Passing of Khmer Rouge "Butcher" mourned by victims (Liberals found in every culture news)

BBC News online ^ | 22 July 2006 | BBC News

[theBuckwheat]

Hundreds pay respects to Ta Mok

In a traditional Buddhist funeral ceremony, incense was burned and prayers recited over Ta Mok's body, which was daubed with white powder.

The ceremony took place in Ta Mok's former stronghold of Anlong Veng, in the north of Cambodia.

Ta Mok, who died on Friday, was the regime's military commander and linked to many atrocities of the 1970s.

About 1.7 million people died under the Khmer Rouge, through a combination of starvation, disease and execution.

Ta Mok was the only Khmer Rouge leader who refused to bargain with authorities following the collapse of the regime, and he was arrested in 1999 near the Thai border....

Though Ta Mok was one of the most vicious leaders of the Khmer Rouge, he is remembered in this area as tough but generous - a man who brought public works projects and some employment to a poor region....

Correspondents say there is an irony in Ta Mok being given a Buddhist funeral. Religion was banned under the Khmer Rouge, with bodies thrown unceremoniously into mass graves and no mourning allowed.

Negotiations between Ta Mok's family and authorities are under way to decide where he should be buried. His family are thought to favour a burial on the grounds of his former home in Anlong Veng.

Ta Mok was expected to be one of the first people tried for genocide and crimes against humanity at UN-backed hearings due to start next year.

[theBuckwheat]

This is so bizarre, that I will just leave it to other FReepers to contribute their comments.

[Jack Hammer]

Appears to me to be an extreme form of Stockholm Syndrome, if I'm recalling the term correctly...

[backhoe]

About 1.7 million people died under the Khmer Rouge, through a combination of starvation, disease and execution.

I love the way the Drive-By Media never misses a chance to downplay the horrors of the side it secretly sympathizes with-- the Kymer Rogue killed one of every three Cambodians, or at least two million people.

The Killing Fields & Murder of a Gentle Land- what really happened in Cambodia a quarter-century ago

[Mark was here]

Reminds me of Abe Lincoln, many people died because he would not allow those who freely joined an association, to exit the association. Restricted freedom and many deaths, then huge memorials.

[Shooter 2.5]

That's because Lincoln is an American hero. As an individual, he may not have felt ending slavery was as important as preserving the Union but he was on the side that ended slavery.
Lincoln didn't start that war but he was there when it was finished. The war was about slavery as far as the slaves were concerned and the war ended that "particular institution".

[the final gentleman]

Ashes to ashes, dirt to dirt.

The murder and starvation of 2,000,000 Cambodians didn't happen.

And those who murdered and starved the 2,000,000 Cambodians meant well, anyway.

And anyway it wasn't 2,000,000 Cambodians who died, it only 1,700,000 who died and anyway the Americans caused this unfortunate event by refusing to give the Khmer Rouge proper respect.

And a pig or cow can bark "meow" but a goldfish likes to sing.

[Chgogal]

Many of the "Pinch" generation have much to answer for. Shame on America's left. We need more men like the Screaming Eagle below to set this country straight.

Lt. Col's Letter re Iraq: "I'm Tired"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1669404/posts

[backhoe]

Thanks for the link- that's a fine letter.

[Mark was here]

That's because Lincoln is an American hero. As an individual, he may not have felt ending slavery was as important as preserving the Union but he was on the side that ended slavery. Lincoln didn't start that war but he was there when it was finished. The war was about slavery as far as the slaves were concerned and the war ended that "particular institution".

The south left the union because they could get a better price for their goods from Europe than the north was willing to pay. The north instituted taxes that would force the south to sell to the north. The south did not like the deal and wanted out of the union. Read Lincoln's first inaugural address to see how he really felt about freeing the slaves.

If the north was so hell bent on freeing the slaves, why was the underground railroad underground in the north? When the allies liberating Europe from Hitler came across concentration camps, did they set the people free or did they treat the people like the north treated runaway slaves? Honestly if the north was fighting to free the slaves, why weren't they free as soon as they were north?

Slavery could of ended with out a war. It's days were all ready numbered. The war was fought to prevent the south from becoming free.

Look at the killing field called Gettysburg, and you can see the future killing fields in Cambodia.

[Shooter 2.5]

You never read the Declarations of Secession have you?

Short answer to half of your misconceptions. There were thousands of abolitionist societies in the North. So my question to you is how many were there in the South?

By the way, don't waste anyone's time and telling me the South was getting rid of Slavery. Slavery ended at the point of a gun.

[Chode]

toooo bad they can't ask the MILLIONS he MURDERED how THEY feel about it... i bet they have a different point on view.

[Mark was here]

By the way, don't waste anyone's time and telling me the South was getting rid of Slavery. Slavery ended at the point of a gun.

I missed your explanation of why the underground railroad was underground in the north. Maybe it will come in the next revision of history.

If a hero is made of someone who was responsible for the death of millions in Cambodia, it won't be making any new history.

[Shooter 2.5]

TO THE NORTH.

The Underground Railroad, a vast network of people who helped fugitive slaves escape to the North and to Canada, was not run by any single organization or person. Rather, it consisted of many individuals -- many whites but predominently black -- who knew only of the local efforts to aid fugitives and not of the overall operation. Still, it effectively moved hundreds of slaves northward each year -- according to one estimate, the South lost 100,000 slaves between 1810 and 1850.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2944.html

[Mark was here]

Still don't know why it was underground in the north... a north that would wage a war against the south ... The war between the states was fueled by a lot more than justified outrage over slavery. The moneyed interests in the north needed to protect their interests in cheep raw materials, this was the fuel for the war. Slavery was merely a convenient emotional issue, but not enough of an issue to fire up the Treasury to pay the troops. Wars were fought over money and sometimes religious issues are merely for show. It often pays to follow the money to see what is happening.

I believe todays war in Iraq is an exception to the rule, and is being waged for moral reasons, to free people from the bonds of dictatorship, and set an example for other Arab countries the can prosper under a republic that respects individual rights.

I believe Vietnam was also fought for moral reasons, to stand up to communism, the killing in Cambodia after we walked away, shows the true evil we were against. The money that started / really fired up things in Vietnam was French, with France wanting to reclaim what they thought was theirs to plunder.

[theBuckwheat]

>>
Still don't know why it was underground in the north..
<<

It was underground because of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which not only made it a crime to assist a runaway slave and required captured slaves to be returned to their owners, but it allowed federal marshals to seize local citizens and force them to help in the capture of slaves.

One of the reasons that the Act passed into history was that northern juries would commonly refuse to convict people who were indicted for failing to obey it.

It should be recalled that the war that Lincoln waged against the southern states was not about slavery. Indeed, anyone can read Lincoln's first inaugural address (1861) where he states:

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

As can easily be read in the plain text, the issue was the refusal of the South to pay the taxes (commonly called the Tariff of Abomination) the federal government imposed on it. Indeed, Lincoln in the following, says if the South will pay what it owes, there will be no invasion:

"The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere."

Towards the end of the war, Lincoln freed slaves, but only in the States that had seceded.

http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html

Certainly, slavery was a hotly debated social policy issue at the time of this war, but no more so that to claim that the 1992 Los Angeles riots (when Rodney King was injured) were about abortion.

[Mark was here]

Yep, I was shocked, to find that Lincolns first address was not inscribed anywhere in his memorial.