Pol Pot

[Huzington]

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]

What do you mean?

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

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.

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.

1. That is an oversimplification of my argument.

No, it is a perfect copy of your argument:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

I completely agree with this last part.

There you go.

 

[CFLarsen]

I myself prefer an emotionally detached interpretation of historical facts.

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

 

[Huzington]

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]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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]

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]

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]

Re: Re: Pol Pot

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]

Re: Re: Pol Pot

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

 

[Huzington]

Re: Re: Re: Pol Pot

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]

Re: Re: Re: Pol Pot

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

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

 

[Huzington]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Pol Pot

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

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

 

[CFLarsen]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pol Pot

A definitive refutation.

Can you give an example?

 

[Huzington]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pol Pot

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

 

[CFLarsen]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pol Pot

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]

Re: Re: Re: Pol Pot

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?



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

 

[CFLarsen]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Pol Pot

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?