Glasgow Airport terror attack analysis

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 06 Jul 2007, 17:38

Nelson Hatstand wrote:
xxxx wrote:
Dadaist wrote:
Also, to xxxx - does your pacifism only apply to humans?
No, I think we should seek peace with all god's creation
Are you a vegetarian then?

I was more thinking of an alien invasion.

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 06 Jul 2007, 17:55

You can avoid these questions by not going to war in the first place. The roots of ww2 were planted with the treaty of versaille and its unsupportable demands. Ferdinand Foch said at the time that
"This is not a peace. It is an armistice for 20 years"

On the upside it allowed america to jump start its moribund economy and become the military and economic powerhouse of the west. So it's an ill wind etc..

Interestingly operation himmler also used a staged attack to justify an invasion

On the night of August 31, 1939, Nazis took an unknown prisoner from one of their concentration camps, dressed him in a Polish uniform, took him to the town of Gleiwitz (on the border of Poland and Germany), and then shot him. The staged scene with the dead prisoner dressed in a Polish uniform was supposed to appear as a Polish attack against a German radio station.

Hitler used the staged attack as the excuse to invade Poland.

Very much in line with goring's philosophy:

Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

Marguerite-the-Poet · Post by **Marguerite-the-Poet** » 06 Jul 2007, 18:40

xxxx do you consider yourself to be a non-violent pacifist?

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 06 Jul 2007, 18:43

Marguerite-the-Poet wrote:xxxx do you consider yourself to be a non-violent pacifist?

I think I actually am one

Marguerite-the-Poet · Post by **Marguerite-the-Poet** » 06 Jul 2007, 18:53

xxxx wrote:
Marguerite-the-Poet wrote:xxxx do you consider yourself to be a non-violent pacifist?
I think I actually am one

Me too. Do you think the Irish are by nature peaceful?

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 06 Jul 2007, 19:13

Marguerite-the-Poet wrote:
xxxx wrote:
Marguerite-the-Poet wrote:xxxx do you consider yourself to be a non-violent pacifist?
I think I actually am one
Me too. Do you think the Irish are by nature peaceful?

Well my parents are. I think its quite hard to generalise across a population, or a religion. Depends on the temper of the times more than anything. The god haunted de valera spud would be typically different from the current generation. Germany went from one of the most advanced, sophisticated societies to a fascist state in about 50 years

Marguerite-the-Poet · Post by **Marguerite-the-Poet** » 06 Jul 2007, 20:15

xxxx wrote:
Marguerite-the-Poet wrote:
xxxx wrote: I think I actually am one
Me too. Do you think the Irish are by nature peaceful?
Well my parents are. I think its quite hard to generalise across a population, or a religion. Depends on the temper of the times more than anything. The god haunted de valera spud would be typically different from the current generation. Germany went from one of the most advanced, sophisticated societies to a fascist state in about 50 years

Interesting. Thanks xxxx. There appears to me some irony in your comments. I thought your post beginning with "You can avoid these questions by not going to war in the first place . . . " to be a generalization referring to groups of people. And your comment "god haunted de valera spud" lacked the tone of a non-violent pacifist.

I've always thought a non-violent pacifist claim to fame was peaceful intent in all matters. At least that has always been what I've attempted to live by. Not always an easy task but I do try my best.

OK. If I understand you correctly, a non-violent pacifist doesn't have to be peaceful by nature. If I recall correctly, I'd have to hunt through my files for it, there has been a scientific study that suggests environmental pressures within populated areas can chemically alter the behavior of a group. Let me think...a fighting gene if there were violence present would result in such. Something like that...I'd have to find the article.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 06 Jul 2007, 23:07

seanie wrote:
xxxx wrote:I am an unrepentant pacifist, and in no no need of fancy footwork, as that is the work of charlatans, not normal caring human beings.

Give me a reason why one mother's child should be legitimallly killed and i will entertain 'necessary' evils
The world is full of normal caring human beings who are neither pacifists nor charlatans.

I agree with Seanie. I am normally not a violent or aggressive person but, if it came to it, personally or on a larger scale (such as a war) I would defend my corner. If the country was full of pacifists we would all be German by now. My Dad and my Uncles were lovely, gentle, non violent men but they fought during WWII because they had to. No person in their right mind would want to kill another human being but it's unfortunately a fact of life that sometimes you have to defend what is yours - it's a basic animal instinct.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 06 Jul 2007, 23:16

xxxx wrote:
Epykat wrote:]

. I confess - I am an eye for an eye kind of person.
You sound like you have a lot of sympathy for sharia law, do you think a little terrorism is worth enduring for it to become universal?

I'm not a big fan of terrorism. It's kind of sneaky. If war was delcared and they flew over and dropped bombs - fair enough. It's just not cricket when we don't get any warning.

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 07 Jul 2007, 00:28

Epykat wrote: I'm not a big fan of terrorism. It's kind of sneaky. If war was delcared and they flew over and dropped bombs - fair enough. It's just not cricket when we don't get any warning.

if you pay any attention to these things, its hard to deny that most 'terrorism' is state terrorism. cricket,fair play, that's all just a story, a comfort and a deception.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 07 Jul 2007, 01:16

xxxx wrote:You can avoid these questions by not going to war in the first place.

Mmmmm....

Well...

...maybe.

As a philosophy it doesn't strike me as too convincing.

Whatever the causes and effects that ripple down through the ages, people find themselves in extremely difficult situations through no direct fault of their own. A vague if heartfelt invocation to all play nice is of no use to people who are about to be killed. Even if you don't want war your neighbour may differ.

There were no pasivist measures that would've saved the Tutsis from the Hutus. Over 900,000 people were slaughtered in 3 months. Linking arms and singing "we shall overcome" wasn't going to stop things. What stopped it was a bunch of organised people, with guns and bullets, who were prepared to shoot the people slaughtering their neighbours with machetes.

The people with the guns and bullets doing the shooting may have been far from perfect.

But they were immeasurably better than the people slaughtering their neighbours and they towered above the scum who could've easily made a difference but chose not too.

Which would be us by the way.

The British. With our fearsome military, out nuclear weapons, and our seat on the UN security council.

Genocide? Africa you say? White or Black? Oh I see. And they speak French? Oh dear. Do any speak English? Do they have anwser phones?

I'm afraid it's not quite our thing. Off to Lords, sorry

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 07 Jul 2007, 01:23

Epykat wrote:I agree with Seanie.

I may have to lie down in a darkened room and re-evaluate my position.

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 07 Jul 2007, 02:40

seanie wrote:
xxxx wrote:You can avoid these questions by not going to war in the first place.
Mmmmm....

Well...

...maybe.

no, definitely, the parlour game morality questions you present only actually emerge in circumstances of war. Renounce war and we can focus our energies on the practical problems of existence.

Marguerite-the-Poet · Post by **Marguerite-the-Poet** » 07 Jul 2007, 04:30

xxxx wrote:Renounce war and we can focus our energies on the practical problems of existence.

World Health Organization has listed under the letter "V"
Violence Prevention Alliance
http://www.who.int/entity/en/

I kept following the links and found Violence Reduction Alliance for a
Safer Future in Scotland.http://www.actiononviolence.co.uk/aov/files/rvasf.pdf

Most of the articles I read were written in 2006. Peace starts at home.
God bless Scotland! My prayers are with YOU

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 07 Jul 2007, 08:45

seanie wrote:
Epykat wrote:I agree with Seanie.
I may have to lie down in a darkened room and re-evaluate my position.

I know....... I was having a soft moment

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 07 Jul 2007, 09:30

xxxx wrote:no, definitely, the parlour game morality questions you present only actually emerge in circumstances of war. Renounce war and we can focus our energies on the practical problems of existence.

They're not always questions for the parlour.

The Hutus really did slaughter 900,000 people in three months.

Faced with that kind of reality, instead of a fairytale alternative in which everyone just gets along, I for one regard killing as not only justified but a moral imperative.

To sit back and let people get slaughtered, when it was within our power to stop it and with relative ease, was shameful regardless of the motivations. To sit on a high horse and virtuously proclaim that killing is wrong, without regard to the consequences of not killing which could be far worse, is a far less edifying position than it might first appear.

On occassions pacifism is immoral.

Hell even Bertrand Russell made an exception for the Nazis.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 07 Jul 2007, 11:30

seanie wrote: Faced with that kind of reality, instead of a fairytale alternative in which everyone just gets along, I for one regard killing as not only justified but a moral imperative.

Instinctively I want to take issue with you over this statement. I can't, it is the stark truth.

seanie wrote:On occassions pacifism is immoral.

Its also unnatural. From my observations a human pacifist is living in the wrong skin.

I feel I am out of my depth in this discussion. I wished Seanie would just offer xxxx a square go.

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 07 Jul 2007, 12:12

seanie wrote: The Hutus really did slaughter 900,000 people in three months.

Well why did they do that?

Was it it something to do with the ugandan (now rwandan president) fort leavenworth (usa)trained Paul Kagame's predominately tutsi rpf invasion in 1990?

Do you agree with this ex un secretary-general ?

Boutros-Ghali insisted that he does not wish to understate his own responsibility in Rwanda. "I said publicly that I failed in Rwanda. I did not succeed in convincing Security Council members to act. The United States with the strong support of Great Britain did everything they could to prevent the UN from intervening, and a majority of countries followed their lead." It should be noted that Boutros-Ghali declared on at least two occasions, including once to me in November 2002, that the "Rwandan genocide was 100 percent American responsibility"....

..."Central Africa has been the scene of an Anglo-American conflict with France. After all, what has happened in the Congo: war and at least 100,000 Hutus killed. That whole affair has been suppressed. The report on those deaths was never published. The French supported Mobutu, while the Americans and the British were behind Uganda and Rwanda, and they won. The background to these wars is a repetition of Fashoda. It began with Rwanda, and before that Uganda, which is part of the Anglo-American block. Uganda has no political parties, but it is never criticized, never denounced. If there had been no foreign aggression by a Uganda against Rwanda in 1990, there would have been no war and no genocide."

There are very few noble lessons to be learned from these situations. George kennan put things straight:

we have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of its population.... In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity.... To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives.... We should cease to talk about vague and ... unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 07 Jul 2007, 12:16

Porty wrote: I wished Seanie would just offer xxxx a square go.

As one of those horrible pacifists, I'd have to decline

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 07 Jul 2007, 12:36

Has pacifisim (is that a word?) ever solved anyting without having a War first? Is War/terror the only route tp pacifism?

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 07 Jul 2007, 12:48

Porty wrote:Has pacifisim (is that a word?) ever solved anyting without having a War first? Is War/terror the only route tp pacifism?

I have no idea, all wars decide is who has the most effective use of force

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 07 Jul 2007, 13:31

Not sure about that at all, force mat determine who wins but winning a war is a goal not an objective.

As far pacifiscm? I can't think of any circumstance where its been depolyed with a great deal of success. Its a great theory but thats all it is. Its had a few thousand years to make an impact but is not even got enough to bring out a greatest hits.

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 07 Jul 2007, 13:46

Porty wrote:Not sure about that at all, force mat determine who wins but winning a war is a goal not an objective.

You've lost me there, a goal is an objective, is it not?

As far pacifiscm? I can't think of any circumstance where its been depolyed with a great deal of success. Its a great theory but thats all it is. Its had a few thousand years to make an impact but is not even got enough to bring out a greatest hits.

gandhi did alright

Marguerite-the-Poet · Post by **Marguerite-the-Poet** » 07 Jul 2007, 15:12

Porty wrote:Has pacifisim (is that a word?) ever solved anyting without having a War first? Is War/terror the only route tp pacifism?

Well, errrr, ever heard of gang wars in schools? The pacifists (parents) with calm force stand united and involve themself with local police to crack down on that stuff.

Though I've never been involved with that, no kids and past the age of a bun in the oven, my taxes support it in school bonds. It is common knowledge that less violence in schools prevent criminal offenders. In my opinion, war in any shape is a formation of gangsters against healthy living. End of Story!

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 07 Jul 2007, 17:39

xxxx wrote:gandhi did alright

Yes he did. But that was in a particular context.

The British could certainly be brutal, after all you don't get an empire covering a third of the earth's landmass without being ruthless, but they also had values that meant a pacifist campaign could be used against them. There were other factors too but Ghandi's muscular pacifism would not have worked in other circumstances.

It wouldn't have cut much ice with Hitler.

Passive resistance wouldn't have had the Nazi's quaking in their boots.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 07 Jul 2007, 19:25

xxxx wrote:
seanie wrote: The Hutus really did slaughter 900,000 people in three months.
Well why did they do that?

Was it it something to do with the ugandan (now rwandan president) fort leavenworth (usa)trained Paul Kagame's predominately tutsi rpf invasion in 1990?

Well the factors that led to the genocide are numerous. If you're suggesting that the primary responsibility lies with the RPF I'd say that's in pretty poor taste.

A bit like blaming the Jews for the Holocaust.

There were periodic slaughters of Tutsi's going back decades. Before Kagame was even born. Originally the problem stems from the Belgians who created an essentialy arbitrary division between Hutus and Tutsis setting up socio-political tensions that continued long after they'd left.

However, regardless of the background that most people involved could do little about, once the killing started at a rate of about 10,000 a day what should've been done?

As it was the killing was stopped by the RPF. People with guns and bullets who violently brought the slaughter to an end.

If they were wrong I presume there was some pacifist alternative that would've worked equally as well. If so what was it?

Or should the Tutsis have taken Ghandi's advice to the Jews and [url=http://die_meistersinger.tripod.com/gandhi9.html]"offered themselves to the butcher’s knife."[/url]

Well I suppose that would've stopped the genocide eventually.

Once all the Tutsis were dead.

xxxx wrote:Do you agree with this ex un secretary-general ?

What?

That the "Rwandan genocide was 100 percent American responsibility"?

So the people wielding machetes and slaughtering their neighbors were entirely blameless?

I think not.

I think that particular ex UN Secretary-General is talking bollocks.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 07 Jul 2007, 20:03

Going back a bit...

xxxx wrote: I repeat, the opaque motivations of 'al queda' are a mystery to me, but the palestine/zionist analogy is weak, if this is such a wonderful strategy why did they not do these things in london, the 'homeland' of the occupiers?

Why would they?

It wasn’t required.

Just to clarify, the purpose of the tactic was to stir up anger on both sides.

If you’re the sniper in the crowd you may well be in a minority. The others around you may share a common “enemy” at least to the extent they have grievances against the same people, but they may not share your precise goals, they may be far less extreme in their opinions or they may not approve of your methods.

But when you shoot out of the crowd at the common “enemy” the aim is not merely to anger them. It’s to provoke them into shooting back provoking the crowd in turn.

I said before the flexible attitude to homicide whereby killing someone else is open to negotiation but killing me is a definite no-no. Well a similar rule applies to shooting at people in general.

The crowd may well disapprove of the sniper taking shots at the people they themselves dislike. But that disapproval pales into insignificance against the outrage felt when the people they dislike start firing in their general direction in retaliation.

“Forget the sniper. The swines are shooting at us!”

Or maybe…

“Forget 9-11. The swines were going to attack the middle east anyway!”

If that is the reaction, even if it doesn’t sway huge numbers directly to the sniper’s cause, it moves the overall body of opinion in the sniper’s direction. It foments discord, division and resentment, polarising the situation and forcing both sides towards the extremes. If your goal is to get rid of the enemy that’s probably a good thing regardless of the suffering involved.

Because a small extremist group, no matter how well organised is extremely limited in ho much direct damage they can inflict. But if you can engender a situation whereby a large number regard your enemy as their enemy, even if they disapprove of your tactics or goals, then you can exert influence far beyond your size.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 07 Jul 2007, 20:41

That’s partly the lesson of the Easter Uprising. Right or wrong it altered the course of history. It was a symbolic act with no immediate prospect of success but it was intended to light a flame of rebellion. And it did so, not by the act itself, but by provoking a response so brutal that thousands, that previously had no truck with the rebels, rallied to the cause. It changed the dynamics of the situation.

Or maybe it changed the ballgame.

It’s not hard to find parallels. The French successfully crushed an insurgency in Algeria but with a brutality that inflamed the whole country. It forced them to leave.

The British destroyed the Mau Mau but with methods that hastened their own departure.

An example of the dynamics in play can be seen closer to home, again in Ireland.

When the British army went into Ulster they were cheered by he Catholics who saw them as saviours from protestant oppression. Not all within the Catholic community certainly, but the flame of republican nationalism had dwindled to insignificance. The return of British soldiers to the streets may have stirred some passions but that in itself didn’t revive the IRA. The real surge in IRA support didn’t stem from the arrival of the troops.

It stemmed from their behaviour when they got there.

In mitigation it was a difficult situation, with both the political and military leadership in a situation it didn’t know how to deal with. But through a combination of brutality, repression, discrimination, injustice, internment and at least one massacre, we managed to inflame the situation immeasurably and bolster the cause of violent nationalism.

The greatest recruiting sergeant the IRA ever had was the British State.

But faced with such intractable problems the correct course of action may not be easy to discern. It's easy enough to say a fine balance needs to be struck on the tightrope between inflaming and ameliorating a situation but finding where that line lies may not be obvious.

Be that as it may, leaping off the tightrope entirely in a messianic display of bravado by say, invading a distant country in one of the most fractious regions in the world with an ill conceived plan of breathtaking shortsightedness, is probably ill advised.

But I digress.

Where was I?

Is that my drink?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 07 Jul 2007, 20:49

If you run out Seanie, just nip round to us. We're pretending it is Summer and having a BBQ.

I did try to take the 'hypothetical' out of the situation yesterday when I met XXXX whilst out and about. I asked him what he would do if I kicked him in the shins and he told me he would let me do it with no retaliation. Unfortunately, the lights changed before I had an opportunity to put him to the test.

ali · Post by **ali** » 07 Jul 2007, 21:10

Seanie man, have a lie down - your brain must be hurting
- I know mine is........................

(interesting discussion all the same)

Marguerite-the-Poet · Post by **Marguerite-the-Poet** » 07 Jul 2007, 22:21

seanie, you should consider writing a book. Your style suites my fancy. I''d read it.

bearcub · Post by **bearcub** » 07 Jul 2007, 22:39

Seanie and xxxx .....

Great thread.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 08 Jul 2007, 03:26

xxxx wrote:
Porty wrote:Not sure about that at all, force mat determine who wins but winning a war is a goal not an objective.
You've lost me there, a goal is an objective, is it not?

No a goal is a step on the way to an objective.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 08 Jul 2007, 03:27

xxxx wrote:
Marguerite-the-Poet wrote:
xxxx wrote: I think I actually am one
Me too. Do you think the Irish are by nature peaceful?
Well my parents are.

Did they have a hand in the slow induction coil?

Oh dear. If you note the time of the post you will realise I was T&E.

The obscure reference to the slow induction coil relates to what inventions or discoveries can be attributed to the Irish . Its not a lot.

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 08 Jul 2007, 08:54

gandhi did alright

seanie wrote: Yes he did. But that was in a particular context.

Well everything happens in some context or other, I was asked for an example and I gave a valid one.

The British could certainly be brutal, after all you don't get an empire covering a third of the earth's landmass without being ruthless, but they also had values that meant a pacifist campaign could be used against them. There were other factors too but Ghandi's muscular pacifism would not have worked in other circumstances.

The problem with pacifists like ghandi, or martin luther king, or Aung San Suu Kyi is that they are so effective they end up dead or in jail. People sure respond to them though.

It wouldn't have cut much ice with Hitler.

Maybe not, but if the russo german pact had held, war might not have done either

Passive resistance wouldn't have had the Nazi's quaking in their boots.

No need to repeat yourself

Well the factors that led to the genocide are numerous. If you're suggesting that the primary responsibility lies with the RPF I'd say that's in pretty poor taste.

Taste has nothing to do with it and your the one who started waving dead africans around.
I am saying that the kagame led RPF was the main agent in creating the events.
In 1990 a section of the ugandan army led by invaded rwanda on the pretext of liberating it.
The area they initially 'liberated' depopulated from 800,000 to 1800, their behaviour definitely made the rwandan tutsis less popular,

(but then if ireland invaded liverpool to liberate their ethnic 'cousins'.Started killing english then I figure the irsh community would experience a downturn in popularity.)

but there was still rwandan tutsis in the rwandan 'hutu' armies. The rwandan goernment had to spend more on arms, lost valuable agricultural land, severely damaging the economy. The rwandan govt are forced into the arusha accords which give the rpf 40% of the army

(would we agree to this after my hypothetical irish invasion?)

The trigger for the genocide/civil war was the assasination of the rwandan prime minister.
Rwanda falls into chaos and the hutu/hutu , hutu/tutsi, ie killing of rwandans begins.
a former rpf soldier, jean pierre mugabe says kagame was behind it
"He did not ignore the fact that almost all the Tutsis were to die"
Another witness Christophe Hakizabera coroborates
The RPF, whose political wing was based in belgium, gain control and continue to kill rwandan refugees in the congo

A bit like blaming the Jews for the Holocaust.

Very poor, by your logic,they were to blame. They didn't fight back, did they?
Of course, some zionists actively collaborated, so together with them not fighting back you could definitely blame them, apart from the ones at sobibor, I suppose.
(eg Rudolph Kastner not only cut a deal with eichmann to save 600 prominent jews in exchange for keeping shtum about the other 800,000 that were to be killed, he also intervened to save S.S. General and celebrated jew killer, Kurt Becher from being tried for war crimes. Becher went on to become a wheat exporter to israel with the Koln-Handel Gesellschaft and died a contented multi millionaire.

At least he wasn't a pacifist, though

Yitzhak Gruenbaum, chair of zionist committee on the condition of european jews at the time.
"When they come to us with two plans - the rescue of the masses of Jews in Europe or the redemption of the land - I vote, without a second thought, for the redemption of the land. The more said about the slaughter of our people, the greater the minimization of our efforts to strengthen and promote the Hebraisation of the land."
)
I remember an episode in a primo levi book where he recounts the tale of a fiesty young unionist drowned in a soup cauldron by fellow prisoners, so he wouldn't cause trouble for the rest. He left me with the distinct impression that it was not the brave and valiant that survived.

There were periodic slaughters of Tutsi's going back decades. Before Kagame was even born. Originally the problem stems from the Belgians who created an essentialy arbitrary division between Hutus and Tutsis setting up socio-political tensions that continued long after they'd left.

I'm not sure belgium ever really left. They seem to be very involved at every stage. They was certainly plenty after he invaded

However, regardless of the background that most people involved could do little about, once the killing started at a rate of about 10,000 a day what should've been done?

The background cannot be dismissed, the 1990 invasion should have been condemned, not encouraged. The RPF should not have been rewarded for its actions. Just because you have some tutsi connection, doesn't give you the right to invade a sovereign country. The question for you is why violence was not used in this case, why was the UN force scaled back at the us's behest during the carnage? Did they come over all pacifist?

As it was the killing was stopped by the RPF. People with guns and bullets who violently brought the slaughter to an end.

They started it, maintained it, exacerbated it and did not care how many rwandans were killed, so of course it stops when they have what they want.
To this day they are killing refugees in the congo

If they were wrong I presume there was some pacifist alternative that would've worked equally as well. If so what was it?

There obviously was a pacifist urge on the part of the US as they pressed for the UN force to be reduced.

Or should the Tutsis have taken Ghandi's advice to the Jews and "offered themselves to the butcher’s knife."

As I have been pointing out, the ugandan rpf created the situation, rwandans of all ethnicities died, and you seem to think I am against self defense, though I have stated nothing of the sort.

Well I suppose that would've stopped the genocide eventually.
Once all the Tutsis were dead.

Or all the rwandans