Conquer Club

Once again it comes down to a question of intent. Was the goal to eliminate people with different ideologies or different DNA?

If there could have been some resolution where these people would have submitted and would then have been allowed to live, then there was not genocide.

My view of Pol Pot is that he is more like Stalin than Hitler.

With the topic on Pol Pot at the moment, I suggest you peeps read "First They Killed My Father", which is first hand account of a genocide survivor of Cambodia. Of course, she was just a little girl at the time, but it's a shocking story and one that someone can't easily forget. Where did I put that book...

GabonX wrote:Once again it comes down to a question of intent. Was the goal to eliminate people with different ideologies or different DNA?

If there could have been some resolution where these people would have submitted and would then have been allowed to live, then there was not genocide.

My view of Pol Pot is that he is more like Stalin than Hitler.

In my opinion, if you kill millions of people, that's genocide. Pol Pot was like Stalin and Hitler.

In any case, we're just arguing semantics. I think we can all agree they're all pretty fucking horrible.

GabonX wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

GabonX wrote:Appeal to Authority eh? Not a good tactic in debate..

It's not an appeal to authority when the guy is actually an authority and knows more about it than the average person.

Yeah, you're wrong about that.

joecoolfrog wrote:
Incorrect, the definition of genocide is more far reaching than you suggest, a particular group was targetted by Pol Pot , it was not random slaughter.

PS Kiernan did not graduate anywhere in the United States

The term 'genocide' gets thrown around a lot, and most times incorrectly, when there are mass killings of a group of people. It doesn't matter who targeted who and how many people were killed, motivation is key in determining genocide. If people are killed because they would not submit then there was not a genocide but rather mass political killings.

My understanding is that Pol Pot did not target people because of racial ideology. Rather he wanted to enslave the nation and was willing to use murder and fear to achieve his goals. This is a different animal.

If on the other hand he targeted a group based on principles of ethnic cleansing, there was a genocide, but from what I've read it does not look like this was the case.

Pol Pots stated aim was to start again, to return Cambodia to ' year zero ' , this he would accomplish by 're education ' . In practice this meant that every educated ( and by this he meant simply literate ) person was forcibly moved to rural locations and made to work on the land. Millions died of neglect, starvation and illness, there was no provision whatsoever for the sick because doctors and nurses were amongst the first to be executed, demonstrating any medical knowledge was tantamount to signing ones death warrant. In addition there was ethnic cleansing of minorities, Chams, those of Vietnamese extraction and I believe Muslims were amongst those persecuted. The Cambodians themselves talk of genocide, there is the S21 genocide museum in Phnom Penh and currently Khmer Rouge leaders are being tried for genocide ( Appallingly these trials were partly delayed by years of US government opposition )
I have spent time in the country, spoken to relatives of those murdered and survivors alike, seen the torture chambers, the killing fields and the shallow graves. We can discuss semantics fforever but at the end of the day I and most other people would view this as genocide and everybody would view it as an abomination.

InkL0sed wrote:

GabonX wrote:Once again it comes down to a question of intent. Was the goal to eliminate people with different ideologies or different DNA?

If there could have been some resolution where these people would have submitted and would then have been allowed to live, then there was not genocide.

My view of Pol Pot is that he is more like Stalin than Hitler.

In my opinion, if you kill millions of people, that's genocide. Pol Pot was like Stalin and Hitler.

In any case, we're just arguing semantics. I think we can all agree they're all pretty fucking horrible.

I think we can agree that what took place was horrible and you're also right in stating that this has turned into an argument of semantics.

I do have a problem with the term genocide being thrown around so lightly. I think that the term is often used to evoke an emotional response from people. People should have a response to atrocities whether or not a 'genocide' took place and in my eyes using the term incorrectly just dumbs people down.

I guess we can leave it at that.


Now how about that time machine??

Definition of Genocide;

" With intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a NATIONAL, ethnical, racial or religious group ''

As I said before genocide goes beyond ethnic cleansing, Pol Pot wished to completely eradicate the Nation State of Cambodia, to this end he renamed it Kampuchea, his intent and action was clearly genocidal.

Frigidus wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

JJM wrote:No. What did we achieve during the Vietnam War?

We lost the Vietnam War.

Right, but he was asking what we achieved.

The answer is of course genocide, Pol Pot, Agent Orange... etc

We managed to scrounge up some utter humiliation, too.

exactly we didn't achieve anything through it.

GabonX wrote:How come Obama isn't an option?

Because obama is a crook.

JJM wrote:

GabonX wrote:How come Obama isn't an option?

Because obama is a crook.

I think Jim is trying to say "Because Obama hasn't fulfilled a full term of office yet, and so couldn't be in the poll"

Right Jimmy boy?

SultanOfSurreal wrote:

b.k. barunt wrote:Managed the Civil War? He started the fooking thing.

yes damn that lincoln, why did he have to attack fort sumter

I was reading through the first page of this and I noticed this post. I would like to point out that the attack on Fort Sumter occuried on Febuary 28, 1861. That was 4 days before Abraham Lincoln took office.(back then the inaugeration occured on march 4) James Buchanan was President when that happened not Lincoln.

Skittles! wrote:

JJM wrote:

GabonX wrote:How come Obama isn't an option?

Because obama is a crook.

I think Jim is trying to say "Because Obama hasn't fulfilled a full term of office yet, and so couldn't be in the poll"

Right Jimmy boy?

Nope. I'm saying he's a crook.

JJM wrote:

Skittles! wrote:

JJM wrote:

GabonX wrote:How come Obama isn't an option?

Because obama is a crook.

I think Jim is trying to say "Because Obama hasn't fulfilled a full term of office yet, and so couldn't be in the poll"

Right Jimmy boy?

Nope. I'm saying he's a crook.

Although I agree that Obama should certainly not be an option for Skittles reason, JJM's excuse makes him as much of a "crook" as Obama. He complains that Obama sleaze'd his opponent out of a local election, but then takes out an option that a lot of people (homers all) would have voted for? The irony is delicious.

JJM are you that disgraced Illinois governor perchance?

JJM wrote:

Skittles! wrote:

JJM wrote:

GabonX wrote:How come Obama isn't an option?

Because obama is a crook.

I think Jim is trying to say "Because Obama hasn't fulfilled a full term of office yet, and so couldn't be in the poll"

Right Jimmy boy?

Nope. I'm saying he's a crook.

Still waiting for you to explain how Bush has made the World safer, are you having problems understanding the question, surely even the red neck schools in North Dakota teach English ?

He removed Saddam Hussein from power.

Win

Funny, I'd've said fail

JJM wrote:

SultanOfSurreal wrote:

b.k. barunt wrote:Managed the Civil War? He started the fooking thing.

yes damn that lincoln, why did he have to attack fort sumter

I was reading through the first page of this and I noticed this post. I would like to point out that the attack on Fort Sumter occuried on Febuary 28, 1861. That was 4 days before Abraham Lincoln took office.(back then the inaugeration occured on march 4) James Buchanan was President when that happened not Lincoln.

I think Sultan's point (speaking of Sultan... where the hell is he?) was that Abraham Lincoln did not, in fact, attack Fort Sumter. Furthermore, the Union did not, in fact, attack Fort Sumter. Who attacked Fort Sumter, you might ask. Well, that would be the militia of South Carolina...

InkL0sed wrote:Funny, I'd've said fail

Indeed !

Is North Dakota a misplaced state meant to be in the south, perhaps? Did the South decide to jump over a whole bunch of states and say "I want dat one!" for North Dakota?

Who was the greatest American President?

Why isn't Bill Clinton on the list?..............

GabonX wrote:Who was the greatest American President?

I agree with your assessment, but I'm wondering why you use the past tense.

Isn't he the black Jesus

The original Jesus was jewish,

Another Jesus were from India,
But am I wrong when I say that this guy is the white Jesus?
Or was it the Devil ?

I can't remember but either way he's still an angel !

Gillipig wrote:Why isn't Bill Clinton on the list?..............

No Wilson either. I don't get how Polk, a man who basically ran on a campaign of aggressive imperialism, and Harrison, a man who did virtually nothing of note, beat both of these more popular presidents.