(一）： 1994年1月10日，美丽的卢旺达高原正处于短雨季和长雨季之间。阳光忽明忽暗，午后雷阵雨。这天下午，加拿大将军达莱尔秘密会见了高级线人皮埃尔。 他得到一个惊人情报：胡图族将与军方联手进行大屠杀，他们的兵力足以在20分钟内杀死1000名图西族人。 第二天，达莱尔向联合国总部发出标注“最紧急”的电报，这封电报，后来被世人称为“种族灭绝传真”。 联合国维和事务负责人安南却让助手回电：禁止采取一切行动。 达莱尔将军请求突袭民兵武器库以降低屠杀烈度。但联合国下令：这不符合安理会第872号决议。 达莱尔引用“协助收缴平民非法武器”条款，证明未越权。联合国回电：维和部队仅限旁观“监督”。 三个月来，达莱尔六次发出预警和行动请求，联合国均以“不符合国际法和联合国程序”加以拒绝。多年以后，一位联合国发言人透露：安南认为达莱尔将军需要被“拴住”，他太心急了。 卢旺达进入了长雨季。大雨过后，彩虹横跨，银背猩猩在雨林间跳跃，天空飞翔颜色鲜艳的鸟类。阿卡盖拉草原，狮群、象群带着幼崽漫步。河水上涨，鳄鱼正好扩大捕食范围，是屠杀好时机。 1994年4月6日晚，卢旺达总统座机被导弹击中。军方找到屠杀理由。第一个目标锁定女总理阿加特，她一直主张与图西族和解，杀了她，可以放手屠杀。 联合国援助团派出10名比利时伞兵保护她，却奇怪地不允许他们开火还击。比利时士兵被包围两小时后，按照命令交出武器，被总统卫队带到军营。 等达莱尔将军赶到，发现10名比利时伞兵已被肢解，尸体像“一袋袋土豆”堆叠在一起，血肉模糊，无法清点人数。 李承鹏最新文章：为什么神棍必须死 女总理翻墙逃进联合国开发署的院子，总统卫队冲进来，当着联合国官员把她和丈夫射杀。清晨，军方按照名单一个个登门处决了图西族官员、记者、律师、人权活动人士，家人一并处决。 达莱尔将军曾接到图西族官员求救电话，那头传来官员家人被杀的声音，然后官员本人也被杀，一切归于沉默…… 同步屠杀平民。全国每个路口都有民兵和士兵把守，发现图西族，当场枪毙。成千上万图西族人逃进教堂，但这里已不是避风港。 吉孔多波兰教堂，上百名儿童被冲进来的民兵屠杀。尼昂盖天主教堂，1500多名图西族人躲在里面。民兵用推土机推倒教堂，用砍刀和步枪杀死虚墟里每个人。尼亚鲁布耶教堂，民兵不分男女老幼杀了2万多人。 屠杀从盒子里放出，就不再需要动员，它像部强大机器自我运转。邻居会杀死邻居，学生会杀死老师，丈夫会杀死妻子，病人也会被医生杀死……你不杀图西族，自己也会被杀。大街上随处可见尸体，听见枪声、刀斫骨肉声，鲁济济河染成红色。 胡图人甚至放出HIV感染者，组成”强奸小队”，目的是制造“图西女人缓慢而不可逆的死亡”。他们并不避讳在教堂施暴，一名女性被20名男子轮奸，被两米长的尖棍刺入体内致死。 面对大屠杀，联合国秘书长加利竟决定：继之前把2500人维和部队削减到270人，撤走全部维和部队。 此时卢旺达，平均每天8000人被杀，每小时333人，每分钟5人。 比利时士兵在学校里保护2000名图西族人，接到命令，撤了。胡图族军队冲进来杀光所有人。比利时士兵在撤离途中也被禁止搭救路边上万名求助的人，以避免引发更大战争。 只有达莱尔将军抗命，他说：“我拒绝了一个合法命令，但那个命令是不道德的”。 他率领残余的维和士兵，保护体育场和千丘饭店等几处避难所，这里躲着数千名难民。 大屠杀进行了一个半月，联合国才同意将维和部队扩充至5500人。各国拖拖拉拉，6个月后才抵达，而此时大屠杀已结束——7月4日图西族反抗军攻占首都，中止长达百天的屠杀。 80万-100万图西族平民被杀，40万孤儿无家可归，50万女性被强奸，20万女性感染HIV。 在事后调查中，安南竟声称对达莱尔将军六次加急传真没有印象。但他未被追责，三年后反而晋升为联合国秘书长。 早在第一时间，联合国、美国、英国、法国、比利时就意识到严重性，但并未调动附近驻军干预，中俄一直以“不干涉他国内政”为由，沉默旁观——就像观光游客不能干预草原上动物间的捕杀。 只有达莱尔将军率领武器简陋的少量士兵，竭力对抗屠杀。他在遍地死尸的街道、村庄穿行，把幸存的孩子抱在怀里，收敛成年人遗体。他每天绝望地向联合国申请增援，但一无所获，只得眼睁睁看“小孩子在对岸被长刀砍死”，“全村被杀，鳄鱼在河里啃食人类残肢”。他同时得提防冷枪，他已被悬赏暗杀。 他在回忆录中念叨：4月的卢旺达正是万物繁盛的时节，山丘翠绿，阳光灿烂，天空鸟类求偶鸣叫，地面却是大屠杀后的尸横遍野。那个反差让他永远无法释怀。 他将回忆录取名《与魔鬼握手》，因为自己没能救下更多人，这无异纵容魔鬼。他四次自杀，用剃刀割开大腿，“当血开始流出，我感到了一种虚假的平静，觉得马上就要去和那些未能拯救的人团聚了。” 2000年，他因创伤后应激障碍退役，“我的伤永远不会愈合”。 达莱尔将军不必感到耻辱，卢旺达大屠杀是联合国永远的耻辱，政客们用“国际法”“联合国章程”“程序正义”纵容了一百万平民被屠杀。
（二）： 1995年7月11日，波斯尼亚的枫丹娜酒店，塞族司令姆拉迪奇举起巴尔干的李子白兰地，与联合国维和部队指挥官卡雷曼斯碰杯。 姆拉迪奇说：“不要害怕，一切都会好的” 几个小时前，他说过同样的话，俯身把巧克力递给难民营一个小男孩，说：“不要害怕，没人会伤害你。” 两位指挥官喝洒的时候，外面大屠杀开始了。当着联合国维和部队，塞族士兵把数万难民分开，妇女和孩子被送上大巴，男人被带走“登记”。1500男人被带进仓库，关门。士兵机枪扫射，甚至动用火箭筒。 另一部分男人被运到空旷农田，排成一排，机枪射击…… 上万名男人企图穿越森林，“那是一条沉默的队伍，像一条黑暗中缓慢移动的河流，只有树枝折断的声音”。忽然间炮弹落下，埋伏的塞族士兵一通扫射……一切归于沉寂，士兵们把尸体埋掉。 为了掩盖罪行，他们又用挖掘机把尸体挖出，埋到新的地方。所以大部分人骸骨散落在不同的墓地，家属只能对着几根未知归属的骨头，流泪凭吊。 这是著名的“斯雷布雷尼察”大屠杀。 维和士兵整夜都听见附近屠杀声，无力阻止，他们只有四百人，无重武器；塞族军队有三千人，有坦克和炮兵。前些天，几个维和士兵甚至耻辱地被塞军扣押。 北约具有压倒性武力优势，如果联合国下令空袭，塞族早被摧毁，之后也不会发生大屠杀。但联合国坚持政治正确：空袭须经联合国文官授权。申请却一直没通过文官的漫长程序……最后，堂堂维和部队在联合国“安全区”，眼睁睁看塞族军队押走数万难民，杀掉。 历史学家总用那晚的真实场景进行讽刺：枫丹娜饭店里，两军指挥官在喝白兰地；外面野地，一排排男人被机枪扫射。 更讽刺的是，几周后联合国终于授权北约空袭——塞族军队瞬间即溃，屠杀结束。 国际刑事法庭对战犯的判词是：“这是一项有计划、有组织的制度性种族灭绝”。 谁又能说，这不是联合国制度性制造的种族灭绝？承诺“安全区”，但人数和武器严重不足，冗官、懦弱、腐败，最终纵容了大屠杀。 普利策获奖者Rohde文章里有一些细节： 一个6岁孩子摇摇晃晃从尸体堆里站起，寻找被打死的父亲；仓库地板变成深褐色，那是1500名男人的血积淤而成；田野泥土明显被翻动，有衣服角露在外面；记者走进城市、村庄，安静得像被时间遗弃，房屋被烧黑，窗户碎裂，狗在空街上游荡，但没有男人。 妇人说：“男人都走进森林了，这里只剩寡妇。”
（三）： 有一天，塞族领袖米洛舍维奇在盛大演讲中说了一段让粉丝狂欢的话： “六百年前我们在这里战斗，今天，我们将再次战斗”。 为了夺回六百年前属于自己的科索沃，塞族军队四处杀伐，炮击村庄，机枪扫射，焚烧寺庙，污染水井，让人们无法回归。山沟里常发现呈跪姿被绑的数百具尸体，4岁的儿童，70岁老人…… 到了1999年春天，米洛舍维奇发动三场战争，屠杀13万人，400万人流离失所。 舆论哗然，“纳粹大屠杀在欧洲重演，世界却袖手旁观”。联合国一直没有武力干预，因为程序走不通，拥有“一票否决权”的俄罗斯是米洛舍维奇幕后支持者，中国“不干预他国内政”…… 八年来，血一直在流，会一直在开，程序走不通。在“主权大于人权”“不干预他国内政”“国际法”三大牌坊前，一切提议像“鬼打墙”。 那时美国还很血性，国会炮轰克林顿。那时拜登还是最激进鹰派，怒斥欧洲盟友不肯参战是“道德暴行”，痛骂“克林顿像做破产政策”，嘲笑“联合国制定了白痴交战规则”，呼吁“美军轰炸贝尔格莱德。” 两党议员以压倒性多数票通过《波黑自卫法案》，按照美国宪法，这已具备推翻总统否决权的能力，国会议员们等于在告诉克林顿——你不打，我们就替你打。 五年前，卢旺达死了100万人，克林顿什么都没做；四年前，波黑被杀了8000人，克林顿迟到了；现在是科索沃，他不想第三次站在尸体前面道歉。他公开表态：“我看到铁丝网后骨瘦如柴的囚犯、被强暴的妇女、被推进万人坑枪杀的孩子……” 但《联合国宪章》只允许两种情形下使用武力：1，安理会授权——但中俄不同意；2，自卫——北约空袭他国，显然不属于自卫。 美国不缺聪明人，有人提出“人道主义干预”概念——当一个政权正在对自己的人民实施种族灭绝时，国际社会有权介入，即使没有安理会授权，也不违反程序正义。 1999年3月24日，北约动手了，取名“盟军行动”，把塞族所有战略目标来来回回轰炸了N遍……炸了78天。 局面一下子变简单：大屠杀停止，几周后人们就返回家园。 国际委员会对这次北约违规行动发布了报告，提出一个经典结论： “非法，但正当”。 多伟大的观点。 克林顿在回忆录《我的生活》中说：“有人说这违反了国际法，但我必须在两种错误之间选择，1.违反国际法。2.看着种族清洗发生。我不能接受第二种，如果有能力阻止大屠杀却什么也不做，历史不会原谅我们。” 后来很多国家在伊拉克、利比亚、叙利亚都引用北约案例，干掉卡扎菲，活捉萨达姆。 这也催生2005年联合国正式通过“保护的责任”（Responsibility to Protect）原则。也就是“R2P原则”。 “R2P原则”针对四种极端罪行：种族灭绝、战争罪、族裔清洗、反人类罪。不再空谈人权，而是专门回应一个问题：当一个主权国家对自己的人民犯下这四种暴行时，国际社会该怎么办？ “R2P原则”包含三层递进逻辑： 一，每个国家有责任保护自己人民免遭这四种罪行。 二，国际社会有责任协助该国履行该义务。 三，如果该国无力或不愿保护其人民，国际社会有权采取集体行动。 虽然尾巴仍可耻地后缀了“通过安理会授权”，但从本质上对“主权不可侵犯”这一传统原则进行了修正——主权不是屠杀本国人民的挡箭牌。
（四）： 说到这里，你肯定知道，我要说伊朗。 必须重复无法遗忘的故事：年仅16岁的阿特费，被51岁的特权阶层男子强奸。她去法院寻求正义，但强奸犯只领受100下鞭刑，16岁的受害者阿特费却因“通奸罪”被判死刑。 法庭上，阿特费做出了最后的反抗——她摘掉头巾，脱下鞋子狠狠扔向那个法官。处决那天，愤怒的法官亲手把绞索套在她的脖子上，用起重机吊起绞死。这个镜头就是神权本质：用国家暴力，摧残弱者尊严；打着神的名义，魔鬼行私刑。 1999年，大学生们抗议“哈梅内依，知道羞耻就下台吧”。哈梅内伊说“这让我心碎”。心领神会的警察深夜冲进宿舍，把学生从楼上扔下摔死。 绿色运动。哈梅内依说“暴徒应被摆在该在的位置”。第二天，子弹就射穿一位上街抗议的女孩胸膛。手机拍下她生命最后40秒。画面里，血从她的口鼻涌出。这段视频几小时内传遍全世界。《时代》周刊说，“这是人类历史上被目击次数最多的一次死亡”。 她叫“内达”，在波斯语意为“呼唤”。她正准备学钢琴，死的时候，那架钢琴正在路上。她曾因拒绝戴头巾从大学退学，她总问：“为什么女人必须戴强制头巾？” 2014年，哈梅内伊说“要让不戴头巾的女人感到不安全”，次日，玛尔齐耶就因为头巾佩戴不规范，在街头被泼硫酸，失去半张脸。 2022年，16岁的沙卡拉米上街声援因“头巾戴得太松”被道德警察打死的阿米尼……九天后，家人在停尸房找到她的遗体。政府说是自杀。但BBC记者获得一份革命卫队内部文件，真相是：她被三名特工塞进一辆面包车，性侵。她拼命反抗，被殴打致死。上级指令：“把她扔到街上。” 2019年，哈梅内伊称抗议者是“无耻之徒”。革命卫队打死1500人，装甲车包围逃进沼泽地的抗议者，机枪扫射。2026年，哈梅内伊说“中止煽动者”，上万名抗议者死于街头。 注意，哈梅内伊从不说“杀”“枪毙”，只说“我很心碎”“碾碎”“惩罚”“摆在该在的位置”“中止”，每一句像神谕，每一句之后是尸体——以神的名义。 霍梅尼把大量孩子派到前线趟地雷。他们被承诺给予“天堂钥匙”，作为烈士将升入天堂。“人权观察”及记者调查报道：36000名学龄儿童在死于前线。 说到这里，你该明白： 比起米洛舍维奇这些屠夫，神棍霍梅尼和哈梅内伊更邪恶，他们不仅屠杀，而且以神的名义屠杀，不仅残害本国人民，还祸害全世界，真主党、哈马斯、胡塞武装，无人机炸死乌克兰孩子……你说，要不要让他们核弹试验成功。 所以看到国人哭着喊着向伊朗捐款，我更确定，“共情流氓”是医疗史上最严重的心理疾病，只有派去趟地雷，才治得了病根。 记住，神棍政权没有主权，那叫对人民的控制权和奴役权。狙杀屠戮本国人民的神棍，不叫“干涉他国内政”，那是对全人类人权的保护。 世间还有什么比神棍政权更坏的吗？有人说“灭掉旧邪恶政权，也可能出现新邪恶政权”。这话有道理。但是，伐了商纣，还有秦始皇，杀了隋炀帝，还有朱元璋，崇祯上吊，又有慈禧……是不是保留帝制？推翻暴君尼禄，还有多米尼安，把查理一世送上断头台，又出现独裁者克伦威尔……是不是不该光荣革命？ 阿富汗是一种例子，但伊拉克是另一种走向：2002年，GDP329亿美元，人均1254美元；2024年，GDP2796亿美元，人均6073美元；2002年石油产量240万桶/天；现在450万桶/天。人口从2600万增长到4600万；城市换新颜……别被忽悠，ISIS现在只剩1000多人了，日子过不下去，只能逃窜非洲。 我当然同意，推翻邪恶政权并不必然迎来好政权；但不推翻邪恶政权，永远迎不来好政权。看造化看因果，有的成了阿富汗，有的成了伊拉克。人类世界哪儿有完美政权，瑞士还有诸多问题呢，难道你就想移民朝鲜？
（五）： 最需要舔十二指肠的时候，肯定缺不了胡锡进。他愤怒说“理解不了一些国人，强烈反对俄罗斯入侵乌克兰，却对美以空中入侵伊朗叫好”。胡编，您老都停经了，就别假装热血澎湃……记住：俄罗斯攻入他国领土，那叫侵略；美以空袭伊朗，那叫收拾神棍。 胡编指出：“网上的人需要时不时与中国外交政策对对表”。但中国外交政策一会儿《上甘岭》、一会儿《黄河绝恋》，你怎么对齐？戴三个表、戴满24时区也对不齐，你像朝鲜将军那样全须全尾戴满表，火化后兴许能烧出几粒跟领袖永远同步的舍利子。 胡编谴责“美军误炸学校”，证明这是不义之战。正常人逻辑：误炸学校真让人悲痛，即使战争难免伤及无辜，也得道歉、赔偿、改进——战争很不好，但这改变不了战争性质。比如：1945年，盟军空袭德军总部，误炸哥本哈根一所学校，造成86名学生死亡。1945年美军总攻日本，误炸“保户岛国民学校”，导致127名儿童死亡。你能说盟军在二战打的是不义之战？ 没有“完美受害者”，也没有“完美复仇者”，胡编爱用“错位推理”忽悠文盲粉丝。神棍杀百万平民，他不谴责，美军清除神棍误炸学校，他愤怒得假发套都炸毛了。看胡编的友军战绩： 2020年，伊朗导弹误炸乌克兰客机，176人全部遇难；车臣战争，俄军对50万人口城市无差别“误炸”，30000名平民死亡；乌克兰剧院门前写着巨大俄文字母“儿童”，卫星图清晰可见，俄军“误炸”导致600人死亡；萨达姆“误用”芥子气攻击城市，5000名平民死亡；卡扎菲飞机“误炸”居民区，3万人死亡。 我只举例不到十分之一…… 胡编呼吁“要与国家立场保持一致”，我理解的，他其实要跟退休金保持一致。我也理解缝纫机乐队，为了减刑可劲在牢里踩响正能量乐章。我只是不理解那些吃着简装泡面、担心电瓶车被缴、焦虑“花呗”咋还、从出生就鼻涕一样被甩出体制红利池的屌丝们代入感为什么这么强，跑皇城根撒泡野尿，也觉得自己跟皇室体液交融…… 你看，“伊朗在进行反殖民主义的最后一战，中国也经历过被侵略的苦难，我感同身受”。你祖爷爷的苦难是大清带来的，你爷爷的苦难是土改带来的，你爹爹的苦难是文革带来的，你的苦难，是不读历史带来的……你全家苦难诸多来源，唯一不可能就是它由美国带来。没有美国，你都没五险一金，上个网都跟朝鲜人一样，得开介绍信。 至于“美国是冲石油来的”。查查伊拉克最大外资石油公司：“中石油”。美国连前三都排不进。
（六）： 看到一个视频：几个被封在霍尔姆兹海峡漂了好几天、快饿死的中国船员用对讲机焦虑讨论冲关“晚上还是白天风险高”。一个说：晚上风险高，挨炸机率大。另一个说：肯定白天过，被炸了，有人看见还能救你。又一个说：被炸了咋办。答：要么饿死，要么冲过去…… 不是说好“打着五星红旗就能顺利通过”吗。 封锁海峡的是伊朗，要求放行的是美国。所以当你说“伊朗拖住美军打持久战，让美国人付出代价”……别总是代价、代价，喝多少毒奶醉成这样，人生路上你真得叫个代驾。代价就是这些快饿死在海峡的中国人。再则，把美国拖垮，你让领导子女从尔湾搬到波斯湾？生个男孩趟地雷阵，生个女儿戴黑头巾，9岁嫁给老登，敢上抖音撩帅哥，直接施以石刑。
结论： 一，克林顿或川普是恶棍，和必须消灭神棍，二者并不矛盾。 二，人类缔结所有社会形式，包括国家、政府、联合国，存在前提是保护人民生命，否则自动失去存在理由。国际法就是流氓庇护法，联合国成了流氓庇护所。 三，当政府多行不义，人民有权推翻暴政。
最后讲一个故事： 16岁的萨丽娜是优等生，会说英语、法语。她常问“为什么有强制头巾，为什么女孩不能去球场”。这一天，她勇敢地上街抗议，被警棍反复击打头部…… 第二天，安全部队通知让家人辨认遗体——美丽的萨丽娜，右前额完全被打碎了。 政府说她是跳楼自杀。 她的社交账号被人篡改，被编辑成有自杀倾向。国家电视台播出了她母亲否认女儿参加抗议的视频。但有人认出，那女人是个演员。 U2乐队为她写了一首歌，《未来之歌》。Bono道出为16岁女孩写歌的原因：“致敬她的蓬勃生命力，但以一个悲伤音符结束。” 神棍政权试图抹掉她存在过的痕迹，篡改她的社交媒体，伪造她的死因——但伟大的摇滚乐队把她的名字刻进了音乐史。 他们杀死了她的生命，杀不死她的名字。 歌词片段： 未来——人人都知道 我们余生将要抵达的地方 是谁说未来已经关闭 他们从没在她眼中看见那份承诺——自由 主唱写了一句：“Love is a verb, not a noun”（爱是一个动词，而不是一个名词）。 这句话其实源自美国神学家斯蒂芬.格瑞雷特的思想传统，意思是：爱不是一种抽象的情感，而是一种行动。你看到有人被压迫，仅仅“同情”是不够的，真正的爱应该体现在行动上。 萨丽娜不是抽象“受害者”，她是行动的人，所以歌词里才会有一个很重要的象征： “schoolgirl says love is a verb”——一个女学生说：爱是一种行动。
English Translation
A note on the translation: the term "神棍" (shén gùn) is a colorful Chinese slang expression — literally "divine stick/rod" — used contemptuously to describe religious charlatans, cult leaders, or rulers who exploit religion as a tool of political control and oppression. In the context of this article, Li Chengpeng applies it specifically to Iran's Supreme Leaders Khomeini and Khamenei. "Theocratic ruler" captures the political meaning, though the original carries a sharper, more contemptuous bite — closer to "holy fraud," "god-stick," or "religious tyrant."
(Part One)
On January 10, 1994, the beautiful highlands of Rwanda lay between the short rainy season and the long one. Sunlight came and went, with afternoon thunderstorms. That afternoon, Canadian General Dallaire held a secret meeting with his high-level informant, Pierre.
He received a shocking piece of intelligence: the Hutu would join forces with the military to carry out a massacre. Their forces were capable of killing 1,000 Tutsi in 20 minutes.
The next day, Dallaire sent a telegram to UN headquarters marked "Most Urgent." This telegram would later be known to the world as the "Genocide Fax."
Annan, the head of UN peacekeeping affairs, had his assistant cable back: all action was prohibited.
General Dallaire requested a raid on militia weapons caches to reduce the intensity of the killing. But the UN ordered: this was not consistent with Security Council Resolution 872.
Dallaire cited the clause on "assisting in the confiscation of illegal weapons from civilians" to show he had not overstepped his authority. The UN cabled back: peacekeeping forces were limited to observation and "monitoring."
Over three months, Dallaire sent six warnings and requests for action. The UN rejected all of them on the grounds that they were "inconsistent with international law and UN procedures." Years later, a UN spokesperson revealed that Annan felt General Dallaire needed to be "put on a leash" — he was too eager.
Rwanda entered its long rainy season. After the rains, rainbows arched across the sky; silverback gorillas leapt through the rainforest; brilliantly colored birds flew overhead. On the Akagera savanna, prides of lions and herds of elephants wandered with their young. The rivers rose, and the crocodiles expanded their hunting range. It was an ideal time for slaughter.
On the evening of April 6, 1994, the Rwandan president's plane was struck by a missile. The military had its excuse. The first target was Prime Minister Agathe, who had long advocated reconciliation with the Tutsi. Kill her, and the killing could begin in earnest.
The UN assistance mission deployed ten Belgian paratroopers to protect her, yet strangely they were not permitted to return fire. After being surrounded for two hours, the Belgian soldiers were ordered to surrender their weapons and were taken to a military barracks by the Presidential Guard.
By the time General Dallaire arrived, he found the ten Belgian paratroopers had been dismembered. Their bodies were stacked like "sacks of potatoes," a bloody pulp — impossible to count.
The Prime Minister scaled a wall and fled into the compound of the UN Development Programme. The Presidential Guard broke in and shot her and her husband dead in front of UN officials. At dawn, the military worked through lists, going door to door to execute Tutsi officials, journalists, lawyers, and human rights activists — their families executed alongside them.
General Dallaire had received a distress call from a Tutsi official. Through the phone, he heard the sounds of the official's family being killed, and then the official himself was killed, and everything fell silent.
Civilians were massacred simultaneously. Militiamen and soldiers guarded every intersection across the country. Any Tutsi discovered was shot on the spot. Tens of thousands of Tutsi fled into churches, but these were no longer sanctuaries.
At the Gikondo Polish church, hundreds of children were slaughtered by militiamen who stormed in. At the Nyange Catholic church, more than 1,500 Tutsi were sheltering inside. Militiamen bulldozed the church and killed everyone in the rubble with machetes and rifles. At the Nyarubuye church, militiamen killed more than 20,000 people, regardless of sex or age.
Once the slaughter was unleashed, it no longer needed to be organized. It ran like a powerful machine under its own power. Neighbors killed neighbors, students killed teachers, husbands killed wives, patients were killed by doctors. If you didn't kill Tutsi, you would be killed yourself. Bodies lay everywhere in the streets. The sounds of gunfire and blades hacking through flesh filled the air. The Rusumo River ran red.
The Hutu even released HIV-positive men, forming "rape squads" with the explicit purpose of inflicting "slow, irreversible death on Tutsi women." They had no compunction about committing atrocities in churches. One woman was gang-raped by twenty men, then killed by a two-meter sharpened stake driven into her body.
In the face of this genocide, UN Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali decided to withdraw all peacekeeping forces — having already reduced the 2,500-strong force to just 270.
At that moment in Rwanda, an average of 8,000 people were being killed each day. 333 per hour. 5 per minute.
Belgian soldiers protecting 2,000 Tutsi in a school received orders and withdrew. Hutu forces stormed in and killed everyone. On their way out, Belgian soldiers were also forbidden from rescuing the tens of thousands of people along the roadside calling for help, so as not to trigger a larger war.
Only General Dallaire defied orders. He said: "I refused a lawful order, but that order was immoral."
He led the remaining peacekeeping soldiers and protected several refuge points — stadiums, the Hôtel des Mille Collines — where thousands of refugees sheltered.
After a month and a half of genocide, the UN finally agreed to expand the peacekeeping force to 5,500. Various countries dragged their feet, arriving six months later — by which time the genocide was over. On July 4, Tutsi rebel forces captured the capital and ended one hundred days of slaughter.
Between 800,000 and one million Tutsi civilians were killed. 400,000 orphans were left homeless. 500,000 women were raped. 200,000 women were infected with HIV.
In the subsequent investigation, Annan claimed he had no recollection of General Dallaire's six urgent faxes. He was never held accountable. Three years later, he was promoted to UN Secretary-General.
From the very first moments, the UN, the United States, Britain, France, and Belgium had all recognized the gravity of the situation — yet none mobilized nearby troops to intervene. Russia and China, citing "non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries," watched in silent complicity — like tourists observing predators hunt on the savanna, unwilling to intervene.
Only General Dallaire, leading a small force with rudimentary weapons, struggled against the slaughter. He moved through streets and villages carpeted with corpses, cradling surviving children in his arms and collecting the bodies of the dead. Every day he desperately requested reinforcements from the UN, and every day he received nothing. He could only watch helplessly as "small children were hacked to death on the other bank," "entire villages were killed, crocodiles gnawing on human limbs in the river." At the same time he had to guard against snipers — there was a bounty on his head.
In his memoirs, he wrote: April in Rwanda was a season of abundance, the hillsides green, the sun brilliant, birds calling to each other in courtship above — while below lay the bodies of the genocide. That contrast never left him.
He titled his memoir Shake Hands with the Devil, because his failure to save more people was tantamount to indulging the devil. He attempted suicide four times, slashing his thighs with a razor. "When the blood began to flow, I felt a false calm, feeling I was about to be reunited with those I had failed to save."
In 2000, he was discharged due to post-traumatic stress disorder. "My wounds will never heal."
General Dallaire has no reason to feel shame. The Rwandan genocide is the United Nations' eternal shame. Politicians used "international law," the "UN Charter," and "procedural justice" to enable the slaughter of one million civilians.
(Part Two)
On July 11, 1995, at the Fontana Hotel in Bosnia, Serb commander Mladić raised a glass of Balkan plum brandy and clinked glasses with the UN peacekeeping commander Karremans.
Mladić said: "Don't be afraid. Everything will be fine."
A few hours earlier, he had said the same words, leaning down to hand chocolate to a small boy in the refugee camp: "Don't be afraid. No one will hurt you."
While the two commanders were drinking, the massacre began outside. In the presence of UN peacekeeping forces, Serb soldiers separated tens of thousands of refugees. Women and children were loaded onto buses; men were taken away to be "registered." 1,500 men were herded into a warehouse. The doors were closed. Soldiers opened fire with machine guns, even deploying rocket launchers.
Another group of men was transported to open fields, lined up in rows, and shot with machine guns.
Tens of thousands of men tried to make their way through the forest. "It was a silent column, like a dark river moving slowly through the night, with only the sound of breaking branches." Then artillery shells fell. Ambushing Serb soldiers opened fire. Everything fell silent. Soldiers buried the bodies.
To conceal their crimes, they later excavated the bodies with diggers and reburied them elsewhere. Most of the remains were thus scattered across multiple sites. Family members could only weep over a few unidentified bones.
This was the infamous Srebrenica massacre.
Peacekeeping soldiers heard the sounds of slaughter nearby throughout the night, unable to stop it. They numbered only four hundred, with no heavy weapons. The Serb army had three thousand troops, with tanks and artillery. In the preceding days, several peacekeeping soldiers had even been humiliatingly taken captive by Serb forces.
NATO had overwhelming military superiority. Had the UN authorized air strikes, the Serb forces would have been destroyed, and the massacre would never have occurred. But the UN insisted on political correctness: air strikes required authorization from UN civilian officials. The application never made it through the officials' labyrinthine procedures. In the end, the vaunted peacekeeping force, standing in a UN "safe zone," watched Serb troops march tens of thousands of refugees away and kill them.
Historians perpetually invoke that night's real tableau as a bitter irony: in the Fontana Hotel, two commanders drank brandy; outside in the open fields, rows of men were cut down by machine gun fire.
More ironic still: a few weeks later, the UN finally authorized NATO air strikes — the Serb forces collapsed instantly and the slaughter ended.
The international criminal tribunal's verdict on the war criminals described it as: "a planned, organized, systematic genocide."
Who could say this was not a genocide systematically produced by the United Nations? It promised a "safe zone," but with grotesquely insufficient troops and weapons — bloated bureaucracy, cowardice, and corruption ultimately enabling the massacre.
Pulitzer Prize winner David Rohde's reporting included some details: a six-year-old child staggered upright from a pile of corpses, looking for his father who had been killed; the warehouse floor turned deep brown with the pooled blood of 1,500 men; the earth in the fields was visibly disturbed, scraps of clothing protruding from the soil; journalists walked into towns and villages silent as places abandoned by time — houses burned black, windows shattered, dogs roaming empty streets, but no men.
Women said: "The men all walked into the forest. Only widows remain here."
(Part Three)
One day, Serb leader Milošević spoke at a grand rally and said something that sent his followers into rapture:
"Six hundred years ago, we fought here. Today, we will fight again."
To reclaim Kosovo, which he said had belonged to them six hundred years before, Serb forces killed across the land — shelling villages, firing machine guns, burning mosques, poisoning wells, making return impossible. Ravines frequently yielded hundreds of bodies, hands bound, kneeling — children of four, elderly of seventy.
By the spring of 1999, Milošević had launched three wars, killed 130,000 people, and displaced four million.
The outcry was enormous: "The Nazi genocide is being replicated in Europe, and the world watches with folded arms." The UN never intervened by force — the procedure was blocked. Russia, holding veto power, was Milošević's behind-the-scenes backer. China maintained its position of "non-interference in internal affairs."
For eight years, blood kept flowing; meetings kept being held; procedures kept being blocked. Before the three great pillars of "sovereignty supersedes human rights," "non-interference in internal affairs," and "international law," every proposal ran endlessly into walls.
America still had backbone then. Congress blasted Clinton. Biden, then its most hawkish voice, denounced European allies' refusal to participate as a "moral outrage," furiously condemned Clinton as "acting like a bankrupt-policy president," mocked the "***** rules of engagement drawn up by the UN," and called for "US forces to bomb Belgrade."
Legislators from both parties passed the Bosnia Self-Defense Act by overwhelming majority. Under the US Constitution, this was enough to override a presidential veto — Congress was effectively telling Clinton: if you won't act, we'll act for you.
Five years earlier, one million people had died in Rwanda and Clinton did nothing. Four years earlier, 8,000 people were killed in Bosnia and Clinton arrived late. Now it was Kosovo, and he didn't want to stand before corpses for a third time and apologize. He stated publicly: "I see skeletal prisoners behind barbed wire, raped women, children shot into mass graves."
But the UN Charter permitted the use of force only in two circumstances: 1. Security Council authorization — which China and Russia would not grant; 2. Self-defense — clearly NATO striking another country did not qualify.
America was not short of clever minds. Someone proposed the concept of "humanitarian intervention" — when a regime is perpetrating genocide against its own people, the international community has the right to intervene, even without Security Council authorization, and this does not violate procedural justice.
On March 24, 1999, NATO acted. The operation was called "Operation Allied Force." Every Serb strategic target was struck again and again for 78 days.
The situation simplified at once: the genocide stopped, and within weeks people were returning home.
An international commission published a report on this unauthorized NATO action and arrived at a classic conclusion:
"Illegal, but legitimate."
What a magnificent verdict.
In his memoir My Life, Clinton wrote: "Some say this violated international law, but I had to choose between two wrongs: 1. Violate international law. 2. Watch ethnic cleansing happen. I could not accept the second. If we had the ability to prevent genocide and did nothing, history would not forgive us."
Later, many countries cited the NATO precedent in Iraq, Libya, and Syria — removing Gaddafi, capturing Saddam.
This also helped give rise to the principle formally adopted by the UN in 2005: the "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P).
R2P addresses four extreme crimes: genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. Rather than speaking abstractly about human rights, it answers a specific question: when a sovereign state commits these four atrocities against its own people, what must the international community do?
R2P contains three progressive layers of logic:
First, every state has the responsibility to protect its own people from these four crimes.
Second, the international community has the responsibility to assist states in fulfilling that obligation.
Third, if a state is unable or unwilling to protect its people, the international community has the right to take collective action.
Although it still shamefully appends the caveat "through Security Council authorization," it fundamentally amends the traditional principle of inviolable sovereignty — sovereignty is not a shield behind which to slaughter one's own people.
(Part Four)
By now, you certainly know where I'm going: Iran.
I must repeat a story that cannot be forgotten. Sixteen-year-old Atefeh was raped by a fifty-one-year-old man from the privileged class. She went to court seeking justice, but the rapist received only 100 lashes. Atefeh, the sixteen-year-old victim, was sentenced to death for "adultery."
In court, Atefeh made one final act of defiance — she removed her headscarf and threw her shoes hard at the judge. On the day of her execution, the furious judge personally placed the noose around her neck and had her hoisted up to hang by a crane. This image is the essence of theocracy: using state violence to destroy the dignity of the weak; committing the devil's private punishment in the name of God.
In 1999, students protested with chants of "Khamenei, have some shame and step down." Khamenei said "this breaks my heart." Police who read his intent perfectly raided dormitories in the night and threw students to their deaths from upper floors.
The Green Movement. Khamenei said "thugs should be put in their place." The next day, a bullet passed through the chest of a young woman who had taken to the streets to protest. A mobile phone captured the last 40 seconds of her life. On screen, blood poured from her mouth and nose. The video spread around the world within hours. Time magazine called it "the most witnessed death in human history."
Her name was Neda. In Persian, it means "the call." She had been about to learn piano — the instrument was in transit when she died. She had withdrawn from university for refusing to wear the headscarf. She always asked: "Why must women wear the mandatory headscarf?"
In 2014, Khamenei said he wanted unveiled women to "feel unsafe." The next day, Marziyeh had acid thrown in her face on the street for wearing her headscarf improperly, and lost half her face.
In 2022, sixteen-year-old Nika Shakarami joined the protests in solidarity with Mahsa Amini, who had been beaten to death by the morality police for wearing her headscarf "too loosely." Nine days later, her family found her body in the morgue. The government said she had committed suicide. But a BBC journalist obtained an internal Revolutionary Guard document revealing the truth: she had been grabbed by three agents and shoved into a van, sexually assaulted. She fought back fiercely and was beaten to death. The order from above: "Dump her on the street."
In 2019, Khamenei called protesters "shameless elements." The Revolutionary Guard killed 1,500, armored vehicles surrounding protesters who had fled into marshland, cutting them down with machine guns. In 2026, Khamenei spoke of "halting the agitators," and tens of thousands of protesters died in the streets.
Note: Khamenei never says "kill" or "shoot." He says "it breaks my heart," "crush," "punish," "put in their place," "halt." Every utterance like a divine decree; every utterance followed by corpses — in the name of God.
Khomeini sent vast numbers of children to the front lines to clear minefields. They were promised "keys to paradise," told they would ascend to heaven as martyrs. Human Rights Watch and journalists investigated and reported: 36,000 school-age children died at the front.
By now, you should understand:
Compared to butchers like Milošević, the theocratic rulers Khomeini and Khamenei are more evil — they do not merely slaughter, they slaughter in the name of God. They do not merely harm their own people; they plague the world — Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, drones killing children in Ukraine. Tell me: do you want them to successfully test nuclear weapons?
So when I see Chinese people weeping and donating money to Iran, I am more convinced than ever that "empathy fraud" is the most severe psychological illness in the history of medicine. The only cure is to send them to clear minefields.
Remember: a theocratic regime has no sovereignty. What it has is a right to control and enslave its people. Targeting and killing the theocrats who slaughter their own citizens is not "interference in internal affairs." It is the protection of human rights for all of humanity.
Is there anything worse in the world than a theocratic regime? Some say: "Destroying an old evil regime may only bring a new evil regime." This has merit. But — after ending the Shang, there came the Qin; after killing Emperor Yang of Sui, there came Zhu Yuanzhang; after Chongzhen's hanging, there came Empress Dowager Cixi. Does that mean we should preserve imperial rule? After overthrowing the tyrant Nero, there came Domitian; after sending Charles I to the scaffold, the dictator Cromwell emerged. Does that mean the Glorious Revolution should never have happened?
Afghanistan is one example — but Iraq is another trajectory. In 2002, GDP was $32.9 billion, per capita income $1,254. In 2024, GDP is $279.6 billion, per capita income $6,073. Oil production went from 2.4 million barrels per day in 2002 to 4.5 million now. Population grew from 26 million to 46 million. Cities have been rebuilt. Don't be fooled — ISIS is down to barely 1,000 fighters now, unable to sustain themselves, fleeing to Africa.
I certainly agree that overthrowing an evil regime does not automatically produce a good one. But without overthrowing an evil regime, a good one never arrives. It depends on circumstance and causation — some become Afghanistan, some become Iraq. There are no perfect governments anywhere in the human world; Switzerland has plenty of problems. Would you rather emigrate to North Korea?
(Part Five)
Whenever it's most urgently needed, Hu Xijin is never far away. He angrily says he "can't understand some Chinese people who strongly oppose Russia's invasion of Ukraine, yet cheer America and Israel's aerial incursion into Iran." Mr. Editor-in-Chief, you're past menopause — stop pretending to be full-blooded.
Remember: Russia marching into another country's territory is called invasion. America and Israel striking Iran is called dealing with theocrats.
He points out that "people online need to periodically align themselves with China's foreign policy." But China's foreign policy veers from Battle on Shangganling to Yellow River Elegy — how do you stay aligned? You could wear three watches covering all 24 time zones, wear them packed on like a North Korean general in full regalia, and maybe after cremation you'd be able to burn out a few sacred relics permanently synchronized with the leader.
He condemns the "accidental bombing of schools by US forces" as proof this is an unjust war. The logic of a normal person: accidental bombings are genuinely tragic; even when war inevitably harms civilians, you apologize, compensate, and improve — war is very bad, but that doesn't change the nature of the war itself. For example: in 1945, Allied air strikes on German military headquarters accidentally bombed a school in Copenhagen, killing 86 students. Also in 1945, in America's final assault on Japan, a school on Hogo Island was accidentally bombed, killing 127 children. Can you say the Allied forces fought an unjust war in World War II?
There are no "perfect victims" and no "perfect avengers." Hu loves to use "displaced reasoning" to mislead his barely-literate fanbase. The theocrats kill millions of civilians — no condemnation from him. US forces accidentally bomb a school while targeting theocrats — he's apoplectic, his hairpiece bristling.
Let's look at the track record of his friendly forces: In 2020, an Iranian missile accidentally downed a Ukrainian passenger jet — 176 killed, no survivors. In the Chechen war, Russian forces "accidentally bombed" a city of 500,000 indiscriminately, killing 30,000 civilians. A Ukrainian theater had the word "CHILDREN" written in giant Russian letters on the ground, clearly visible from satellite imagery — Russian forces "accidentally" bombed it, killing 600. Saddam "accidentally" used mustard gas on cities, killing 5,000 civilians. Gaddafi's aircraft "accidentally bombed" residential areas, killing 30,000.
I've cited fewer than a tenth of the examples.
He calls on people to "align with the national position." I understand — what he really means is to align with his pension. I also understand the Suturing Machine Band — when you're in prison trying to reduce your sentence, you pedal the positive-energy soundtrack as hard as you can. What I can't understand is why those people eating budget instant noodles, worried about their electric scooters being confiscated, anxious about how to pay off their credit app balances, people who were tossed out of the pool of systemic privilege from birth like mucus — why they identify so strongly. They squat to urinate at the foot of the imperial walls and imagine their body fluids mingling with the royal family's.
You see the logic: "Iran is fighting the last battle of anti-colonialism, China also suffered the agony of invasion, and I deeply empathize." Your great-grandfather's suffering was caused by the Qing dynasty. Your grandfather's suffering was caused by land reform. Your father's suffering was caused by the Cultural Revolution. Your own suffering is caused by not reading history. The many sources of your family's suffering have one single impossible origin: it could not have been America. Without America, you wouldn't even have five forms of social insurance. Getting online would be like being North Korean — you'd need a letter of introduction.
As for "America is only in it for the oil": look up the largest foreign oil company operating in Iraq. It's China National Petroleum Corporation. America doesn't even rank in the top three.
(Part Six)
I saw a video: several Chinese sailors trapped in the Strait of Hormuz for days, nearly starved, anxiously discussing over walkie-talkies whether to make a run for it "at night or in the daytime."
One says: nighttime is riskier — higher chance of getting bombed. Another says: definitely go in the daytime; if you get hit, someone can see and rescue you. Yet another says: what if we get bombed? The answer: either starve to death, or make a run for it.
Whatever happened to "sailing under the five-star red flag, you pass through freely"?
It is Iran blockading the strait. It is America demanding passage. So when you say "Iran is tying down the US military in a war of attrition, making Americans pay the price" — stop saying "pay the price, pay the price." However much poisoned milk you've drunk to get this drunk, you really need a designated driver for the road of life. The price is these Chinese sailors nearly starving to death in the strait. Furthermore, if America collapses, where will you tell the leaders' children to move from Irvine? To the Persian Gulf? Give birth to sons and send them to clear minefields. Give birth to daughters and make them wear black head coverings, marry old men at nine, and if they dare flirt with a cute boy on Douyin, face stoning.
Conclusion:
First, Clinton or Trump being villains, and the necessity of eliminating theocrats — these two things are not in contradiction.
Second, all social constructs created by humanity — including states, governments, and the United Nations — exist on the premise of protecting human lives. Without that, they automatically forfeit their reason for existence. International law has become a law for sheltering criminals. The United Nations has become a shelter for criminals.
Third, when a government persistently commits injustice, the people have the right to overthrow tyranny.
A final story:
Sixteen-year-old Sarina was an honor student. She spoke English and French. She often asked: "Why is there a mandatory headscarf? Why can't girls go to stadiums?" One day, she bravely went into the street to protest. She was beaten repeatedly on the head with a baton.
The next day, security forces notified her family to come identify her body. Beautiful Sarina — the entire right front of her skull had been crushed.
The government said she had jumped from a building and taken her own life.
Her social media accounts were hijacked and edited to suggest she had suicidal tendencies. State television broadcast a video of her mother denying that her daughter had participated in the protests. But someone recognized that the woman in the video was an actress.
The band U2 wrote a song for her: Song for the Future. Bono explained why he wrote a song for a sixteen-year-old girl: "To honor her vibrant life force, but ending on a sad note."
The theocratic regime tried to erase the traces of her existence — hijacking her social media, falsifying her cause of death. But a great rock band carved her name into the history of music.
They killed her life. They could not kill her name.
A lyric fragment:
The future — everybody knows Where we'll all end up living out our days Who said the future's closed They never saw the promise in her eyes — freedom
The lead singer wrote a line: "Love is a verb, not a noun."
This phrase is rooted in the intellectual tradition of American theologian Stephen Grellet. Its meaning: love is not an abstract feeling — it is action. When you see someone being oppressed, mere "sympathy" is not enough. True love must manifest in deeds.
Sarina was not an abstract "victim." She was a person of action. That is why the lyrics carry an important symbol:
"Schoolgirl says love is a verb" — a schoolgirl says: love is action.
|
