards.

David O'Brien

Editor

AfroAmerica Network (AANET).

http://www.afroamer ica.net

>  Théoneste Rwemalika wrote:

> Bonjour Monsieur David O’Brian

> Au Rwanda, les ethnies n’ont aucune existence matérielle (territoire, couleur de peau, culture, langue, religion, mode de vie) ou juridique (documents d’identité ethniques) mais elle a toujours une existence « mentale » dans les esprits de certains de nos compatriotes, surtout les extrémistes. A titre d’illustration, je qualifie les FDLR de « mouvement ethniste Hutu» parce qu’eux-mêmes se considèrent comme Hutu et enseignent même à leurs jeunes recrues la haine contre les Tutsi (cfr le dernier reportage de  The Guardian, intitulé « FDLR : We have to Kill Tutsis wherever they are »).

> Cependant, vous avec posé une excellente question à notre ami Pascal Kalinganire ; il devrait donc vous révéler le secret qu’il a utilisé pour découvrir que les suspects dernièrement arrêtés sont tous d’ethnie Hutu alors qu’il ne connaît même pas l’identité d’aucun d’eux !

> Bonne journée.

> Rwemalika Théoneste

> --- En date de : Lun 5.1.09, David O'Brian <afro@afroamerica. net> a écrit :

ME:

De: David O'Brian <afro@afroamerica. net>

Objet: [rwandanet] Question to Mr. Rwemalika and Kalinganire on 370 Hutu arrests

  À: rwandanet@yahoogrou ps.com, "Janvier Habyarimana" <janvierhabyara@ yahoo.com>, "Agaculama mu Ikibunda" <agaculama_mu_ ikibunda@ yahoo.com>, "Donat Muneza" <dmuneza@yahoo. fr>, "Léopold Munyakazi" <cmunyakazi2@ yahoo.fr>, "Michel Niyibizi" <michelni2001@ yahoo.fr>, "rwanda-l" <rwanda-l@egroups. com>, "Maurice Shankuru" <m_shankuru3000@ yahoo.fr>, "Théophile Umujyambere" <theohumu@yahoo. fr>

Date: Lundi 5 Janvier 2009, 22h12

  Our understanding is that ethnic groups do not exist in the new Rwanda. How is it possible to have Hutu and, for the matter, Hutu extremist groups in Rwanda?  How does anyone distinguish Hutu from Tutsi?

Now, if there exist Hutu extremist groups, and that the government arrests 370 Hutu, which seems exaggerated for such a single criminal incident, hence arbitrary, doesn' t this mean there is persecution of Hutu?

Further, suppose ethnic groups still exist in Rwanda and that a group is composed of Hutus, alone. Does it really mean the group is extremist?

I think yours is a fallacious argument. In fact, randomly pick anyone in Rwanda, and I have 85% Hutu. Suppose a group of farmers, in a village populated with mostly Hutu create a tontine, and it happens that only Hutu women voluntarily enroll. Does the group become extremist, sexist?

I thought "Extremism" is defined by ideology not the background.

Finally, is it possible that "le mouvement terroriste auquel ils seraient membres actifs" IS NOT " un mouvement ethniste" , whereas the government that arrests the 370 is the one that is "ETHNISTE" for it targets only Hutus among Tutsis an Hutus that form the group?

  Just curious and thanks for your answers.

David O'Brian.

Editor, AfroAmerica Network (AANET);

www.afroamerica.net