Tyra
Member
Yep. Impressive stat, considering pretty much nobody outside of Cambodia knows. Ever seen The Killing Fields?
Mjollnir
- Thread starter Nimas
- Start date
Blutaar
RAVENSBURGER
TheLastWithPaganBlood said:
Another sick person...
I have seen a movie about the killing fields ... terrible!!!
Pol Pot was against educated people so he killed many of them.
But I don't know if he killed more people ... and it's not important.
Tomasz
outdoor type
Blutaar said:
so was stalin and hitler, first thing they did after invading any country was going after the elite as they are the most dangerous ones able to put up/initiate resistance
Belgar
The Wallonian Redneck.
The thing about Pol Pot and Khmer Rouge rise to power wouldn't have happened if it hadn't been for some U... S... country, same that needs to stick its nose in everyone's business. At the time the americans had left so much of Vietnam in ruins that it quickly spilled over to Cambodia and farmers started an uprising. Pol Pot's vision was to form an agrarian sef-sufficient state, moved all from cities to farm lands, killed the educated ones,... this utopic dream never saw reality and Pol Pot just remained another Stalin in hidding.
The educated ones are the roots of every nation .. cut the roots and any smart person can lead the population like you walk a dog. Castro is another example.
NB. his rise to power came after Nixon's launch of bombing operations to clear Vietnamese sanctuaries in Cambodia in which numbers as high as 150,000 innocent cambodian civilians were killed by US bombers. Same thing is happening now in Iraq where one cannot tell the difference between an insurgent and a civilian. Does it justify killing innocent people for it? I leave it to Bush's conscience, but apparently nobody gives a fuck.
The educated ones are the roots of every nation .. cut the roots and any smart person can lead the population like you walk a dog. Castro is another example.
NB. his rise to power came after Nixon's launch of bombing operations to clear Vietnamese sanctuaries in Cambodia in which numbers as high as 150,000 innocent cambodian civilians were killed by US bombers. Same thing is happening now in Iraq where one cannot tell the difference between an insurgent and a civilian. Does it justify killing innocent people for it? I leave it to Bush's conscience, but apparently nobody gives a fuck.
Belgar said:
dude you are totally closet punk
yes, they should have gone, but they shouldnt have disabled the iraqi army, BIG MISTAKE. they could have helped the army rather than gone in guns blazing, and actually achieved a democracy by now.
Belgar
The Wallonian Redneck.
Closet punk? Omg DRI still alive ... me giving my opinion bothers you? sorry if it did, not that I give a fuck if it does anyways. Sometimes I wonder why I try to put some historical reply to get some fucking 10 yo type of answer like yours. For the sake of argument just come with something ebtter than "closet punk" it makes you look too anarchy in the UK. Get over yourself.
My point was just to prove that the US has been shelling people in every war all over the world it happened decades ago, it happens now and will happen tomorrow but talking about it just hits a nerve.
My point was just to prove that the US has been shelling people in every war all over the world it happened decades ago, it happens now and will happen tomorrow but talking about it just hits a nerve.
TheLastWithPaganBlood
Nordman
Belgar
The Wallonian Redneck.
Feraliminal Lycanthropizer said:
Well, if you are refering to "closet punk" the DRI song then I don't see it as a compliment ... the song talks about people pretending/trying to be something they are not ... if that wasn't what you meant, then I apologize. I tend to take things too seriously.
Tyra
Member
The numers killed were quoted to me as 1+1, yes, but that was a while ago now, so I can't quote the source.
Belgar, I agree 100%. I was just implying that the US fought in Vietnam (although it's debatable whether that was a "war" - no official declaration of war - or a...ahum..."police action", in and of its own), but never "officially" fought a war in Cambodia. They merely paved the way for Pol Pot by their actions "in Vietnam". My whole point was, that it really is the winners of the wars that write the history books, and it's up to them to depict someone as a homicidal maniac or a hero. If the US had won a war in Cambodia, we would know about it, because they'd be tooting their horn, or, some would say, justyfying their actions. That, however, is not to say other countries don't/didn't do the same. Case in point, Stalin, who was a paraniod schizo, but he was on the winning side, and hence was hailed as a national hero in the history books. How many centuries did it take for westerners to figure out about First Nations, Scandianvian Sami, Austrailian Aborigines and so on? Roughly until they started writing their own history, I think.
Belgar, I agree 100%. I was just implying that the US fought in Vietnam (although it's debatable whether that was a "war" - no official declaration of war - or a...ahum..."police action", in and of its own), but never "officially" fought a war in Cambodia. They merely paved the way for Pol Pot by their actions "in Vietnam". My whole point was, that it really is the winners of the wars that write the history books, and it's up to them to depict someone as a homicidal maniac or a hero. If the US had won a war in Cambodia, we would know about it, because they'd be tooting their horn, or, some would say, justyfying their actions. That, however, is not to say other countries don't/didn't do the same. Case in point, Stalin, who was a paraniod schizo, but he was on the winning side, and hence was hailed as a national hero in the history books. How many centuries did it take for westerners to figure out about First Nations, Scandianvian Sami, Austrailian Aborigines and so on? Roughly until they started writing their own history, I think.
the one thing I dislike about this forum, is the in depth, intellectual discussion of all these topics I know absolutely nothing about...so, i will have another wendys chicken finger...
Belgar said:Well, if you are refering to "closet punk" the DRI song then I don't see it as a compliment ... the song talks about people pretending/trying to be something they are not ... if that wasn't what you meant, then I apologize. I tend to take things too seriously.
Most punks I talk to have a strong intellectual sense of politics, I was reffering to you as a person who likes metal but on the inside has a punk worldview of things...bleh I really got that one handed to me, I think next time i just wont say anything to someone but this:
so you did you watch the Da Vinci code on the history channel? interesting stuff
Belgar
The Wallonian Redneck.
Tyra said:
Oh I agree too, I was just trying to relate Pol Pot to what Tomasz said about people who like Stalin and Hitler started their rise to power by getting rid of the "educated" class. Nice he mentioned it because I recently watched a report on how Poland during the Nazi occupation had underground universities,.. and how some scholars and priests tried to pass along Polish folk to people so that at least a few would have memories that they could teach once the war was over. (in case all historical papers, the educated ones had been killed by the Nazis).
As for the US fighting "secret" wars, they always seemed to use schemes such as recruiting the Montagnards in Vietnam to fight for them or using trained villagers in SOG teams or the infamous LRRP teams that would infiltrate in Laos, Cambodia, ... wearing non-US army equipments, weapons,... of course if captured the US would even deny their existence. So yes, it was never an "official" type of war. Such was the type of "operation menu", that Nixon dispatched to bomb Cambodian villages and was kept secret from US public for years. This operation has been debated as the main launching pad for Pol Pot's rise to power. Certain accounts claim that under his regime, over 2 million people have been killed. I still think Stalin was much worse.
Tomasz
outdoor type
Belgar said:
just to share some family history, ( I taped hours of my grandfathers stories mainly from WW II)
one side of my family (the more educated/well off) was taken by Stalin (not personally though
to Siberia to work camps where many died , on the other side of the family they (russians) tried to force my grandfather (14-15 yrs old at the time) to take the russian citizenship and give up being a Pole, however he refused with some consequences as he always remembered his fathers words telling him that he was 100% pure polak with a last name..ski ending
so at what point was the term "slave" established from slav? what event was the deciding factor?
Tyra
Member
Feraliminal Lycanthropizer said:
The word comes from Lat. "sclavus", via Old French "esclave". Sclavus, meaning Slav, became the word for slave because of the many Slavs sold into slavery by conquering peoples. I don't know when it became a common term, but for sure by the 1500's. This according to my Latin teacher, by way of my very ancient brain - sorry I can't remember better!
Tomasz
outdoor type
Feraliminal Lycanthropizer said:
I wasn't even aware of its origin, if that is the case. I need to do some research now as I'm curious.
TheLastWithPaganBlood
Nordman
I'm pretty sure that this is not the correct orirgin of the term. I remember having read somewhere, I think it was in Nordisk Familjebok, the good one from 1917, that this is a common misconception. In fact I'm very sure that it's not the true origin. I heard that it is something of an ancient slavic term for "those who can speak".
Belgar
The Wallonian Redneck.
I was always under the impression that Slava meant "glory", why would so many eastern european claim and scream "slava" if it meants "slave" that's just non-sense?
