It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Killing-field babies 'smashed against trees'

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 02:00 PM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

I remembered reading at some point that some cannabalistic tribes did not consider themselves cannibals. The other "humans" did not speak their language, and were therefore not "human" as they could not communicate. They were destroyed and eaten like any other animal that could not talk.

I really have no idea what you have to imply by any of the above...

Just reiterating the point of how easy it is to justify one's actions behind ideals. We often treat each other as non-human, and this is a very literal occurence of such an action. It is a little diluted when we do it in the name of religion, race, or patriotism, but it is the same grotesque disregard for a fellow human.

As far as religion in Armenia, my friend has his Master's degree in International Studies and teaches at a University. His father was a pretty high ranking government official just before the fall of the USSR and his mother was a translator. They left quickly because of their connections, because they had the means, and because they did not want to catch any backlash. They are very proud of their Christianity (not Catholic), and they fervently defend the USSR and claim they were never discriminated against because of religion. They do hate Turkey, and the genocide that forced them into the arms of the USSR.

I don't know if they were possibly shielded from the discrimination by class or association, but I do know they are well-educated and forthright people that would take exception to your claims! (The mother is much less pro-USSR than the father, but she doesn't talk about why).

[edit on 8-6-2009 by getreadyalready]

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 02:02 PM

Originally posted by audas
Great to see someone on hear ADVOCATING MURDER - it is truly a small mind which seeks to murder and kill to satisfy a bloolust for revenge, small indeed.

I'm advocating justice, not murder. Execution is not murder. It's a punishment for murder.

Would you have supported Saddam Hussein getting a prison sentence and being fed, clothed, and receiving other luxuries that prisoners for what ever reason receive? All the while his victims lie dead in the ground? That's justice to you?

How about Adolf Hitler? Had he been captured, he doesn't deserve to die in your mind?

How many lives and families does a person have to destroy before you come down off your high horse and support the one and only punishment that is right?

If you kill, you deserve to be killed. It's as simple as that. Not: If you kill, you food, a free place to live, a free bed, free clothing, free cable TV, free gym membership, and the luxury of living out your remaining years with no worries of paying bills or taxes ever again!

Yeah, some punishment for a mass murderer. I'm sure it absolutely terrifies them.

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 02:15 PM
reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi

I'd like to add, that it goes beyond revenge. The death penalty makes a lot of economic sense. If someone receives a 30 yr sentence at age 60 without possibility of parole, why waste 30 years of food, lodging, security, and most of all healthcare? They are going to die in prison at some point, but not before a huge burden on taxpayers. Some common sense should be used in sentencing. Life in prison without the possibility of parole, is really no life at all, so why spend the money! Either reduce the ridiculous mandatory sentences on many crimes, or use the death penalty more frequently, or both!

[edit on 8-6-2009 by getreadyalready]

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 02:17 PM

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
reply to post by tezzajw

Sadly when you go to Cambodia, Pnom Phen particulary, they have created a tourism commerce from this Kmer Rouge era. The trip to the killing fields is something I actually wish i never did. Not even to honor those who died, its too hard, even the Buddist Temples there cant bring a sence of peace to the fields.
The crimes were beyond baby smashing in to trees, they used very violent forms of killing in the genocide such as axes, spades etc, all to save money on ammo

Don't forget the school where they took school children and trained them to torture 1000’s to death....they still have the torture devices at the school. This is about as bad as it can get.

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 02:35 PM
reply to post by tezzajw

If you think that only "unintelligent" people follow ruthless dictators.. you're sadly mistaken.. in fact so often its the complete opposite.

When your dealing with ideologies your dealing with beliefs... which yes, propaganda is key to spreading those beliefs, but ultimately one decides for them selves.. but to assume all the wrongdoers and their followers are stupid, then you underestimate the ingenius ways they can take you over, among other things.

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 02:49 PM
I think that most people miss the point that is important when you take to discussing what to BLAME about these attrocities.

You blame the people.

Everyone has a choice. If you and your cohorts, or the rest of us as observers, perfer to CHOOSE to adhere to an ideology beyond all other considerations......we all still made a choice.

Being a sociopath is a preferable state for people to exist in, if what you want is pure ideology. Because this is the only way pure ideology of any form CAN exist.

To have a perfect state of capitalism or communism, or islamism, or christianity, or budhism, or even a microcosm of it in a mangement style, or even a smaller microcosm of a family......all of these REQUIRE that you ignore individuals and concentrate only on the goal. Free market. Sweet children. Corporate "mission."

It doesn't matter what your goal is - individual or cultural sociopathology is required for you to not care about others so that you can create your perfect something.

It isn't even just "extremism" because you can take moderation too seriously too, and hamstring any progress.

That's what the lesson is you need to hear.

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 03:00 PM
reply to post by Aeons

It isn't even just "extremism" because you can take moderation too seriously too, and hamstring any progress.

Thanks! Very very good points! Is moderation in excess still moderation?

It is the people. That is exactly why I love the Oathkeeper's pledges I have read about in other threads. If we stay vigilant at observing our surroundings and the current trends in our society, hopefully we can avoid being on either side of one of these atrocities.

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 05:45 PM

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi

Duch faces life in jail if convicted by the court, which does not have the power to impose the death penalty.

This is why I despise political correctness. The death penalty is becoming less popular because of it.

People like this murder hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions of people, but we're just going to lie to ourselves and give ourselves a good ol' pat on the back for taking some imaginary moral high road by not forcing these people to suffer the same fate their victims did.

The death penalty was never meant to deter crime, so to use the fact that it hasn't deterred crime as a valid argument against it's use is nonsense. Obviously life in prison doesn't deter murderers either.

What the death penalty DOES do is deliver a form of justified punishment for committing a heinous and violent crime. This right here is a good example of that.

This guy and all of his subordinates need to be smacked upside a tree themselves. If they manage to survive, strap them to that same tree and cut it down. And don't even give them a proper burial. Leave the bastard there to rot.

This is the result of a passive society: too many people get away too easily with too much. If it's ever going to stop, people need to be made an example of.

[edit on 6/8/09 by NovusOrdoMundi]

I have a question. You claim that the death penalty does not deter criminals; but then in the last sentence you say, "people like this need to be made an example of". Why make an example if you're not trying to dissuade? Also, If this man is actually repentant, making him live seems more just, and will likely induce more suffering, than making him die. I do support the death penalty, but only in cases where there are self-confessed unreformable individuals, repeat murderers who claim they will murder again if set free. They are like mad dogs, and society sho9uld put them down.

This is not the case here.

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 06:28 PM

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by tezzajw

If you think that only "unintelligent" people follow ruthless dictators.. you're sadly mistaken.. in fact so often its the complete opposite.

When your dealing with ideologies your dealing with beliefs... which yes, propaganda is key to spreading those beliefs, but ultimately one decides for them selves.. but to assume all the wrongdoers and their followers are stupid, then you underestimate the ingenius ways they can take you over, among other things.

Anyway Rockpuck, THAT is not intelligence

Manipulation is the expression of stupidity. To what end it comes?

After all, the whole history is the expression of stupid people fighting to "survive"! Yeah right! They all survived

It cannot be more stupid.

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 06:33 PM
reply to post by Aeons

The ideas and emotions, projections all in all, take over, because people make a DECISION to do so, for their shortsighted goals which can never be accomplished without a dire price. And that is the end of responsibility, of ethics, of any connection between people. So every soldier, every revolutionary, every driver and doorman is responsible for protecting and serving the worst and higher of all. They are all in it. Don't just process the heads, and make a show from it. This "Dutch" is just one grain of sand among the sea of criminals.

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 06:36 PM
reply to post by AshleyD

They have sugar coated it. My wife survived the Killing Fields and the stories she tells often in a monotone are chilling. One night I could not sleep I was so disturbed.

We have been married or dating for over 17 years and I have never heard the full story.

What do you do with these guys? You kill them in the most brutal, painfull way you can imagine.

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 07:03 PM
To me justice in this case should be thought out yet simple in principle. He should be hanged from them same tree after an appropriate round of torcher that fits his crimes for all to see.

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 07:32 PM
I think he should be put to death or torture , he needs to feel the pain that he inflicted upon those innocent people, although that can never change anything it might make the survivors feel a little more at ease,What kind of awful human being can beat a child against a tree? I could not even fathom that kind of awful behavior, children are innocent and no one ever deserves that.

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 07:56 PM
I think the man should pay for the atrocities he participated in.

Originally posted by DangerDeath
Pol Pot was not a communist and nothing he did was communist like.

I really enjoyed the post but lets stick to the facts.

Khmer Rouge & Pol Pot

The Khmer Rouge (Khmer: ខ្មែរក្រហម) was the communist ruling political party of Cambodia — which it renamed Democratic Kampuchea — from 1975 to 1979.

Following their leader Pol Pot, the Khmer Rouge imposed an extreme form of social engineering on Cambodian society — a radical form of agrarian communism where the whole population had to work in collective farms or forced labor projects. In terms of the number of people killed as a proportion of the population (est. 1.75 million people, as of 1975), it was one of the most lethal regimes of the 20th century.[cit

[edit on 8-6-2009 by SLAYER69]

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 08:16 PM
Is there really a puinshment to fit such a aweful crime. its kinda what the native americans did at ft. mims & there puinshment was being killed by andrew jackson at horseshoe bend, so what i'm trying to say is the only thing you can do to this guy is kill him then again locking him up in a room by himself so he can think about what he did, everyday.

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 08:50 PM
Hmmm Smashing baby skulls is part of the Jesuit 4th oath. I believe Pol Pot was Catholic/Jesuit trained. I believe the same is true for Mao and it certainly is for Stalin and Castro. Another thread points out funding for the Khamer Rouge via Mao. Interesting...

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 08:50 PM
I say KILL HIM! Let God deal with him, and believe he will stand in front of God, and he will be judged. Somewhere in fighting/war/battles there is supposed to be honor. Where is the honor is slaughtering innocent babies. For gods sake they can't even make life descisions for themselves. Powerless to help themselves. Want to be a terrorist, criminal, thug, whatever, go for it, just don't involve children. Give them the opportunity to have better than we did! Our children are our future world leaders.

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 09:26 PM
reply to post by audas

Actually, execution is far too rapid although it would spare the expense of keeping such a vermin alive.

I advocate a life sentence at hard labor with just enough rations to survive so as to better understand his crime against humanity. He should get what his underlings dished out but not killed.

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 09:26 PM
The calls for horrific retribution against those who have committed atrocities is always troubling for me. Should such tyrants face justice? Absolutely. Should we shrink to their level in the application of justice? God forbid! If we seek to raise the level of our existence, we can’t lower ourselves in such a way. A proper and just trial, followed by a civilized and law abiding execution or imprisonment upon a guilty finding gives example of the sort of behavior we expect from others. Responding to barbarism with barbarism just multiplies the barbarity. An eye for an eye leaves us all blind. Isn’t it enough to remove such threats with the same treatment we would expect for ourselves? Remember, rights denied another will eventually be denied you or yours.

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 09:43 PM
reply to post by SLAYER69

Communism is an idea derived from economic studies from Babeuf (the first communist, during French Revolution) and then by Karl Marx and others. Arrival to communism is through fulfilling economic production and evolving conditions.

What those rascals , Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin or Pol Pot, called communism in their political and criminal practice, has nothing to do with this philosophical and economic theory.

All these "communists" cared about was to secure their personal power and get away with their crimes. That's what it is about and nothing else.

Waving with ideas like socialism, communism, fascism, Nazism, only simulates their fictional ideology, while in practice everything was resolved by raw force.

What kind of lousy excuse to kill two million people is this "agrarian communism"? You don't really believe that? They were gangsters and psychopaths, nothing else. And the world just "watched". But they were "good", because they were fighting against the North Vietnam at that time.

Here is a short quotation from Wikipedia about Khmer Rouge:

It became more Stalinist and anti-intellectual when groups of students who had been studying in France returned to Cambodia. The students, including future party leader Pol Pot, had been heavily influenced by the example of the French Communist Party (PCF).

After 1960, the Khmer Rouge developed its own unique political ideas. For example, contrary to most Marxist doctrine, the Khmer Rouge considered the farmers in the countryside to be the proletariat and the true representatives of the working class, a form of Maoism which brought them onto the PRC side of the Sino-Soviet Split.

"Unique political ideas" "contrary to most Marxist doctrine". Marxist doctrine is about communism. And theirs was "contrary" to it.

In Russia, farmers (kulaks) were exterminated because they "were not proletarians". Or forcefully moved to cities in order to create working class.

With such contrary ideas, how can it be called communism?

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in