Pol Pot

[Huzington]

Can anyone show me one scrap of evidence that Pol Pot killed anyone, ordered the killing of anyone, or even witnessed any of the killings? Why wasn't he ever convicted of the killings, even in absentia? Were the Khmer Rouge really guilty of the famine that occurred in the years of Democratic Kampuchea (1975-1979)?

I'd like to see some consistent sceptics on these fora.

[H3LL]

I'll be interested what turns up.

An important link is:

The Cambodian Genocide Project (http://www.yale.edu/cgp/index.html)

[c0rbin]

At the risk of feeding what I think is obvious trolling compounded with Goodwin, I would pose that Hitler, outside of his involvment in WWI, never killed anyone, at least I can find no evidence of such.

That said, the unfortunate thing for Pol Pot is that he was the recognized leader of a country in which obvious and systematic horrors were executed.

A simple farmer simply hasn;t the time to go around rounding up all of the enemies of thstate so, sure, his administration extended it's arms in the form of agents, death squads, interoggators, torturers, and burial details.

Is Pol Pot guilty of pulling the trigger (or in Cambodia's case, swinging the hoes and shovels) himself?

Does it matter?

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by c0rbin
Does it matter?

Of course it matters, c0rbin -- the record must be set straight.

Communists in China are misunderstood and didn't really have anything to do with atrocities there:

China Thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32811)


North Korea is like Club Med, only better:

N Korea Thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32203)

And is led by a genius:

Kimmy Thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32203)


While Stalin has simply not been given enough credit:

Stalin Thread I (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22872)

and has been wrongfully vilified for the mass starvation of millions (his first foray into the forum a couple years back.

Whether Mr. H is merely a troll or really believes any of this is unimportant.

Whoops - I guess you were right -- it didn't matter, after all.


[Edited to add: Oh, and I skipped over a ton of others, most notably This One (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28319) on pedophilia and punishment.]

[CFLarsen]

Pol Pot.

The "Killer Cambodian Weed"....

[Huzington]

I would pose that Hitler, outside of his involvment in WWI, never killed anyone, at least I can find no evidence of such.

1. You fail to note that there were three distinct factions in the Khmer Rouge:

a. The nationalist and racialist group headed by Pol Pot, Ieng Sary, Son Sen, their wives, and Khieu Samphan, who wanted to carve out Kampuchea's own original communist society, not patterned on Soviet, Chinese, Vietnamese or any other models. They were inspired and strongly influenced by Maoism and by the Chinese Cultural Revolution. However, they secretly despised the Chinese leaders. The group most opposed to Vietnamese expansionism and immigration. (Nationalist group)

b. The group headed by Hu Num, Hou Youn, Phouk Chhay, and Til Ov who fought for applying the model of the Chinese Cultural Revolution to Kampuchean conditions. (Semi-nationalist, semi-internationalist group.)

c. The group headed by So Phim, Pen Sovan, Keo Moni, Chou Chet, and others who favoured building a socialist Kampuchea by following the Vietnamese model. This group was comprised mainly of veterans of the Khmer faction of the former Indochina Communist Party and those who supported their internationalist positions. Supported Vietnamese imperialism. (Internationalist group.)

Now, each of these groups had its own bases and power centres: Pol Pot initially in the northeast among the Montagnard tribesmen; Hu Nim in the south and soutwest in the Elephant and Cardomom Mountains; and So Phim in the densely populated eastern provinces between Mekong River and the frontier with Vietnam.

Now, how can you blame all of the killings which occurred in that time on Pol Pot himself?

2. Show me a scrap of evidence that Pol Pot approved the killings. After all, most of the time lived in an ivory tower in Phnom Penh, the capital of Democratic Kampuchea; the rest of the time whenever he visited the countryside, the visit was already planned ahead of time.

3. No one is responsible for what someone else did, especially when it comes to such a thing as killing.

Does it matter?

Yes, history does matter.

I highly recommend you to read the literature on Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge from an intellectual perspective, properly and comprehensively to understand the reality of the actions and results of the actions of the plans of Pol Pot as enacted by the Khmer Rouge. The most comprehensive book on this subject is Ben Kiernan's book titled "The Pol Pot regime : race, power, and genocide in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, 1975-79". Even though it is inherently biased it still provides facts and the emotional opinions of the author are obvious rather than mixed with the fact to distort facts.

At the risk of feeding what I think is obvious trolling compounded with Goodwin,

Why do you have to provoke a flame war without being provoked to do so?

By the way, weren't you the guy that used to have Chomsky in your avatar?

Chomsky supported the the Khmer Rouge while they were in power.

[c0rbin]

Originally posted by Huzington




Why do you have to provoke a flame war without being provoked to do so?


When someone starts a thread asking--nay challenging--a board to explain themselves on a contrived topic where the poster obviously already has his/her mind made up on the subject, I call bull.

If you have a statement to make about the Khemer Rouge, I would be interested in hearing your position and seeing how you support your points.

But you did not approach this subject in this manner.



Originally posted by Huzington

By the way, weren't you the guy that used to have Chomsky in your avatar?

Chomsky supported the the Khmer Rouge while they were in power.

Nope.

I am familiar with Chomsky only as far as my study of linguistics goes.

A man's politics are not as interesting to me as the arena in which he is obviously more skilled.

[Huzington]

If you have a statement to make about the Khemer Rouge, I would be interested in hearing your position and seeing how you support your points.

C0rbin, see above.

When someone starts a thread asking--nay challenging--a board to explain themselves on a contrived topic where the poster obviously already has his/her mind made up on the subject, I call bull.

C0rbin, unless you have yet to study the history of Democratic Kampuchea (1975-1979) with an approach to completeness, I question your mental rididity on the subject in question. If you know this subject so thoroughly as to justify your mental rididity, I am particularly desirous to know to what extent you agree with the points I have made above, and why.

And for the record, my mind is not made up on the subject.

[SezMe]

Originally posted by Huzington
Can anyone show me one scrap of evidence that Pol Pot killed anyone, ordered the killing of anyone, or even witnessed any of the killings? Why wasn't he ever convicted of the killings, even in absentia? Were the Khmer Rouge really guilty of the famine that occurred in the years of Democratic Kampuchea (1975-1979)?

I'd like to see some consistent sceptics on these fora.
I was with you, Huz, until the last sentence. Asking for evidence is what this forum is all about and, if the topic is controversial, so much more the importance of evidence.

But then you lost me with your appeal for "consistent sceptics." What has consistency to do with your previous paragraph? What inconsistency are you bothered by? What has that inconsistency to do with Pol Pot?

I'd echo c0rbin here: If you have a bone to pick, do so. But start by stating your premises, your evidence and your conclusions. Then we can all have a go at a clear response and let the debate begin. If you, on the other hand, have a h**don about something and don't want to engage in dialog, then go eff off.

[Huzington]

Originally posted by SezMe
I'd echo c0rbin here: If you have a bone to pick, do so. But start by stating your premises, your evidence and your conclusions. Then we can all have a go at a clear response and let the debate begin. If you, on the other hand, have a h**don about something and don't want to engage in dialog, then go eff off.

I did state my premises, my evidence, and my conclusions. Such was the content of the second post I made in this thread. I simply like to know the views of those whom I am engaging in dialogue with, before clarifying my views on any subject whatever. And this is what I have done.

But then you lost me with your appeal for "consistent sceptics." What has consistency to do with your previous paragraph? What inconsistency are you bothered by? What has that inconsistency to do with Pol Pot?

What I am bothered by is the mental rigidity of some self-styled sceptics on certain topics. I don't think mental rigidity is something necessarily to be valued nor conducive to a sceptical outlook.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Huzington
C0rbin, unless you have yet to study the history of Democratic Kampuchea (1975-1979) with an approach to completeness, I question your mental rididity on the subject in question.

That makes it fair to ask for your credentials regarding the history of Democratic Kampuchea, doesn't it?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Huzington
What I am bothered by is the mental rigidity of some self-styled sceptics on certain topics. I don't think mental rigidity is something necessarily to be valued nor conducive to a sceptical outlook.

What topics? Who are these skeptics? We need names, so we know what we are discussing.

[Huzington]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
What topics? Who are these skeptics? We need names, so we know what we are discussing.

No we don't, because that's not the topic of discussion. I will not engage in personalism or bickering of any sort.

Stop replying to contextless fragments to avoid addressing the issue at hand (Pol Pot's personal complicity in the "crimes" of the Khmer Rouge). If you don't know the subject, why are you here?

That makes it fair to ask for your credentials regarding the history of Democratic Kampuchea, doesn't it?

I don't affect to be an authority on Cambodian history. I've submitted my arguments; if they're wrong, someone should refute them--such a person would obviously be a more qualified authority on the subject than I am.

I shall not be returning (to this thread) to answer any more of your flaccid "retorts", until you say something on-topic, or criticise my main agument as to Pol Pot's personal complicity in the crimes of the Khmer Rouge, the subject of discussion.

[Zep]

Hiya, Ixabert.

Go take a flying leap.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Huzington
No we don't, because that's not the topic of discussion. I will not engage in personalism or bickering of any sort.

Stop replying to contextless fragments to avoid addressing the issue at hand (Pol Pot's personal complicity in the "crimes" of the Khmer Rouge). If you don't know the subject, why are you here?

If you do not want to engage in personalism or bickering of any sort, don't you think you should drop the snide remarks about people yourself?

Originally posted by Huzington
I don't affect to be an authority on Cambodian history. I've submitted my arguments; if they're wrong, someone should refute them--such a person would obviously be a more qualified authority on the subject than I am.

If you don't affect to be an authority on Cambodian history, why do you demand that of others? Where have you learned your knowledge?

Originally posted by Huzington
I shall not be returning (to this thread) to answer any more of your flaccid "retorts", until you say something on-topic, or criticise my main agument as to Pol Pot's personal complicity in the crimes of the Khmer Rouge, the subject of discussion.

You can respond to anything you like - or not. People here are very open to new evidence, but if you continue your snotty attitude, then I predict that people won't be all that interested in a discussion with you.

It's fine that you want to discuss something, but lay off those haughty manners.

Now, I take it that, since you don't believe that Pol Pot was responsible - at least in some part - for the genocide, because you can't find a direct order from him. Have you looked at the Cambodian Genocide Project site?

Let's take a look at your points.

1. Three distinct factions.

Not surprising at all - I can't think of any totalitarian rule that didn't have factions. But you are trying to claim that Pol Pot was the only one held responsible for the killings. You are flat-out wrong. So, this point is refuted.

2. Approval of killings.

Classic historical revisionist technique: We can't find a written order by Hitler, ordering the extermination of the Jew, so doubt is spread over the whole incident. This is, of course, a ridiculous point. The Cambodian Genocide happened, Pol Pot ruled with an iron fist. To claim that he knew nothing of the genocide is so ludicrous that the mind reels.

3. No one is responsible for what someone else did.

This would mean that you also think that Hitler was not "responsible" for what someone else did, namely to exterminate the Jews. Is this correct?

[Huzington]

Now, I take it that, since you don't believe that Pol Pot was responsible - at least in some part - for the genocide, because you can't find a direct order from him.

In part.

Let's take a look at your points.

1. Three distinct factions.

Not surprising at all - I can't think of any totalitarian rule that didn't have factions.

Three distinct fanctions with different power bases. One in the northeast among the Montagnard tribesmen; one in the south and soutwest in the Elephant and Cardomom Mountains; and one in the densely populated eastern provinces between Mekong River and the frontier with Vietnam.

But you are trying to claim that Pol Pot was the only one held responsible for the killings.

Pol Pot was not responsible for the "killing fields". There is no evidence that Pol Pot killed anyone, witnessed any of the killings, ordered any of the killings, or even approved of any of the killings. He wasn't even convicted of any killing in absentia.

Furthermore, there were three distinct, competing factions of the Khmer Rouge, each with its own power bases. The Khmer Rouge was not monolithic, and Pol Pot was not the leader of the Khmer Rouge. There was no single leader.

2. Approval of killings.

Classic historical revisionist technique: We can't find a written order by Hitler, ordering the extermination of the Jew, so doubt is spread over the whole incident.

Weak analogy. There is plenty of evidence that Hitler approved of the extermination of the Jews, though I am not sure if there is any written order. Show me one scrap of evidence that this is analogous to the case of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. Show me one piece of documentation to back up this nonsense. Show me, also, that Pol Pot was a personal dictator like Hitler, who could effect the extermination of anyone he wanted.

This is, of course, a ridiculous point. The Cambodian Genocide happened, Pol Pot ruled with an iron fist.

You must have a strange definition of genocide. Genocide is the planned extermination of an entire racial or ethnic group.

To claim that he knew nothing of the genocide is so ludicrous that the mind reels.

How is it ludicrous?

3. No one is responsible for what someone else did

This would mean that you also think that Hitler was not "responsible" for what someone else did, namely to exterminate the Jews. Is this correct?

Correct, though I have no doubt that the Holocaust took place and that Hitler approved of it.

[Huzington]

By the way, you start off objective and then biased and subjective, such as:

To claim that he knew nothing of the genocide is so ludicrous that the mind reels.

I emboldened the emotionalist portions of that message.

You clearly read your history from a pessimist historian not from an objective historian. There are too many biased biographies on Pol Potl; it is rare to find a biography on Pol Pot that is neutral. It is easy to simply give you a link to a web site that tells about him, but is biased against him. I want you to read about him from a purely objective point of view rather than one mixed with biased emotional opinions. I will search for such a biography with a purely objective biography about Pol Pot, and then post it here on this topic ("thread")/discussion board.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Huzington
In part.

What parts are Pol Pot guilty of?

Originally posted by Huzington
Pol Pot was not responsible for the "killing fields". There is no evidence that Pol Pot killed anyone, witnessed any of the killings, ordered any of the killings, or even approved of any of the killings. He wasn't even convicted of any killing in absentia.

Close your eyes, then. Not my problem.

Originally posted by Huzington
Furthermore, there were three distinct, competing factions of the Khmer Rouge, each with its own power bases. The Khmer Rouge was not monolithic, and Pol Pot was not the leader of the Khmer Rouge. There was no single leader.

Wrong.

Pol Pot officially retired as leader of the Khmer Rouge at the end of the 1980s.
Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/78988.stm)

Originally posted by Huzington
Weak analogy. There is plenty of evidence that Hitler approved of the extermination of the Jews, though I am not sure if there is any written order. Show me one scrap of evidence that this is analogous to the case of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. Show me one piece of documentation to back up this nonsense. Show me, also, that Pol Pot was a personal dictator like Hitler, who could effect the extermination of anyone he wanted.

The example with Hitler is a perfect analogy with the Holocaust Deniers. No written order from him anywhere. Ergo, Hitler wasn't responsible.

Originally posted by Huzington
You must have a strange definition of genocide. Genocide is the planned extermination of an entire racial or ethnic group.

And a little more. Genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group" (Webster).

Khmer Rouge did not want anybody educated, so they exterminated doctors, intellectuals, what-have-you. Anyone opposing his politics, and you were gone.

Originally posted by Huzington
How is it ludicrous?

Because of the very strong control he held. Factions there may be, but did they openly work against Pol Pot? Nah...because any dissent, and you were off to the killing fields. Heck, you didn't even need to voice dissent at all.

Originally posted by Huzington
Correct, though I have no doubt that the Holocaust took place and that Hitler approved of it.

You need to read "Mein Kampf". Jews were not particularly liked, but it took Hitler to come up with the idea of extermination. Look up the word "ausrotten". (http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/i/irving-david/ausrotten/ausrotten-19440526-01.html)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Huzington
You clearly read your history from a pessimist historian not from an objective historian. There are too many biased biographies on Pol Potl; it is rare to find a biography on Pol Pot that is neutral. It is easy to simply give you a link to a web site that tells about him, but is biased against him. I want you to read about him from a purely objective point of view rather than one mixed with biased emotional opinions. I will search for such a biography with a purely objective biography about Pol Pot, and then post it here on this topic ("thread")/discussion board.

There is no such thing as "objective history". History is interpreted from historical facts.

[Huzington]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
What parts are Pol Pot guilty of?

What do you mean?
Wrong.

"Pol Pot officially retired as leader of the Khmer Rouge at the end of the 1980s.
Source"

1. Prove that this corresponds with reality.
2. By the 1980s (this is after Democratic Kampuchea) the three factions were less distinct. Not so when the majority of the killings took place.
3. The objectivity of the article is questionable when it says such things as:

"A deadly blend of Maoism and nationalism."

"Pol Pot's death in April 1998 heralded the end of the brutal career of a man responsible for overseeing one of the worst genocides of the 20th century."

". . . as the Khmer Rouge tried to turn Cambodia back to the middle ages."

"Pol Pot and his forces once again fled to the northern jungle as evidence of their atrocities was broadcast around the world."

BBC is obviously picking sides here.

The example with Hitler is a perfect analogy with the Holocaust Deniers. No written order from him anywhere. Ergo, Hitler wasn't responsible.

1. That is an oversimplification of my argument.
2. Were there three distinct power bases in different provinces of Nazi Germany, and was Hitler only the leader of one of the three? No. Therefore weak analogy.
3. Were Pol Pot's powers as extensive as Hitler's, even internanally in the Pol Pot faction of the Khmer Rouge? No. Therefore weak analogy.

And a little more. Genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group" (Webster).

And a little more than that, I'm afraid. The word also implies an ethical judgement.

Khmer Rouge did not want anybody educated, so they exterminated doctors, intellectuals, what-have-you. Anyone opposing his politics, and you were gone.

The Khmer Rouge diverted them from unproductive activities and got them to participate in production. In the towns, they promoted a movement of reconversion of capital from the commercial sector, towards the agricultural sector.

Because of the very strong control he held. Factions there may be, but did they openly work against Pol Pot? Nah

Wrong again. There were many clashes, in particular, between So Phim's Eastern Zone group and Pol Pot's northeast zone among the Montagnard tribesmen.

You need to read "Mein Kampf". Jews were not particularly liked, but it took Hitler to come up with the idea of extermination. Look up the word "ausrotten". (http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/i/irving-david/ausrotten/ausrotten-19440526-01.html)

I completely agree with this last part.

[Huzington]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
There is no such thing as "objective history". History is interpreted from historical facts. I myself prefer an emotionally detached interpretation of historical facts.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Huzington
What do you mean?

You said that Pol Pol was "in part" responsible for the genocide. What parts?

Originally posted by Huzington
1. Prove that this corresponds with reality.

What can I say? If you want to contest that Pol Pot was not the leader of Khmer Rouge, let's see your evidence.

Originally posted by Huzington
2. By the 1980s (this is after Democratic Kampuchea) the three factions were less distinct. Not so when the majority of the killings took place.
3. The objectivity of the article is questionable when it says such things as:
...
BBC is obviously picking sides here.

I'm sorry if you don't agree with it. That doesn't make you right.

Originally posted by Huzington
1. That is an oversimplification of my argument.

No, it is a perfect copy of your argument:

Originally posted by Huzington
Show me a scrap of evidence that Pol Pot approved the killings.
...
There is no evidence that Pol Pot killed anyone, witnessed any of the killings, ordered any of the killings, or even approved of any of the killings.

Get it? "No evidence" in both examples.

Originally posted by Huzington
2. Were there three distinct power bases in different provinces of Nazi Germany, and was Hitler only the leader of one of the three? No. Therefore weak analogy.

Yes. Therefore perfect analogy.

Hitler made sure that, to stay in power, he had his cronies fight internally. After the Reichtags fire, he had a new one built, but it was not used, simply because "government" in Hitler's eyes was not necessary. The Führer principle made it superfluous. Instead, the various branches of government were more or less on their own, with plenty of feuds to follow.

Originally posted by Huzington
3. Were Pol Pot's powers as extensive as Hitler's, even internanally in the Pol Pot faction of the Khmer Rouge? No. Therefore weak analogy.

Yes. Therefore perfect analogy.

Even though Hitler was dictator, even he had to suck up in some ways to the industrialists and especially the military.

I suggest that you learn about the Third Reich.

Originally posted by Huzington
And a little more than that, I'm afraid. The word also implies an ethical judgement.

You may think so. That doesn't make it true.

Originally posted by Huzington
The Khmer Rouge diverted them from unproductive activities and got them to participate in production. In the towns, they promoted a movement of reconversion of capital from the commercial sector, towards the agricultural sector.

Do you deny that people with an education was hunted down and put in camps? Be careful what you answer.

Originally posted by Huzington
Wrong again. There were many clashes, in particular, between So Phim's Eastern Zone group and Pol Pot's northeast zone among the Montagnard tribesmen.

Pol Pot never did anything to quell rebellion in the ranks?

Originally posted by Huzington
I completely agree with this last part.

There you go.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Huzington
I myself prefer an emotionally detached interpretation of historical facts.

Do you really argue that your interpretation is "emotionally detached"???

[Huzington]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
[B]You said that Pol Pol was "in part" responsible for the genocide. What parts?

Oh, I see what you are saying now. You said:

"Now, I take it that, since you don't believe that Pol Pot was responsible - at least in some part - for the genocide, because you can't find a direct order from him."

I said:

"In part."

What I meant was, the fact that there is no evidence of direct orders is only part of the reason why I don't believe Pol Pot was responsible for the "genocide."

What can I say? If you want to contest that Pol Pot was not the leader of Khmer Rouge, let's see your evidence.

I already did. There were three factions fighting against each and occupied different territories.

Get it? "No evidence" in both examples.

But that's only a part of the reason, and how did you come to believe that there is evidence in either examples?

Hitler made sure that, to stay in power, he had his cronies fight internally.

But in the case of DK, the three power bases of the Khmer Rouge, not only occupied totally different territories, but were not subordinate to Pol Pot in any sense. Neither were they parts of the same government--unlike in Nazi Germany.

Even though Hitler was dictator, even he had to suck up in some ways to the industrialists and especially the military.

Enlighten us to what's a "dictator"? I doubt the existence of true personal dictators. There are several examples in history of so-called "dictators" being actually puppets.

You may think so. That doesn't make it true.

You may think otherwise. That doesn't make it true.

Do you deny that people with an education was hunted down and put in camps?

You fail to understand that mental labourers were diverted to more productive activities in the agricultural sector and/or exterminated in Democratic Kampuchea (1975-1979) not merely because they were educated but because they were lazy, parasitic to the hard-working peasant masses of the countryside, and traitorous to the culture and traditions of the Nation by mingling with foreigners and preaching foreign habits and foreign traditions and foreign culture as far superior to indiginous habits, culture, and traditions. Furthermore, the they represented the political basis of imperialist existence and hegemony over the indigenous peoples.

As for the urban dwellers, manufacturers and other non-agricultural workers, whilst they may have been useful, they were nonetheless sterile and parasitic in the sense that their income derived ultimately from the surplus production of the agricultural sector. If we consider the peasants and consumers, in any similar nation, as flies or mosquitoes which get trapped in the web, we can see that the peasants and consumers are prey to the merchants, the spider which spins the web. The commercial system, the selling and exchanging of agricultural production in a country, suppresses production and squeezes the rural areas dry and tasteless, permanently maintaining them in their poverty. What people habitually call the "cities" are pumps which drain away the vitality of the rural areas. Any type of goods that the cities and market towns provide for the rural areas are just bait. The large rural areas feed the cities and market towns. The cities -- the market towns with their fresh and up-to-date appearance - live at the expense of the rural areas - they ride on their shoulders. Hou Youn of the Khmer Rouge put it well when he said: "The tree grows in the rural areas, but the fruit goes to the towns."

Therefore I do not consider it "genocide", given the emotional content of that word.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Huzington
What I meant was, the fact that there is no evidence of direct orders is only part of the reason why I don't believe Pol Pot was responsible for the "genocide."

OK, gotcha. So, what are the other reasons?

Originally posted by Huzington
I already did. There were three factions fighting against each and occupied different territories.

Yes, you already said that. Is that all you got? It's not very compelling.

Originally posted by Huzington
But in the case of DK, the three power bases of the Khmer Rouge, not only occupied totally different territories, but were not subordinate to Pol Pot in any sense. Neither were they parts of the same government--unlike in Nazi Germany.

Then I need you to explain how Pol Pot could retire as leader of Khmer Rouge.

Originally posted by Huzington
Enlighten us to what's a "dictator"? I doubt the existence of true personal dictators. There are several examples in history of so-called "dictators" being actually puppets.

I won't play word games with you, or let you redefine commonly known terms.

Originally posted by Huzington
You may think otherwise. That doesn't make it true.

You are making a claim. You need to back it up. You haven't done so.

Originally posted by Huzington
You fail to understand that mental labourers were diverted to more productive activities in the agricultural sector and/or exterminated in Democratic Kampuchea (1975-1979) not merely because they were educated but because they were lazy, parasitic to the hard-working peasant masses of the countryside, and traitorous to the culture and traditions of the Nation by mingling with foreigners and preaching foreign habits and foreign traditions and foreign culture as far superior to indiginous habits, culture, and traditions. Furthermore, the they epresented the political basis of foreign existence and hegemony over the indigenous peoples.

As for the urban dwellers, manufacturers and other non-agricultural workers, whilst they may be useful, they are nonetheless sterile and parasitic in the sense that their income derived ultimately from the surplus production of the agricultural sector. If we consider the peasants and consumers as flies or mosquitoes which get trapped in the web, we can see that the peasants and consumers are prey to the merchants, the spider which spins the web. The commercial system, the selling and exchanging of agricultural production in a country, suppresses production and squeezes the rural areas dry and tasteless, permanently maintaining them in their poverty. What people habitually call the "cities" are pumps which drain away the vitality of the rural areas. Any type of goods that the cities and market towns provide for the rural areas are just bait. The large rural areas feed the cities and market towns. The cities -- the market towns with their fresh and up-to-date appearance - live at the expense of the rural areas - they ride on their shoulders. Hou Youn of the Khmer Rouge put it well when he said: "The tree grows in the rural areas, but the fruit goes to the towns."

I'm a bit confused here. Are these your arguments? You believe this?

Originally posted by Huzington
Therefore I do not consider it "genocide", given the emotional content of that word.

That may be so. But if you want to redefine commonly known words, then all communication ceases.

[Huzington]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
OK, gotcha. So, what are the other reasons?

I've already given the reasons; pay attention. I am not going to repeat myself ad nauseum.

Yes, you already said that. Is that all you got? It's not very compelling.

Why is it not very compelling to you?

Then I need you to explain how Pol Pot could retire as leader of Khmer Rouge.

I have already done so; pay attention. By the end of DK's short existence the Khmer Rouge was beginning to form into a single entity, after the killings took place. Leader Hu Num of the Khmer Rouge of the south and soutwest in the Elephant and Cardomom Mountains exterminated the group headed by So Phim of the Khmer Rouge which occupied the densely populated eastern provinces between Mekong River and the frontier with Vietnam. The group headed by Hu Num had been won over by the group headed by Pol Pot near the end of DK and a few years before Pol Pot finally retired.

I won't play word games with you, or let you redefine commonly known terms.

Even exaggeratedly high numbers of deaths are not indicative that Pol Pot was a dictator. A better idea is to look at the organs of rule in DK, the interaction between different branches of government. I take a scientific, concrete-historical approach on the matter of dictatorship, so your infantile usage of "dictator" as a mere mock-term only serves to weaken your case.

You are making a claim. You need to back it up. You haven't done so.

You made the positive assertion. The burden of proof is on you.

I'm a bit confused here. Are these your arguments? You believe this?

Yes to both questions.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Huzington
Yes to both questions.

Then we don't need to continue.

First, because you have lied all along. You are not objective, you are fundamentally subjective.

Second, calling people "lazy" and "parasitic", merely because they have an education, is so outrageously extremist that I simply don't believe that anything good can come from any debate with you.

Anyone who is not a peasant should, according to you, be exterminated. I will not waste my time on such a rabid fanatic.

I hope you are a troll, but I fear you mean what you say.

[Huzington]

So you refuse to answer my rebuttals because you disagree with my economic theories? Riiight. Convenient excuse to dodge responsibilty for the multitude of easily refuted claims you've made in the course of this thread.

The last paragraphs of my post, whether true or false, have no bearing whatsoever on the accuracy of the rest of my post. Nor are they summations of it. They were simply responses to a particular fragment of your post. You are not justified in dismissing the entire post simply because you disagree with my economic theories.

It is important to remember that you are always responsible for the things you say. Don't say things and expect to be able to dodge responsibility for saying them, which is what you have just done, especially in light of the arguments I have submitted which cast a lot of doubt on the accuracy of the assertions you have made.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Huzington
So you refuse to answer my rebuttals because you disagree with my economic theories?

Not at all. I refuse to engage in debate with you, because it serves to purpose. You are not prepared to be swayed by either argument or fact. Your mind is made up, and nothing can change it.

Am I right on this? What will it take for you to admit that you are wrong?

[Huzington]

And by the way, you have blatantly misrepresented by views.

[Huzington]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Not at all. I refuse to engage in debate with you, because it serves to purpose.

And it serves no purpose to you because you disagree with my economic theories, which however have no bearing on validity of the rest of my arguments.

You are not prepared to be swayed by either argument or fact. Your mind is made up, and nothing can change it.

Substantiate these claims. I could say the same of you.

Am I right on this? What will it take for you to admit that you are wrong?

A definitive refutation. Something you have so far failed at providing. It doesn't matter now though--I know if you suddenly consented to re-engage in debate with me, you would ignore my previous rebuttal anyhow.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Huzington
And by the way, you have blatantly misrepresented by views.

What will it take for you to admit that you are wrong?

[Huzington]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
What will it take for you to admit that you are wrong?

"A definitive refutation. Something you have so far failed at providing."

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Huzington
A definitive refutation.

Can you give an example?

[Huzington]

Now you're just playing games. Oh well. Have fun.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Huzington
Now you're just playing games. Oh well. Have fun.

So, you can't say what will convince you otherwise.

A true fanatic.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Not at all. I refuse to engage in debate with you, because it serves to purpose. You are not prepared to be swayed by either argument or fact. Your mind is made up, and nothing can change it.

Am I right on this? What will it take for you to admit that you are wrong?

How long until this guy gets the shanek treatment?

:hb:

I suspect it will be soon, because he seems every bit as dense.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
I suspect it will be soon, because he seems every bit as dense.

Hmmmm......it hadn't struck me before, but there are actually similarities.

Good point.

[Zep]

No, I'm betting this "huzington" is actually a previous poster called "Ixabert", who was equally smarmy in similar terms about how wonderful life was in North Korea...until he got banned for PM'ing offensive material.

Now. Shall we all sing a rousing chorus of "The Red Flag" to finish this off on proper style?