[SPOILER]Εμ, το αίμα νερό δε γίνεται… :razz:[/SPOILER]
Δεν ξέρω αν είναι πόρνη της δημοσιότητας, φασιστοφιλελεύθερος είναι σίγουρα.
Αν σκεφτείς ότι η φωτογραφία βρίσκεται σε [I]αυτή [/I]τη σελίδα, μάλλον δεν πρόκειται για δυσφήμιση, απλά έτυχε ο Τζήμερος να πει πράγματα που ταιριάζουν απόλυτα στην ιδεολογία και την αισθητική τους και τον περιέβαλαν με στοργή.
Ούτε η παραμικρή εκλεκτική συγγένεια. Πάω στοίχημα πως όταν εγώ πριν 15 χρόνια έλεγα όσα λέω και σήμερα ο Τζήμερος θα λιβάνιζε το “εκσυγχρονιστικό” πασοκ…
Φασιστοφιλεύθεροι, εβραιοναζί και άλλα μυθικά αποκυήματα αριστερών φαντασιών σαν του Πανούση του καραγκιόζη που πάντρεψε τη σβάστικα με το άστρο του Δαυίδ…
Μη γράφετε ρε ό,τι να’ναι, ειδικά όσοι δεν είστε αμόρφωτοι…
Αν τα χρυσά αυγά περιέβαλαν με στοργή τον Τζήμερο αυτό ας προβληματίσει τον ίδιο πρώτα…
…Φαιοκόκκινος φασισμός…
…Τα δύο άκρα είναι ίδια…
…Το παρακράτος της μεταπολιτευτικής αριστεράς…
…
…
Κατ’ αρχάς ο Πανούσης δεν είναι αριστερός, είναι αναρχικός.
Επίσης δεν είναι κάθε σύνθετη λέξη το ίδιο πράγμα, δεν έχει την ίδια λογική από πίσω, ούτε τις ίδιες προθέσεις. Άλλο φιλελευθεροφασίστας, άλλο εβραιοναζί, άλλο μαχαιροπήρουνα.
Αν θες να γίνει κουβέντα, άσε τις άκυρες συνδέσεις που μόνο εσύ βρίσκεις και χωρίς να επικαλείσαι τη μόρφωση του καθενός γράψε πού διαφωνείς.
Διαφωνεί με οτιδήποτε αριστερό ή ό,τι του θυμίζει κάτι αριστερό, μαρξιστικό κλπ.
Τόσο απλό…
Παρακαλώ, μια μικρή βοήθεια. Ποιος/α από τους δύο είναι φιλελευθεροφασίστας/-τρια και ποιος/α φασιστοφιλελέυθερος/-η;
Και οι δύο πάντως ήταν χρηματοδοτούμενοι από το εβραιοναζιστικό λόμπι.
“Ήταν”, αφού πλέον ψόφισαν και οι δύο :roll:
ChrisP θα σε κατηγορήσουν για λιακοπουλισμό κάποιοι σε λίγο 
Πράγματι η μόρφωση δεν βοηθά τελικά στο να καταλάβεις την προφανή αντίφαση στο “φιλελευθεροφασίστας”, για σένα είναι άλλη μία σύνθετη λέξη… [-X
Αν ο Πανούσης δηλώνει ή θέλει να θεωρείται αναρχικός και όχι αριστερός δεν βοηθά το να διασκευάζει ένα μοιρολόι για τον Μπελογιάννη στο τελευταίο του άλμπουμ όπου μεταξύ άλλων εκθειάζει “αυτούς που οικοδομούν τον σοσιαλισμό”…
Εκτός και αν είναι “αναρχοσοσιαλιστής”! #-o
Πάλι σε άκυρη σύνθετη λέξη πέσαμε!
Ω ρε μάνα, πάλι με τον Πινοσέτ η ίδια κούραση…
Για να ξαναπαντήσω για οτιδήποτε σχετικό με τον Πινοσέτ ειλικρινά θα δώσω paypal να με πληρώνετε με την απάντηση! #-o
[SPOILER]
Εδώ τι βλέπείς, σταλινοκαπιταλιστές, καπιταλοσταλίνια, ή τους ZZ Top μεταμφιεσμένους για το Halloween;
[/SPOILER]
η συγκεκριμένη σελίδα έχει παρόμοια φώτο με quote της γώγου
Αυτό δεν είναι άκυρη σύνθετη λέξη, πλεονασμός είναι.
@Μule…
Tρομερός είσαι… πιο άκυρη σύγκριση δεν μπορούσες να κάνεις… Από την μία οι κολλητοί Thatcher - Pinochet (μέχρι και όπερα τους γυρίσανε λέμε…κλικ), και από την άλλη οι 3 “συμμαχοι” κατά τη διάρκεια του Β’ Παγκοσμίου πολέμου.
Μιλάμε γι’αυτήν εδώ ε :
[B]How Thatcher gave Pol Pot a hand
[/B]
[I]Almost two million Cambodians died as a result of Year Zero. John Pilger argues that, without the complicity of the US and Britain, it may never have happened.[/I]
On 17 April, it is 25 years since Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge entered Phnom Penh. In the calendar of fanaticism, this was Year Zero; as many as two million people, a fifth of Cambodia’s population, were to die as a consequence. To mark the anniversary, the evil of Pol Pot will be recalled, almost as a ritual act for voyeurs of the politically dark and inexplicable. For the managers of western power, no true lessons will be drawn, because no connections will be made to them and to their predecessors, who were Pol Pot’s Faustian partners. Yet, without the complicity of the west, Year Zero might never have happened, nor the threat of its return maintained for so long.
Declassified United States government documents leave little doubt that the secret and illegal bombing of then neutral Cambodia by President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger between 1969 and 1973 caused such widespread death and devastation that it was critical in Pol Pot’s drive for power. “They are using damage caused by B52 strikes as the main theme of their propaganda,” the CIA director of operations reported on 2 May 1973. “This approach has resulted in the successful recruitment of young men. Residents say the propaganda campaign has been effective with refugees in areas that have been subject to B52 strikes.” In dropping the equivalent of five Hiroshimas on a peasant society, Nixon and Kissinger killed an estimated half a million people. Year Zero began, in effect, with them; the bombing was a catalyst for the rise of a small sectarian group, the Khmer Rouge, whose combination of Maoism and medievalism had no popular base.
After two and a half years in power, the Khmer Rouge was overthrown by the Vietnamese on Christmas Day, 1978. In the months and years that followed, the US and China and their allies, notably the Thatcher government, backed Pol Pot in exile in Thailand. He was the enemy of their enemy: Vietnam, whose liberation of Cambodia could never be recognised because it had come from the wrong side of the cold war. For the Americans, now backing Beijing against Moscow, there was also a score to be settled for their humiliation on the rooftops of Saigon.
To this end, the United Nations was abused by the powerful. Although the Khmer Rouge government (“Democratic Kampuchea”) had ceased to exist in January 1979, its representatives were allowed to continue occupying Cambodia’s seat at the UN; indeed, the US, China and Britain insisted on it. Meanwhile, a Security Council embargo on Cambodia compounded the suffering of a traumatised nation, while the Khmer Rouge in exile got almost everything it wanted. In 1981, President Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, said: “I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot.” The US, he added, “winked publicly” as China sent arms to the Khmer Rouge.
In fact, the US had been secretly funding Pol Pot in exile since January 1980. The extent of this support - $85m from 1980 to 1986 - was revealed in correspondence to a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. On the Thai border with Cambodia, the CIA and other intelligence agencies set up the Kampuchea Emergency Group, which ensured that humanitarian aid went to Khmer Rouge enclaves in the refugee camps and across the border. Two American aid workers, Linda Mason and Roger Brown, later wrote: “The US government insisted that the Khmer Rouge be fed . . . the US preferred that the Khmer Rouge operation benefit from the credibility of an internationally known relief operation.” Under American pressure, the World Food Programme handed over $12m in food to the Thai army to pass on to the Khmer Rouge; “20,000 to 40,000 Pol Pot guerillas benefited,” wrote Richard Holbrooke, the then US assistant secretary of state.
I witnessed this. Travelling with a UN convoy of 40 trucks, I drove to a Khmer Rouge operations base at Phnom Chat. The base commander was the infamous Nam Phann, known to relief workers as “The Butcher” and Pol Pot’s Himmler. After the supplies had been unloaded, literally at his feet, he said: “Thank you very much, and we wish for more.”
In November of that year, 1980, direct contact was made between the White House and the Khmer Rouge when Dr Ray Cline, a former deputy director of the CIA, made a secret visit to a Khmer Rouge operational headquarters. Cline was then a foreign policy adviser on President-elect Reagan’s transitional team. By 1981, a number of governments had become decidedly uneasy about the charade of the UN’s continuing recognition of the defunct Pol Pot regime. Something had to be done. The following year, the US and China invented the Coalition of the Democratic Government of Kampuchea, which was neither a coalition nor democratic, nor a government, nor in Kampuchea (Cambodia). It was what the CIA calls “a master illusion”. Prince Norodom Sihanouk was appointed its head; otherwise little changed. The two “non-communist” members, the Sihanoukists, led by the Prince’s son, Norodom Ranariddh, and the Khmer People’s National Liberation Front, were dominated, diplomatically and militarily, by the Khmer Rouge. One of Pol Pot’s closet cronies, Thaoun Prasith, ran the office at the UN in New York.
In Bangkok, the Americans provided the “coalition” with battle plans, uniforms, money and satellite intelligence; arms came direct from China and from the west, via Singapore. The non-communist fig leaf allowed Congress - spurred on by a cold-war zealot Stephen Solarz, a powerful committee chairman - to approve $24m in aid to the “resistance”.
Until 1989, the British role in Cambodia remained secret. The first reports appeared in the Sunday Telegraph, written by Simon O’Dwyer-Russell, a diplomatic and defence correspondent with close professional and family contacts with the SAS. He revealed that the SAS was training the Pol Pot-led force. Soon afterwards, Jane’s Defence Weekly reported that the British training for the “non-communist” members of the “coalition” had been going on “at secret bases in Thailand for more than four years”. The instructors were from the SAS, “all serving military personnel, all veterans of the Falklands conflict, led by a captain”.
The Cambodian training became an exclusively British operation after the “Irangate” arms-for-hostages scandal broke in Washington in 1986. “If Congress had found out that Americans were mixed up in clandestine training in Indo-China, let alone with Pol Pot,” a Ministry of Defence source told O’Dwyer-Russell, “the balloon would have gone right up. It was one of those classic Thatcher-Reagan arrangements.” Moreover, Margaret Thatcher had let slip, to the consternation of the Foreign Office, that “the more reasonable ones in the Khmer Rouge will have to play some part in a future government”. In 1991, I interviewed a member of “R” (reserve) Squadron of the SAS, who had served on the border. “We trained the KR in a lot of technical stuff - a lot about mines,” he said. “We used mines that came originally from Royal Ordnance in Britain, which we got by way of Egypt with marking changed . . . We even gave them psychological training. At first, they wanted to go into the villages and just chop people up. We told them how to go easy . . .”
The Foreign Office response was to lie. “Britain does not give military aid in any form to the Cambodian factions,” stated a parliamentary reply. The then prime minister, Thatcher, wrote to Neil Kinnock: “I confirm that there is no British government involvement of any kind in training, equipping or co-operating with Khmer Rouge forces or those allied to them.” On 25 June 1991, after two years of denials, the government finally admitted that the SAS had been secretly training the “resistance” since 1983. A report by Asia Watch filled in the detail: the SAS had taught “the use of improvised explosive devices, booby traps and the manufacture and use of time-delay devices”. The author of the report, Rae McGrath (who shared a joint Nobel Peace Prize for the international campaign on landmines), wrote in the Guardian that “the SAS training was a criminally irresponsible and cynical policy”.
When a UN “peacekeeping force” finally arrived in Cambodia in 1992, the Faustian pact was never clearer. Declared merely a “warring faction”, the Khmer Rouge was welcomed back to Phnom Penh by UN officials, if not the people. The western politician who claimed credit for the “peace process”, Gareth Evans (then Australia’s foreign minister), set the tone by calling for an “even-handed” approach to the Khmer Rouge and questioning whether calling it genocidal was “a specific stumbling block”.
Khieu Samphan, Pol Pot’s prime minister during the years of genocide, took the salute of UN troops with their commander, the Australian general John Sanderson, at his side. Eric Falt, the UN spokesman in Cambodia, told me: “The peace process was aimed at allowing [the Khmer Rouge] to gain respectability.”
The consequence of the UN’s involvement was the unofficial ceding of at least a quarter of Cambodia to the Khmer Rouge (according to UN military maps), the continuation of a low-level civil war and the election of a government impossibly divided between “two prime ministers”: Hun Sen and Norodom Ranariddh.
The Hun Sen government has since won a second election outright. Authoritarian and at times brutal, yet by Cambodian standards extraordinarily stable, the government led by a former Khmer Rouge dissident, Hun Sen, who fled to Vietnam in the 1970s, has since done deals with leading figures of the Pol Pot era, notably the breakaway faction of Ieng Sary, while denying others immunity from prosecution.
Once the Phnom Penh government and the UN can agree on its form, an international war crimes tribunal seems likely to go ahead. The Americans want the Cambodians to play virtually no part; their understandable concern is that not only the Khmer Rouge will be indicted.
The Cambodian lawyer defending Ta Mok, the Khmer Rouge military leader captured last year, has said: “All the foreigners involved have to be called to court, and there will be no exceptions . . . Madeleine Albright, Margaret Thatcher, Henry Kissinger, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George Bush . . . we are going to invite them to tell the world why they supported the Khmer Rouge.”
It is an important principle, of which those in Washington and Whitehall currently sustaining bloodstained tyrannies elsewhere might take note.
Για την ΕΛΕΥΘΕΡΙΑ ρε…:lol::lol::lol:
Το γκρουπάκι είναι ο ορισμός της τρολιάς, βλέπε εδώ π.χ.:
Αλλά λογικό να χρησιμοποιούν ατάκες του Τζήμερου, γιατί χρειάζεται και λίγη πρώτη ύλη για να τρολάρεις σωστά.
Aλήθεια; :roll:
Περιμένω και την τοποθέτηση του e-nick πάνω σε αυτό…
@Ιisis:
Θα σου απαντήσω αργότερα γιατί τώρα δεν προλαβαίνω. Δεν με ενδιαφέρει να φτιάξω την αγιογραφία της Θάτσερ αλλά δεν θα αφήσω και να της πετάτε λάσπη με κουβάδες όπως γίνεται αυτή τη στιγμή.
Γιατί όπως είχα γράψει και τις μέρες του θανάτου της, το πραγματικό σας ζόρι μαζί της έχει να κάνει με τις φιλελεύθερες μεταρρυθμίσεις της στην οικονομία. Η επιτυχία αυτών είναι που σας ενοχλεί πάνω από όλα και αντί να το πείτε ανοιχτά ασχολείστε εστιάζετε στην εξωτερική της πολιτική.
Τόση επιτυχία που η μέρα του θανάτου της έγινε εθνική εορτή
- Λάσπη; Δηλαδή το παραπάνω δημοσιίευμα είναι λάσπη; Και το Reuter’s λάσπη πετάει;
[B]Cocktails with Khmer Rouge killers
[/B]
…
While the film ?The Killing Fields? made many people aware of the horrors of Khmer Rouge rule, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher told a British children?s TV show in 1988 ?There?s a much, much reasonable grouping within that title, Khmer Rouge?who will have to play some part in the future
government.?
The British elite military unit the SAS were later revealed to have trained their fighters.
…
http://blogs.reuters.com/global/2010/07/30/cocktails-with-khmer-rouge-killers/
- Ναι σωστά άλλο η εξωτερική πολιτική. Ο σκοπός αγιάζει τα μέσα φανταζόμαι. Λίγα εκατομμύρια δολάρια στα χέρια του Πολ Ποτ, και σε μια εποχή που όλοι γνωριζαν τι είχε προηγηθεί στην Καμπότζη, είναι απλά μια μικρή λεπτομέρεια της εξωτερικής πολιτικής. Στο εσωτερικό μεταρρυθμιστές και μαχητές της ελευθερίας, στο εξωτερικό κοκτέιλ και τσάι με δολοφόνους. Θα μου πεις, κιτρινιάρηδες ήταν οι δεύτεροι οπότε οκ, δεν τρέχει και τίποτε…
Και του Χίτλερ οι εσωτερικές μεταρρυθμίσεις επιτυχημένες ήταν πάντως, υπερδύναμη ξανάγινε η Γερμάνια μέσα σε λίγα χρόνια από τον 1ο ΠΠ.
Και στην επταετία της χούντας εδώ, υποτίθεται υπήρξε οικονομική ανάπτυξη κλπ :-k
Σέρνεται το δίκτυο από τη λάσπη.
[B]Butcher of Cambodia set to expose Thatcher’s role[/B]
[I]Ta Mok, one of Pol Pot’s genocidal henchman, who faces trial, tells Jason Burke in Phnom Penh he will expose the West’s part in training the Khmer Rouge
In a small, dark, heavily guarded cell in Phnom Penh’s main military prison sits a man of 74, wizened, white-haired, one-legged. He is in good health and surprisingly high spirits, given his grim future and grimmer past.
He is Ta Mok, also known as the Butcher or Chhit Chouen - possibly the cruellest and most violent of the Khmer Rouge commanders who turned Cambodia’s green countryside into the killing fields.The Prime Minister of Cambodia, Hun Sen, has hopes to try Ta Mok for his crimes next month. Many in his shattered country are happy at the prospect. Others, including many of the political leadership and bureaucracy, fear his testimony will unveil their own roles during the time of Pol Pot’s genocide.
The unease is not restricted to the small, desperately poor, swampy country of 10 million that is modern Cambodia. For when Ta Mok takes the stand, his lawyers promise, no one will be spared - least of all the Western leaders who, they say, supported the Khmer Rouge despite the Maoist extremists’ atrocities being widely known.
The most damaging element, for Britain at least, of Ta Mok’s court appearance will be new evidence about how British troops and diplomats helped the Khmer Rouge in their fight for power.
Contacted in his prison cell through an intermediary last week, he confirmed to The Observer that the extent to which London and Washington helped the Khmer Rouge in their fight to control Cambodia would be revealed during his trial. The evidence will contradict statements made by Margaret Thatcher’s Government - which authorised the operation at the time.
Ta Mok’s lawyer, Benson Samay, said the court would hear details of how, [B]between 1985 and 1989, the Special Air Service (SAS) ran a series of training camps for Khmer Rouge allies in Thailand close to the Cambodian border and created a ‘sabotage battalion’ of 250 experts in explosives and ambushes.[/B] Intelligence experts in Singapore also ran training courses, Samay said.
To allow Ministers to deny helping the Khmer Rouge, the SAS was ordered to train only soldiers loyal to the ousted Prince Norodom Sihanouk, and the liberal democrat former Prime Minister, Son Sann, who were fighting alongside Pol Pot’s Communists. However, Samay said the court would be told the Khmer Rouge benefited substantially from the British operation.
‘All these groups were fighting together - but the Khmer Rouge were in charge. They profited from any help to the others. If they had won the war outright, then Pol Pot would have been back in charge,’ Samay said.
The Khmer Rouge and their allies were fighting against the Vietnamese-backed puppet regime Hanoi had installed after ousting Pol Pot’s extremist Communists and exposing the horrors of the killing fields.
In a classic piece of Cold War realpolitik, [B]Britain - prompted by the Americans - appears to have given military assistance to the Khmer Rouge-led coalition, despite knowing of Pol Pot’s atrocities[/B], in an attempt to limit the power of the Soviet-backed Vietnamese.
‘Thatcher, Reagan, Kissinger - they should all be on trial along with Ta Mok,’ Samay said last week. He said the court would also hear [B]that humanitarian supplies for Cambodian refugees in Thailand were diverted to the Khmer Rouge with, he claims, the knowledge of the Americans and the British.[/B] The court would also hear, he said, how [B]the diplomatic support offered by London and Washington to the coalition led by the Khmer Rouge was ‘a great help and morale booster’ for Pol Pot’s troops. [/B]The coalition retained the Cambodian United Nations seat throughout the Eighties.
Ta Mok’s journey from jungle hideout to power to hideout and eventually to prison last May is a powerful symbol of the political tides that have washed over Cambodia in the past decades. In April it will be 25 years since Pol Pot’s Chinese-backed Maoist revolutionaries defeated a weak pro-US government and entered Phnom Penh. They themselves were ousted by the Soviet-backed Vietnamese four years later and for 15 years a vicious civil war - fuelled by Cold War politics - racked the country.
The trial of Ta Mok and his Khmer Rouge colleague Kaing KhekIev (nicknamed ‘Deuch’) - who ran the regime’s most notorious torture centre - is a litmus test for this deeply scarred nation. Arguments over the format of proceedings have yet to be resolved - the United Nations and human rights groups fear the trial will be used by the government for political ends or be a sham, or both. But it seems likely it will go ahead nevertheless. Few feel, however, that anyone will be pleased by the outcome.
Not far from the prison where its former commander is being held, the Tuol Sleng torture centre still stands. Its iron beds, manacles and electric cables are intact, though tourists and groups of school children now walk wide-eyed through its cells.
Overlooking the rusting barbed wire are the garish villas of the nouveaux riches who have successfully exploited Cambodia’s recent shift towards a new, hugely corrupt, free-market economy. Outside its gates loiter half a dozen beggars - dirty children and disabled victims of the mines that still litter Cambodia’s countryside - hoping to beg a few riels (Cambodia’s virtually worthless currency) from wealthy farang (tourists).
They know what should happen to Pol Pot’s henchmen. ‘They should all be punished,’ said Pheach Yui, 35, who lost his leg to a mine while fighting against the Khmer Rouge 12 years ago. ‘They should all be rounded up and judged and punished for their sins. They should be in jail until they die.’
Yui is likely to be disappointed. There are thought to be 50,000 former Khmer Rouge fighters in government positions. At least five are Cabinet Ministers. Others have been effectively pardoned and live well. They include Ieng Sary, the Khmer Rouge number three and Pol Pot’s brother-in-law, Nuon Chea, who was known as ‘Brother Number Two’ and Khieu Samphan, the movement’s one-time Prime Minister.
Even Ta Mok says that they should face punishment. ‘I know about only a fraction of what happened,’ he told The Observer through an intermediary. ‘You should ask Ieng Sary and the others too.’ Several key Khmer Rouge commanders are gen erals in the Cambodian army and look untouchable. Even the Prime Minister himself was a Khmer Rouge cadre until being recruited by the Vietnamese.
Ta Mok and ‘Deuch’ may end up being the only senior Khmer Rouge brought to justice for their crimes. Pol Pot, the architect of the the massacres, died in 1998 and no one else has been arrested or is likely to be.
Though some argue that ‘national reconciliation’ means forgetting the past, to many the failure to bring the Khmer Rouge killers to justice merely emphasises the cheapness of human life in Cambodia today.
The psychological scars of genocide and war are obvious everywhere. The smallest incident can provoke extreme violence. The crime columns in the press are almost grotesque: three men blow themselves, and a café, to bits playing Russian roulette with an anti-tank mine; a man is murdered in a row over whether the millennium bug is a hoax; a syphilitic farmer kills five children and drinks their blood in the hope of being cured; a chess game ends with one dead, two badly injured. Arguments over land regularly lead to murder.
Attacks with acid have become more common. Last month a government official’s wife hideously burnt her husband’s mistress by pouring five litres of nitric acid over her while bodyguards held the screaming woman down. Such ‘crimes of jealousy’ are increasing. Last summer Cambodia’s most famous actress was shot dead in the street. The press reported that her murderers had been hired by the wife of the Prime Minister - her alleged lover.
‘There is an ingrained culture of might is right,’ said one Western diplomat. ‘It needs very little to spark off appalling violence.’ Armed robbery is common and, as the police are corrupt and ineffectual, people take the law into their own hands. Vigilante killings are rou tine, with even novice monks and art students beating suspected robbers to death. The customs and the military, often with the co-operation of senior members of the government, collude in massive smuggling - of beer, drugs, people, tropical hardwood and the country’s archaeological heritage.
Cambodia has lost half its forests in the past 30 years, and the trees are still falling fast. Last year soldiers used heavy equipment to break up 30 tonnes of stone carvings from 1,000-year-old archaeological sites before loading them into army trucks and driving them to Thailand to sell to dealers with rich Western clients. The military have even been reported to have been extorting ‘protection money’ from those trying to conserve Angkor Wat - Cambodia’s world-famous jungle temple complex.
The level of development is appallingly low. Average life expectancy is 52, one in five children dies before reaching the age of five, more than a third of the population live below the poverty line and half the children show the effects of malnutrition. Aids killed 6,000 people last year. The elite’s exclusive golf course, on the outskirts of Phomh Penh, charges $20,000 (£12,000) for membership, 80 times the average income.
Even the international community’s well-meaning interventions often come unstuck. The UN peacekeeping operation hugely boosted Aids in the country and created a parallel dollar economy. A senior French aid worker was reported to be pimping the orphans in his care.
Recently the partly British-funded Cambodian Mine Action Centre was found to have been clearing land for former Khmer Rouge warlords. They included Chhouk Rin - the commander who, in 1994, kidnapped and killed three Western tourists including a Briton.
Khieu Phen is, like Ta Mok, an old man. He was 30 when the Khmer Rouge came to power and lost his brothers, sisters and brother-in-law in the massacres. He survived the killing fields - where he was forced to work ‘day and night’ and watched ‘sons forced to murder their fathers’ - by working harder than everyone else. Now he rides a scooter around Phnom Penh hoping to pick up a passenger and earn enough for a bowl of noodles.
‘Sometimes I think we are cursed,’ he said. ‘Everybody takes from this country. So few people give anything. Everybody betrays us in the end.’[/I]
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/jan/09/cambodia
Guardian το δημοσίευμα, παίζει να το γραψε και ο Τσίπρας.
edit:
Εδώ δεν έχει Θάτσερ, αλλά έχει Νίξον, μετράει;;;
[B]In the Dock With Pol Pot: Uncle Sam[/B]
Up here in the northwest corner of Cambodia, 40 miles from where Pol Pot was cornered, there is no escaping the genocidal legacy of the man. Until recently, his Khmer Rouge controlled much of this area, and the evidence of their work abounds: the maimed beggars, the local killing field, the land mines that make most of the temples inaccessible, the knowledge that smiling Buddha heads from the famed ruins around Angkor Wat were smashed to be used in building roads.
But it is also strange to be watching televised international news reports that depict Pol Pot as an aberrant force, a monster of his own creation. Does no one recall or care that Pol Pot’s continued ability to wreak havoc for two decades is a direct result of an immoral connivance between China and the U.S.? Or is it just too inconvenient to remember this as the media get set to celebrate the return of Hong Kong to the rule of Beijing?
What hypocrisy for Madeleine Albright to now proclaim that “we will be seeking to make sure that there is international justice carried out against this major war criminal.” Pol Pot’s major war crimes were committed between 1975 and 1979 and the U.S. government knew the full extent of that horror during all the ensuing years in which it tried to bring him back to power as part of the U.S.-China sponsored coalition.
Pol Pot was the “Cambodia card” that the Chinese played against Vietnam while the U.S. played the China card. The Chinese Cultural Revolution was the inspiration for Pol Pot’s emptying Phnom Penh of its inhabitants. During that bloody reign of terror from 1975 to 1979, Pol Pot caused the death of one out of five Cambodians.
Yet even after the mayhem was brought to an end by the Vietnamese invasion of the country in 1979, when the world learned the full extent of the crimes committed, the Chinese insisted that Pol Pot’s government in exile be recognized as the legitimate representative of Cambodia at the United Nations. Every U.S. administration during the next 13 years endorsed the Chinese line, and it was the U.S. that forced the opposition coalition led by Prince Sihanouk to form a partnership with the bloodstained Khmer Rouge.
President Carter’s National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski has admitted, “I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot. . . . Pol Pot was an abomination. We could never support him but China could.” But the U.S. did support Pol Pot covertly, including whitewashing his crimes. As Ben Kiernan points out in an indispensable Yale University Law School monograph entitled “Genocide and Democracy in Cambodia,” the CIA in May of 1980 “denied that there had been any executions in the last two years of the Pol Pot regime.” In fact, half a million innocent people were killed during that period. Even well after the “killing fields” were unearthed, the U.S. continued to legitimize the Khmer Rouge, voting at the U.N. Geneva Conference in 1981 to defeat an ASEAN proposal that the Khmer Rouge be disarmed.
So extreme was the U.S. antipathy to Hanoi, so cynical its relationship with China, that the commission of war crimes by the Khmer Rouge failed to matter. Indeed our government first authored the instability in Cambodia that prepared the conditions for the takeover by Pol Pot as a well-documented “sideshow” of the war in Vietnam. By 1970, the U.S. had undermined the neutral and popular government of Prince Sihanouk, putting the accommodating Lon Nol in power. Then, in 1973, Nixon unleashed the intensive bombing of Cambodia. As French scholar Serge Thion wrote, if Pol Pot is ever brought to account for his war crimes, “He would remind us that Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger concentrated U.S. air power on his country and destroyed around 600,000 lives in the process. Would they sit in the same dock?”
No one will ever be able to make sense of Nixon’s unrelenting hostility toward Vietnamese communism at the same moment that he was cozying up to the Chinese Communists who certainly represented a more repressive and expansionist version of the creed. And not just Nixon. After decades of prattling about saving Vietnam from communism, the U.S. thought it unobjectionable when Communist China invaded Vietnam to punish Hanoi for overthrowing the Pol Pot regime. “I do not understand why some people want to remove Pol Pot,” Deng Xiaoping said in 1984. “It is true that he made some mistakes in the past but now he is leading the fight against the Vietnamese aggressors.”
It is unfortunately not a surprise after Tiananmen Square to hear Deng defend mass murder as a mistake. But it is shocking that those who claimed to speak in the name of the free world did the same.
εδιτ 2 : Γελάω…:lol:
Mπήκα στο site του ιδρύματος Richard Νixon.
Patriot. President.Peacemaker…:lol:
600.000 οι άμεσοι θάνατοι από τους βομβαρδισμούς στην Καμπότζη, ένας θεός ξέρει τον αριθμό των θυμάτων απο ασθένειες, πείνα κλπ. Φαντάσου να μην ήταν και Peacemaker δηλαδή. Κουβέντα βέβαια για εγκλήματα πολέμου. Εμ έτσι πάνε αυτά.
Άντε σταματάω, καταντάω εκνευριστικός.