But the systematic intent of killing off the Buddhist, as a part of the whole, would be Genocide. The destroyed temples, defrocked monks, and murdered religious intellectuals were all done with the intent of destroying Buddhism. Which would qualify as a genocidal act within the whole of their killings.

Just as while a lot of Khmer were killed as well, the ethnic cleansing campaigns would also be considered a genocidal act within the whole of the killings.

From the Economist article: "The question is whether these groups were targeted first and foremost because of their ethnic or religious type, or rather because they represented perceived political and economic enemies."

Legal opinion seems to be that the killing of the Vietnamese and Chams could be considered genocide, but the rest would not. I hear what you are saying and I think you could make a case regarding the monks specifically, but not for the rest of the Cambodians killed, as their religion was not the primary reason they were targeted.

giblet wrote:From the Economist article: "The question is whether these groups were targeted first and foremost because of their ethnic or religious type, or rather because they represented perceived political and economic enemies."

I read that, it raises a good point. But from what I've seen of the documentation/etc it seems that "The only religion is the Khmer religion" was a large part of their motto... making the two intertwined in that regard. So the answer would be neither was "first"... but they were one in the same.

giblet wrote: I hear what you are saying and I think you could make a case regarding the monks specifically, but not for the rest of the Cambodians killed, as their religion was not the primary reason they were targeted.

Correct, that's what i was trying to convey. While the whole thing would simple by Democide, there seems to certainly be enough to also introduce the charges of genocide regarding those specific cases of the Ethnic cleansing and the Religious killings of the monks/intellectuals.

The debate about the usage of the term in relation to Cambodia serves a purpose and does not come out of the blue. It is one way of getting rid of those trials and also stabilize rule. Thus, the debate in itself has its own history and serves a purpose.

The 1948 convention is no longer the only measure for using the term. Importantly, the Sebrenica verdict of 2008 represents a further development of 'genocide' as a legal term. Continuing prosecution and other legal action in connection with other cases provide further info in that regard. (Ruanda, Timor, Darfur etc.)

The Cambodian case can only be understood once one tries to figure out the mindset of the leadership. Many Cambodians and Red Khmers were killed as were citizen of Vietnam in Vietnam because they had 'Vietnamese souls.' Thus, all Krom were not to be liberated but to be killed. While this definition being Vietnamese by soul is utter nonsense it was the marker used by Pol Pot and his creatures. Thus, it is the perpetrator who defined 'nation', victim group etc. no matter what the rest of the world thought about it or whether it did and does not agree.

The definition of new people was another lethal category. Pointing to the fact that not all 'new people' were murdered or that such a murder was not attempted in all places would miss the point. In this instance, one needs to regionalize the study of violence and see under what circumstances and when new people were murdered or which sub-category among them (like owners of a bicycle for e.g.).

Murderous intent can be proven without a smoking gun. Just look at the kill rate of Khmer cadres trained or having time spent in North-Vietnam. Aside from those who managed to escape, none survived. This was not a coincidence and there is enough circumstantial evidence to substitute an outright order.

The problem with the Khmer Rouge history is that of agency. The US have no interest in a thorough discuss because of their deadly alliance with the killers (incl. China and Thailand) in the 1980s. The Cambodian government, well, no need to start a long list of reasons. China? see above and no so happy to discuss Maoism. Vietnam? A pretty good record but current problems take precedence. In sum, nobody is interested in a full investigation. I'm not talking of a grand conspiracy but simply about practical interests that converge and cumulative support for tendencies that go into another direction. Nobody of these powers and groups could stand up without risking to be reminded of the blood on its own hands in the very same crime.

kiwiincambodia wrote:I think it is defined as "genocide". What makes it worse in my opinion is they did it to there own.

In recent history, in my limited knowledge, the scale of "murder" that took place against their own race / religion had never happened before.

I would be happy to be proven wrong on this as I never followed history that much.

I've not read much in a long time, but I'm pretty sure Joseph Stalin would take line honours here.

Soi Dog wrote:Although many ethnic Vietnamese were killed during that time, I don't believe there was a concerted KR effort to round them up and eliminate them all, including babies.

Wrong. Most were deported first, so those who remained, not a large population, were mostly those with Khmer spouses. All or substantially all were later killed, including children. The Vietnamese population of Cambodia in late 1978 was zero. The genocide case to be made is indeed is against the Vietnamese, it's clear in both word and deed. The Chams have a case but I believe their persecution was less consistent and if there were specific directives from the top I don't recall that, I'd have to go back to the DCC papers.

Right before I click this thread, I knew there is going to be JBtrain's response; why dont you just admit you are Vietnamese apologist and get it over with. I am also curious what shit books you are reading.

What is your definition of genocide? In my case, my family tree got completely wiped out; the only sole survivor is my mom. Read: Year Zero! while the idea might be noble...their ideology is fucked up, no monitoring or whatever so, thats why most are feeling sorry in their dying age.

And Giblet, Facebook! Really? Those who really suffered dont even know what the internet is. The dumb younger Khmer generations dont know what it is they are talking about!

flying chicken wrote:Right before I click this thread, I knew there is going to be JBtrain's response; why dont you just admit you are Vietnamese apologist and get it over with. I am also curious what shit books you are reading.

What is your definition of genocide? In my case, my family tree got completely wiped out; the only sole survivor is my mom. Read: Year Zero! while the idea might be noble...their ideology is fucked up, no monitoring or whatever so, thats why most are feeling sorry in their dying age.

What happened to your family and millions of other's was horrific. Are you angry with the Vietnamese for what happened to your family? Why are you labelling someone as a Vietnamese apologist? What historical facts have we gotten wrong, in your view?

You are dam right I am angry at the Vietnamese. I live here and speak the native language. Phnom Phem, Kampot, Sihanoville, and now 3/4 of Siem Reap are Vietnamese dominance. The only province left in Cambodia Battambong. Should I worry? Yes I do...on behalf of 10 million Khmers.

So Soi Dog?

Where exactly do you get the idea that the above provinces are "Vietnamese dominance"?

Still, JBT's assertion that Vietnamese population in 1978 was zero is slightly laughable depending on how he defines "Vietnamese".