User talk:192.222.237.61

request edit
Bold text I am Judi Rever, the author of In Praise of Blood, The Crimes of the Rwandan Patriotic Front.

There are several statements that are wrong or misleading in this article, which require immediate corrections. Part of the problem with the entry is that reviewers have made mistakes about what what's actually in my book -- even writers who have written positive reviews. There is also a sense that the individual or individuals who have written this Wikipedia entry have not actually read my book but instead have relied on what others have written about it. Please quote my book when referring directly to what I write.

Examples: '''Rever faced death threats against herself and her family. She separated from her husband and children to protect them from anonymous callers who repeatedly threatened to kill them'''.[5]

I did indeed face death threats against myself and family. This is correct. But I separated from my husband because the security problems became unbearable and created so much turmoil and stress that my marriage eventually broke down. I certainly did not hand over custody of my children to protect them from "anonymous callers". I never wrote that. My husband and I separated and we shared custody of our children, even if I handed over my daughters to their father more often. Our lives changed dramatically; our children had to be monitored very closely because of the security threats. (see the chapter Becoming a Target)

Before the book was published, she was largely unknown.[1]

This is patently not true, even if Caplan says so. I was well known to the media I had worked for (RFI, AFP and the Globe and Mail, for example). I had published seven front-page stories in Canada's Globe and Mail before my book was even published. One of those stories was a ground-breaking investigation with Geoffrey York on Rwandan hit-squads operating abroad. The evidence we revealed was then tabled to US congressional hearings. I was well known, too, in Rwandan circles, having interviewed people for years and having become a target of Kigali authorities. The author of the article cannot claim I was largely unknown, just because Caplan had not heard of me. If you wish to maintain this false claim, you need to say Caplan claims Rever was largely unknown.  According to Rever, the difference between Hutu killings and RPF killings is that the latter were executed with more stealth and careful planning for disposing of the bodies, whereas during the genocide Tutsi victims were left outside to be eaten by wild animals.[5]''' ''' The RPF killings were indeed executed with more stealth and careful planning, and RPF commanders took great care to hide these crimes. I never said, however, that Hutus left their Tutsi victims outside to be "eaten by wild animals." Again that part of the review misquotes or misunderstands my book. My book clearly says that Hutu crimes against Tutsis "were committed publicly, in broad daylight, and with little or no sense of remorse or concern about repercussions." There was no attempt by Hutus to hide these massacres. There was every attempt made by the RPF to cover its tracks.  She states that the RPF systematically killed Hutus in northwest Rwanda in order to make their land available for Tutsi refugees.[6] I wrote that the RPF systematically killed Hutus in the north and northeast in order to make their land available for Tutsi refugees.

'''She criticizes the United States and other countries for overlooking the RPF's crimes.[2] Rever writes that the reason RPF crimes remain less well-known than the Rwandan genocide is that "most people simply wished to believe a more palatable construction of history. The story of a morally disciplined RPF rescuing Rwanda from the brink, to save Tutsis from a genocide…This story was easier to comprehend than what actually happened."[5] ''' This is the most problematic part of the Wikipedia entry because it is highly misleading. I've stated very clearly that the US and political insiders at the United Nations actively covered up RPF crimes. The US rigged the tribunal and prevented any prosecution of RPF crimes. There's an entire chapter devoted to this malfeasance and miscarriage of justice so to write here that I claim the reason RPF crimes remain less well-known is that 'most people simply wished o believe a more palatable construction of history" is false. I wrote that sentence but that's not the real reason that RPF crimes remain unknown. This is taken out of context and the meaning is wrong.

Politically powerful people in the US and at the UN covered up crimes and allowed the tribunal to become a "surrogate of Washington, and by extension, Kagame. It granted Kagame legal immunity from war crimes and terrorism." (page 161)

I also point out in a variety of ways that in its seminal account of the genocide, Human Rights Watch downplayed, dismissed and failed to thoroughly investigate RPF crimes, and that this organization absorbed and regurgitated (as many academics and journalists have done) research carried out by the RPF propaganda NGO, African Rights. All this is laid out in my book. '''

Researchers Bert Ingelaere and Marijke Verpoorten refer to Rever's revival of the double genocide theory as based on "flimsy and mostly unverifiable sources".[20]'''

This is disingenuous at best, even false. I clearly point out the cable in my book showing how refugee consultant Robert Gersony, in his oral briefing to UN officials, said the RPF committed genocide. Then on page 165, I quote British Judge Marks Moore, who was a senior counsel at the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICTR, saying that the RPF committed genocide too. Reyntjens has now said the same thing, and even Lemarchand states the RPF committed genocide. See https://prochetmoyen-orient.ch/france-afrique-des-grands-lacs-un-rapport-universitaire-occulte-les-crimes-de-kagame/ article by Patrick Mbeko.

How can Ingelaere and Verpoorten call this theory based on 'flimsy and mostly unverified sources."

Is this what Wikipedia allows...provocative commentary or accusation that is not backed up with sound fact?

The same for this sentence: 'Investigative journalist Linda Melvern notes that in her acknowledgements, Rever thanks several defence lawyers and known genocide deniers for their help.[27]' Did you verify Melvern's claims that I thank known genocide deniers for their help. This is not true.