Genocide

Lt. Calley's troops proceeded to attack all personnel they found in the hamlet of My Lai, mostly women, children, and old men. Villagers were lined up along ditches and shot, their bodies falling into the ditches. Mothers were shot holding their babies. Some women were sexually assaulted and beaten before being shot. One soldier reportedly shot at a baby two times with his .45 pistol, missing both times. After being ridiculed by his fellow soldiers for his poor marksmanship, he stood over the child and fired a third time. Water buffalo, pigs, and chickens were also shot. Their carcasses were dumped down wells to poison the water.

While Calley's Charley Company was destroying My Lai, Bravo Company carried out a similar mission in the nearby hamlet of My Khe. But only My Lai came to symbolize the atrocity of the war in Vietnam.

A Vietnam veteran, Ronald Ridenhour, threatened to reveal what he had been told about My Lai. This forced the United States Army to conduct an investigation into the incident. The official inquiry resulted in the court martial of only Lt. Calley. The Army did take steps to prosecute others involved in My Lai. About two dozen men were charged, including Captain Medina, but Calley was the only one convicted. On 29 March 1971, Calley was convicted of the premeditated murder of 22 civilians. (He had been accused of killing 109) He was sentenced to life in prison at hard labor. President Nixon intervened on Calley's behalf and ordered him to serve his sentence under house arrest. Various appeals brought his sentence down to 20 and then 10 years. Calley was released after serving three and one half years under house arrest, most of the time served at his apartment in Fort Benning, during which time he was allowed visits by his girlfriend.

My Lai caused many Americans to question U.S. action in Vietnam. There was some public sympathy for Calley. Many felt that he was made the scapegoat and had "taken the rap" for his superior officers. MrV
The officer lost command & control of his men. In order to successfully lead men in battle, the leader (officer/commander) MUST know his men; their needs, their thoughts, who's aggressive...who is not...then he can lead them (command them); he then integrates that process into the mission. Command and Control, a fundamental principle of leadership.

KINDAWELL, IT IS RECORDED IN THE BIBLE, SO, BIBLICALLY SPEAKING YES.

Outside the Gospel tradition, there is no record of this. Further, it sounds like a midrash of the Moses event. Decide for yourself.

Matthew: "Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under" (ii, 16).

If this statement be true hundreds of innocent babes (the Greek Calendar says fourteen thousand) must have perished, a crime the enormity of which is almost without a parallel in the annals of history. It is strange that Mark, Luke, and John make no mention of this frightful tragedy. Luke's silence is especially significant. It is passing strange that the Roman historians and Rabbinical writers of that age, who wrote of Herod, should be silent regarding it. Josephus devotes nearly forty chapters to the life of Herod. He narrates with much particularity every important event in his life. He detested this monarch and dwells upon his crimes and errors. Yet Josephus knew nothing of this massacre.

In this silence of Josephus Dr. Farrar recognizes a difficulty too damaging to ignore. He says: "Why then, it has been asked, does Josephus make no mention of so infamous an atrocity? Perhaps because it was performed so secretly that he did not even know of it. Perhaps because, in those terrible days, the murder of a score of children, in consequence of a transient suspicion, would have been regarded as an item utterly insignificant in the list of Herod's murders. Perhaps because it was passed over in silence by Nikolaus of Damascus, who, writing in the true spirit of those Hellenizing courtiers, who wanted to make a political Messiah out of a corrupt and blood-stained usurper, magnified all his patron's achievements, and concealed or palliated all his crimes. But the more probable reason is that Josephus, whom, in spite of all the immense literary debt which we owe to him, we can only regard as a renegade and a sycophant, did not choose to make any allusion to facts which were even remotely connected with the life of Christ" (Life of Christ, pp. 22, 23).

A more absurd reason than the first advanced by Farrar it is difficult to conceive. The second, that it was a matter of too little consequence to record, an explanation which other Christian apologists have assigned, is as unreasonable as it is heartless. The silence of Nikolaus, who wrote of Herod after his death, is also significant, and the excuse offered by Farrar that he omitted it because he was the friend of Herod, even if admitted, cannot apply to Josephus, who abhorred the memory of this monarch. The contention that Josephus purposely ignored the existence of Christ because he saw in him a menace to his faith is childish. Jesus Christ, admitting his existence, had made no history to record. His birth was attended by no prodigies, and there was nothing in his advent to excite the fear or envy of a king. Josephus mentions no Herodian massacre at Bethlehem because none occurred. Had Herod slain a single child in the manner stated the fact would be attested by a score of authors whose writings are extant. Herod did not slay one babe. This story is false.

Herod's massacre of the infants of Bethlehem and the escape of Jesus was probably suggested by Kansa's massacre of the infants of Matura and the escape of Krishna Pharaoh's slaughter of the first born in Egypt may also have suggested it.

The often produced 'arguments from silence' prove nothing either. There are many reasons which could satisfactorily explain an event being omitted. Differences in the four Gospel accounts of Jesus' life do not equal disagreement. Many other events are not recorded by Josephus and other historians. This again proves nothing either way.

What we do know can point to something being likely or possible but cannot prove it. We do know that Herod was a cruel tyrant. We also know that he was suffering terribly from an incurable and painful illness which finally killed him. People tend not to be at their best in such circumstances. Most importantly, we know that the Bible has been repeatedly been shown by archaeological discoveries to be factually correct where it was previously thought to be in error.

There is a First-Century, Jewish, apocryphal, pseudepigraphic work called the Assumption of Moses which states that "An insolent king will succeed [the Hasmonean priests]… he will slay all the young." Inarguably, Herod was an "insolent king" who ousted the Hasmoneans as ruler of Judea. Therefore it seems likely the writer of the Assumption of Moses had knowledge of such a slaughter - though he falsely presented his document as if it were a prophesy that pre-dated the slaughter. This certainly constitutes independent documentary evidence indicating the existence of such a slaughter.

Thus, I have no doubt at all this event was historical.

There are many descriptions of the events of July 4, 1876. According to one version of the story, the militia company purposely deployed to block the street and deny passage, and in another, the carriage intentionally drove up against the head of the column. During the hearing on July 6, Robert J. Butler seem to have been genuinely concerned by obstruction of their farm road, that happened to pass through downtown Hamburg. The tenor changed completely when Matthew Calbraith Butler appeared at the second hearing on July 8. All of a sudden there was a demand to disarm the Militia, and armed men appeared in Hamburg. All of this is clear from the Senate Report, titled "South Carolina in 1876".

What is not written there is that M. C. Butler was in close association with Martin Witherspoon Gary, a hardline advocate of the "Straight-Outs" and of the "Edgefield Plan", a ruthless campaign of terror aimed at neutralizing the black majority. What has not been written anywhere is that M. C. Butler's interference was the intentional opening shot of the Edgefield Plan, then and there announcing to the State that the game was on.

It is actually a bit of a puzzle that only four men were picked out and executed. Perhaps M. C. Butler wanted to keep control of the situation and do no more than he felt was necessary. In this respect the later massacre at New Ellenton was much worse, with armed gangs roaming and shooting at will, and even greater loss of life avoided only by interference from the U. S. Army.

Some of the above is my opinion based on a careful reading of the documents, which are:

U. S. Congress (1877). South Carolina in 1876, U.S. Congressional Serial Set, 44th-2nd S.misdoc 48

Budiansky, Stephen (2008). The Bloody Shirt: Terror After Appomattox

Allen, Walter (1969) [1888]. Governor Chamberlain's Administration in South Carolina, A Chapter of Reconstruction in the Southern States

Holt, Thomas (1979). Black over White: Negro Political Leadership in South Carolina during Reconstruction

Haworth, Paul (1906). The Hayes-Tilden Disputed Presidential Election of 1876

"The genocide was sparked by the death of the Rwandan president Juvenal Habyarimana, a Hutu, when his plane was shot down above Kigali airport on 6 April 1994.

A recent French official report blamed current Rwandan President, Paul Kagame.

The report - extracts of which appeared in the daily, Le Monde - said French police had concluded that Mr Kagame gave direct orders for the rocket attack.

Rwanda has rejected the report, describing it as a "fantasy".

Within hours of the attack, a campaign of violence spread from the capital throughout the country, and did not subside until three months later.

But the death of the president was by no means the only cause of Africa's largest genocide in modern times.