>> ^bcglorf:

It is safe to say that, for all it matters, any mines laid by the Khmer Rouge were NOT western made.


So the particular mine in this video appears to be a PMN-2 which was made by the former USSR. But, it is the case that the Khmer Rouge used US made landmines (for example, the M16A1 and the M14-- NB: interesting article on how they work) This information can be easily gained with roughly 10 seconds of patience and a willingness to think before you act (something we in the US suck at). Hell, it is in the previous link I posted.


Landmines were the very least of anybody's crimes in Cambodia. Kissinger and his western kin have far more blood on their hands from carpet bombing.

My point is not that the Khmer Rouge were not assholes --they totally were. And so were we. We're all assholes. And until we go ahead and acknowledge that--we'll keep playing the finger pointing game and forget to pay attention to one of the greatest crimes continuing today. That people, right now, are suffering in Cambodia and other places like it and we're doing nothing to help.

The question should not be "who is responsible for making or placing these land mines" the question should be "who has a responsibility to help make a place where there are no land mines." Let the dead bury the dead--who will care for the living?

I believe the question was "who made the landmines" not "who laid the landmines" in which case the WEsterners would be among the culprits.

Again though, the specific ones this guy is clearing are stated to be those that he helped lay down as a child soldier for the Khmer Rouge. The Khmer Rouge, having a communist core, were only on the receiving end of western arms in the undesirable way. It is safe to say that, for all it matters, any mines laid by the Khmer Rouge were NOT western made.

My bigger point I was being 'anal' about wasn't really over who made the mines. It was about placing appropriate blame. Landmines were the very least of anybody's crimes in Cambodia. Kissinger and his western kin have far more blood on their hands from carpet bombing. The Khmer Rouge have more blood still for executing one of the worst genocides since the holocaust.

I don't want to detract from the west's guilt, but neither do I want to see the misconception that everything is the fault of America getting reinforced falsely. If you only blame the West for what's happened in Cambodia you are forgiving or ignoring the Khmer Rouge, and this guy would no doubt agree that's a very bad thing.

>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^LordOderus:
Hopefully the UN will throw gobs of money at him or nominate him for the nobel peace prize or something.

Are you kidding? Some nobody who's actually out there selflessly saving lives with no regard for his own safety, taking kids in and educating them at his own expense? Never gonna happen.


Reality is even more bitter to swallow. Henry Kissinger, the man that bombed Cambodian to pieces and softened them up for the Khmer Rouge really WAS given a Nobel Peace Prize.

The lesson kids, is that if you want to be a good global citizen, you have to kill people, not save them.

you really think that Hitchens has done all this? "His book on Kissinger has done far more to stop the outrageous actions and policies of the west than you ever could with a gun."

Absolutely. I don't think any one person could do more with a gun than Hitchens book has.

Honestly I don't think Hitchens has stopped anything. Nearly all the crimes he mentions in his book, I'm sure, have gone unpunished. Nearly all the criminals he shines a light on continue to walk free, with money in their pockets, and their bellies full.

And one man with a gun would've not only failed to stop those, it also would have failed to even bring those crimes to light. At the least Hitchens book has brought more attention to the crimes, even if it hasn't taken Kissinger's Nobel from him.


But as it is, it seems like the only people who know about him and who have read his stuff are extremely small in number, and few are close to political power greater than a city council chair.

I think you are looking to blame the general public there more than Hitchens, no?


Hitchens gets furious about people criticizing American or British troops

You missed the point. Lots of other talking heads might thump their chests with that cliche for no reason, but Hitchens is not. He is condemning those like the questioner who don't merely criticize, but go even further to BLAMING the soldiers for the security problems that exist. There is some justification to bringing up the contrast of blaming the people protecting you for causing your problems.


most of these soldiers he wants to celebrate are people who repeatedly vote against the ideologies of people like Hitchens, and few are for "women's rights" as Hitchens advocates for at the end of this video. They're not going to throw acid into a woman's face, but few think women are the intellectual equals of men, which makes me wonder if they even believe women should have the same number of votes as men.

Uh, so you don't think much of soldiers, that's your business. Don't go beyond expressing that opinion into inventing lies like the above to slander them as well, ok?


If so, how easy is it to convince foreigners that Americans are liberators, punishers of the wicked, and not colonizers, if large-scale war criminals (who often have fond opinions of colonialism) go unpunished in America itself?


Easy, 'foreigners' will treat Americans like they treat anybody else, by how they are acting at the time. You'll notice the Kurds and Iranian reformists have no trouble embracing the Americans at all, and America has a bad track record towards them in the past.

Finally, is democracy itself even a worthy ideology to pursue? ... even if a global democracy was established tomorrow, most Westerners would desire more power than their population numbers would deserve.

And your point is what? The rest of that paragraph you spent basically denigrating 'westerners' and declaring them all too greedy to really want democracy? Are you answering your own question about democracy being worthwhile then? Is the answer then 'yes' because it would teach those evil westerners to be more fair? Alright, I'm pretty sure your point was just to rag on the west in general. Good for you, I suppose. A few more years of study on what everyone else in the world has done that's as bad or worse and you'll be as universally cynical as Hitchens. Come back in ten years and re-read your post.

bcglorf, you really think that Hitchens has done all this? "His book on Kissinger has done far more to stop the outrageous actions and policies of the west than you ever could with a gun." Honestly I don't think Hitchens has stopped anything. Nearly all the crimes he mentions in his book, I'm sure, have gone unpunished. Nearly all the criminals he shines a light on continue to walk free, with money in their pockets, and their bellies full.

Perhaps if Hitchens' book had entered the public mind as much as, say, the latest Transformers film, I could agree with you. But as it is, it seems like the only people who know about him and who have read his stuff are extremely small in number, and few are close to political power greater than a city council chair.

Anyway, I thought the end of the video was a bit odd. Hitchens gets furious about people criticizing American or British troops, claiming that they "defend you while you sleep". These soldiers are the enforcers of government law and policies. The same laws that prevent Kissinger, Bush, and other American war criminals from being punished. They (armed agents of the government) were basically responsible with defending Kissinger as he slept, too. How does Hitchens do these two things at once? 1) Argue that Kissinger is a war criminal and must be punished, and suggest that 2) the US soldiers protecting him are heroes.

Is the priority to first wage this "war within Islam", then after it's over, refocus our efforts on getting American war criminals punished?

If so, how easy is it to convince foreigners that Americans are liberators, punishers of the wicked, and not colonizers, if large-scale war criminals (who often have fond opinions of colonialism) go unpunished in America itself?

Furthermore, most of these soldiers he wants to celebrate are people who repeatedly vote against the ideologies of people like Hitchens, and few are for "women's rights" as Hitchens advocates for at the end of this video. They're not going to throw acid into a woman's face, but few think women are the intellectual equals of men, which makes me wonder if they even believe women should have the same number of votes as men.

Finally, is democracy itself even a worthy ideology to pursue? It seems clear to me that most Westerners believe their own societies to be far superior to other societies (politically, physically, intellectually, economically, militaristically, etc.), and that even if a global democracy was established tomorrow, most Westerners would desire more power than their population numbers would deserve. One need only look at how frustrated white conservatives have become in the past few years, thanks to the high population growth of non-white people in the country, to see an example of how quickly democratic philosophies are thrown out the window in order to protect one's freedom/wealth. See the current Health care debate for more examples.

>> ^bcglorf:

I've felt so outraged at the historical actions and policies of western governments towards my people that if they persisted, I would be picking up a gun.

And Hitchens has already done you one better using his pen instead of a gun. His book on Kissinger has done far more to stop the outrageous actions and policies of the west than you ever could with a gun. This will be the last time I address this point, if you still insist on believing Hitchens doesn't appreciate the wrongs of the west there is nothing more that can be said.


I am not disputing that Hitchens wrote an awesome book that suitably held the west accountable for it's action.

What I am disputing is religion as the driving force behind all the madness out that way.

And even accepting your statement in it's entirety, there is still the quite obvious point that the something else consists of a great deal more than American foreign policy alone. What is more, the parts of American foreign policy that are the most relevant are not the atrocities, but the interventions to prevent atrocities.

Yeah, because people attack America because they hate the U.S. for your freedoms? Do you really think people are willing to blow themselves up to kill Americans because of something completely unrelated to American actions?

Interventions like in Iraq? Interventions like in Iran? What interventions are you talking about?

I've felt so outraged at the historical actions and policies of western governments towards my people that if they persisted, I would be picking up a gun.

And Hitchens has already done you one better using his pen instead of a gun. His book on Kissinger has done far more to stop the outrageous actions and policies of the west than you ever could with a gun. This will be the last time I address this point, if you still insist on believing Hitchens doesn't appreciate the wrongs of the west there is nothing more that can be said.


The monsters that run Al-Qaeda and other violent fundamentalist groups are merely tapping into anger - an anger that exists BECAUSE of something else.


And even accepting your statement in it's entirety, there is still the quite obvious point that the something else consists of a great deal more than American foreign policy alone. What is more, the parts of American foreign policy that are the most relevant are not the atrocities, but the interventions to prevent atrocities.


My problem is that he supports the war in Iraq. Which is crazy talk. The war itself whether fueled by greed, religion or misguided revenge is NOT convincing Muslims that being extremists is wrong.


Hitchens opposed the war in Iraq until he visited Kurdish Iraq and spent much time there. He came back with THEM having convinced HIM that the removal of Saddam was very important. It is well worth noting that the war in Iraq helped persuade Libya to change course in it's policies and even more, provided the Islamic Kurds a very bright future in place of the continual genocide Saddam was making for them. when talking about support for the Iraq war among Muslims you may want to take into account the populations of Iran, Saudia Arabia and Iraqi Kurds and Shiites. You might be surprised at the support for the removal of Saddam that was present, even with the burden of Bush and Cheney's criminal bungling of the effort.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
what bcglorf said.
The whole point Hitchens made, was that
1.Yes, America/the west have committed atrocities
2.Hitchens knows probably more than you about them
3.Hitchens have written entire books about them, and demanded punishment for those responsible (like Kissinger)
Despite of these points however, if you look at the motives of Islamic terrorists, this is NOT their motivation. Their stated goal is to create a global, totalitarian islamic state, where you either bow down to the one true god, or die. They (al Quada and their allies) couldnt care less about genocide and the suffering of others, except that it provides them with a recruiting pool. The real threat to them, is the introduction of education, and modernization, (and thus secularization) of their society. You wouldnt need Hitchens to tell you this, you can just listen to what they are saying themselves. They are not worried about Americans killing people, they are worried that Islam is weakened.


populist motherfucker and the following sheeps just like in religion but on the new "Atheist" religion

1990's - war Crimes - lets talk about that is the new "trend" -
2000's - Islamic fundamentalist - is the new trend now!!
yes women a re not abuse in any western country(oh wait they are?), mm ok lets protest against a opresor country that wants to impose a religion or you are against it (US - BUSH - christians) mmm, who cares as long Im talking Im always right
Hoo yes you are a Genius you are really saving humanity with your drunknes

what bcglorf said.

The whole point Hitchens made, was that

1.Yes, America/the west have committed atrocities
2.Hitchens knows probably more than you about them
3.Hitchens have written entire books about them, and demanded punishment for those responsible (like Kissinger)

Despite of these points however, if you look at the motives of Islamic terrorists, this is NOT their motivation. Their stated goal is to create a global, totalitarian islamic state, where you either bow down to the one true god, or die. They (al Quada and their allies) couldnt care less about genocide and the suffering of others, except that it provides them with a recruiting pool. The real threat to them, is the introduction of education, and modernization, (and thus secularization) of their society. You wouldnt need Hitchens to tell you this, you can just listen to what they are saying themselves. They are not worried about Americans killing people, they are worried that Islam is weakened.

Funny how BreakstheEarth calls the other guy, whoever he is, a fundamentalist apologist when his vid is of Hitchens standing there excusing western abuses of power.


How ignorant are you? Hitchens never excused western abuses, he pointed back to the fact he wrote a, if not THE, book on it with 'The Trial of Henry Kissinger'. He never excused the west, but once again renewed his condemnation and calls for war crimes prosecution of those responsible. What video where you watching exactly????


Yeah, we gave the Indonesians weapons knowing full well what they were intended for but thats ok because thirty years later we stopped the killing. THIRTY FUCKING YEARS!!?


I must repeat, what video were you watching? Hitchens never even vaguely suggested that the western turn around thirty years later justified anything. What he stated was that Al-Qaida's stated reasons for hating the west included not the East Timor genocide, but the act of ENDING their support for it.


He admits that history yet still feels like the west has some sort of moral superiority over a human surplus of young, poor, uneducated, jobless fundamentalists.

And yet again, which video did you watch? Hitchens condemned villians of both the west AND the fundamentalists. Unbelievable...

Good points, WP. But you see, this is not a forum for actual truth and accountability, it's a group therapy session for the like-"minded". I'd bet if the lefties were in charge during Katrina, things wouldn't have been much different, including the righties blaming the lefties for fucking up. Just look who Obammy picked to solve our current economic problems: Timothy Geithner...hahaha

- Tax cheat
- CFR
- Bilderberg
- Kissinger lackey

The only jobs created so far have been accountants for the banks and auto companies to count the bailout monies coming in.

Change...what a bunch of bullshit.

Let's remember that Obama is Kissinger's boy, who has made it clear that the US must intercede in some fashion: "we may conclude that we must work for regime change in Iran from the outside".

http://www.videosift.com/video/Brzezinski-discusses-intelligent-manipulation-in-Iran

Note that both Brzezinski and Kissinger are members of the Trilateral Commision and the CFR, both operated by the ruling class on this planet
and bent on enslavement of all. Obama, like Bush and his recent predicessors, are owned by those who look at us like farm animals.

Just recently, Obama has proposed turning over MORE power to the Federal Reserve, Which is neither federal nor reserved.
The Fed, who illegally controls our money supply (this is contitutionally Congress' job) will now have total control over bank policies.

This will make future, orchastrated financial collapses, designed for the transfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy, even easier.
Truth is, in fact, stranger than fiction. How sad.

I hope all of you who dropped to your knees for Obama when he uttered "change" and "yes we can" eventually wake up.

Here's the original Sith Lord of Geopolitics, Henry Kissinger on the situation in Iran and America's response so far.



Talking on BBC Newsnight Kissinger says that while the US will not intervene in the current crisis, if the coup fails and a "popularly based" government is not installed (ie. the one he wants), then "we may conclude that we must work for regime change in Iran from the outside".

Read, The Commission The uncensored History of The 9/11 Investigation

Learn a little bit about the executive branch, and congressional commissions.

You know why Henry Kissinger resigned his post as Chairman? Because he would have to divulge his client list for his firm. What name could possibly be on that list, as to cause him to shirk his responsibility? Lets say its a well known Saudi.

Bush screwed himself, and all of his lackeys. He was his own worse enemy, or maybe Cheney and Rove were.

Young Abdel Mahdi (Shahmay) was only 18 years old,
He was the youngest of nine children, never spent a night away from home.
And his mother held his photograph, opening the New York Times
To see the killing has intensified along the road to peace

There was a tall, thin boy with a whispy moustache disguised as an orthodox Jew
On a crowded bus in Jerusalem, some had survived World War Two
And the thunderous explosion blew out windows 200 yards away
With more retribution and seventeen dead along the road to peace

Now at King George Ave and Jaffa Road passengers boarded bus 14a
In the aisle next to the driver Abdel Mahdi (Shahmay)
And the last thing that he said on earth is "God is great and God is good"
And he blew them all to kingdom come upon the road to peace

Now in response to this another kiss of death was visited upon
Yasser Taha, Israel says is an Hamas senior militant
And Israel sent four choppers in, flames engulfed, tears wide open
And it killed his wife and his three year old child leaving only blackened skeletons

It's found his toddlers bottle and a pair of small shoes and they waved them in front of the cameras
But Israel says they did not know that his wife and child were in the car
There are roadblocks everywhere and only suffering on TV
Neither side will ever give up their smallest right along the road to peace

Israel launched it's latest campaign against Hamas on Tuesday
Two days later Hamas shot back and killed five Israeli soldiers
So thousands dead and wounded on both sides most of them middle eastern civilians
They fill the children full of hate to fight an old man's war and die upon the road to peace

"And this is our land we will fight with all our force" say the Palastinians and the Jews
Each side will cut off the hand of anyone who tries to stop the resistance
If the right eye offends thee then you must pluck it out
And Mahmoud Abbas said Sharon had been lost out along the road to peace

Once Kissinger said "we have no friends, America only has interests"
Now our president wants to be seen as a hero and he's hungry for re-election
But Bush is reluctant to risk his future in the fear of his political failures
So he plays chess at his desk and poses for the press 10,000 miles from the road to peace

In the video that they found at the home of Abdel Mahdi (Shahmay)
He held a Kalashnikov rifle and he spoke with a voice like a boy
He was an excellent student, he studied so hard, it was as if he had a future
He told his mother that he had a test that day out along the road to peace

The fundamentalist killing on both sides is standing in the path of peace
But tell me why are we arming the Israeli army with guns and tanks and bullets?
And if God is great and God is good why can't he change the hearts of men?
Well maybe God himself is lost and needs help
Maybe God himself he needs all of our help
Maybe God himself is lost and needs help
He's out upon the road to peace

Well maybe God himself is lost and needs help
Maybe God himself he needs all of our help
And he's lost upon the road to peace
And he's lost upon the road to peace
Out upon the road to peace.