• corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    21 hours ago

    The Rwanda genocide wasn’t carried out with guns as the primary weapon. It was machetes and fire.

    It’s only very rarely one-on-one like a movie gunfight.

      • treesquid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        19 hours ago

        Sometimes they did. It’s not like nobody got shot in the Rwandan genocide. Lots of people did, and when it happened, it went like it almost always does, the people with guns killed a bunch of people with impunity unless the people they were shooting at also happened to have guns.

        • drspawndisaster@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          19 hours ago

          I’m hearing a lot of things that are true but I’m getting confused as to why they were said. Like what does the Rwandan genocide have to do with the post other than the almost unnerving lack of firearms involved? Ik you aren’t the one who brought it up but just had to ask.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      19 hours ago

      The Rwanda genocide wasn’t carried out with guns as the primary weapon. It was machetes and fire.

      It was volumes of people, primarily. An oppressed underclass poisoned with fascist ideology who overwhelmed they’re wealthier tribal neighbors not unlike how the French ended up butchering their aristocracy at the end of the 18th century.

      Had the Tutsis been more heavily armed, they might have given as well as they took.

      • Triasha@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        16 hours ago

        The genocide ended with the victory of the rebels led by Kagame. They were mostly Tutsis.

        The armed Tutsis did indeed hit back.