Newsgroup: it.cultura.storia
Titolo: Chi semina vento raccoglie tempesta

Vi è una legge fondamentale della fisica : ad ogni azione corrisponde una reazione uguale e contraria.
Oggi è stato compiuto negli stati uniti un terribile attentato in cui sono morte circa 10.000 persone.
Ma vogliamo parlare di quanta gente è morta a causa della bomba atomica sganciata su di Hiroshima e Nagasaky dagli americani, delle popolazioni vessate dallo strapotere delle multinazionali come Nike e molte altre.
In India, in Africa , in Iran, credo che muoiano quasi 10.000 persone ogni anno a causa anche dell'azione degli USA.Potrei citare ancora il dramma del Cile, di Cuba , del Vietnam.
Chissà quante sono le vittime degli USA?
_____________________________
Posted from IP 151.24.140.79
via Studenti.it Gateway 
http://www.studenti.it

 ha scritto nel messaggio
news:9nlnp7$4juo$1...@stargate1.inet.it...


 ha scritto nel messaggio
news:9nlnp7$4juo$1...@stargate1.inet.it...


 Chissà quante sono le vittime degli USA?
Ma vatti a nascondere, imbecille.
Firmato:
Fabrizio Coppola
-- 
Sei invitato a visitare il sito:
IPOTESI sulla REALTA'
Un'ipotesi affascinante sull'universo, sulla vita e sulla mente dell'uomo
http://www.ipotesi.net
Grazie per l'attenzione

Fabrizio Coppola
ciao Fabrizio
posso farti una domanda? dove stavi quando bruciavano i Balcani?

 Chissà quante sono le vittime degli USA?
Ciao Roverandom, sono COMPLETAMENTE concorde con quello che hai scritto: chi
semina vento raccoglie tempesta, non c'e' nulla da fare!
Di certo non ho NULLA da rallegrarmi della morte dei civili americani
(consideriamo poi il fatto che nei grattacieli c'era gente di tutti i tipi e
di tutte le nazionalita'...) e voglio sottolineare che ho sempre condannato
il terrorismo.
Ma se c'e' una cosa che in questo momento mi fa VOMITARE e' vedere tutta
'sta gente che si straccia le vesti per il fatto che alla patria della
"democrazia e della liberta'" e' stato inferto un colpo tremendo...purtroppo
la pieta' per i morti e' spesso a SENSO UNICO!
--
°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
"L'arte si nutre di male"
http://www.geocities.com/frozen70it/
Visita la mia home page!!
Ultimo aggiornamento 6/5/2001: inserito
Forum di discussioni
°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

Questo è quello che si dice essere ideologizzati!!
Ci sono morti di serie A e di serie B vero????
Chi semina vento?
Solo gli Usa ovviamente. Non si può parlare male certo dei regimi arabi,
delle vittime del comunismo in Cina, a Cuba, in Corea.
Finchè c'è gente che è felice di fronte a un fatto come questo non ci potrà
essere mai pace.
Guardati un po' dentro e se hai dei figli o li avrai ricordati a che cosa li
vorrei educare!!
Ciao

 delle vittime del comunismo in Cina, a Cuba, in Corea
Questo post  INVECE č quello che si dice non essere ideologizzati!!

 wrote in message
9nlnp7$4juo$1...@stargate1.inet.it...

I morti a Hiroshima e Nagasaki furono dettati da una considerazione
assolutamente pratica. Quando gli americani sbarcarono sull'isola di
Okinawa, i morti giapponesi furono quasi 130mila (circa un terzo civili).
Molti di questi trovarono la morte con il suicidio, ritenuto preferibile
alla cattura. Lo sbarco nel Giappone metropolitano - si calcolò - avrebbe
causato la morte di milioni di persone. Fu una scelta senz'altro
discutibile, ma non quanto può sembrare a prima vista. Quanto alle
popolazioni vessate dalle multinazionali, è verissimo che alcune di esse si
sono avvantaggiate slealmente di situazioni locali, ma non dimentichiamo che
1) siamo noi occidentali ad avere scoperto quanto accade e a cercare di
porvi rimedio. Viceversa, le popolazioni locali non solo non si ribellano
quasi mai, ma anzi le condizioni di lavoro pesantissime che gli vengono
offerte, spesso sono comunque meglio delle alternative disponibili. I
governi di questi paesi non si preoccupano affatto di denunciare queste
situazioni. 2) Non capisco che cosa tu intenda citando l'India, l'Africa,
l'Iran... dove esistono governi ed  in cui la violenza, quando c'è, è del
tutto slegata dalla politica occidentale (vedi Hutu in Ruanda o Hindu contro
Musulmani in India e Pakistan - non so se ricordi che ad un certo punto
hanno minacciato la guerra nucleare, ecc). Dire che in questi paesi muoiono
persone "anche a causa dell'azione degli USA" non vuol dire proprio niente,
allora potrei dire che il filetto che hai mangiato l'altro giorno potrebbe
essere arrivato sulla tua tavola causando la morte o la miseria di
campesinos brasiliani. Credo che con questo tipo di ragionamento non si
arrivi proprio da nessuna parte... 2) Quando citi il Cile, posso essere
d'accordo che la connivenza americana con Pinochet e compagnia sia molto
grave, e non mi piace che nessuno abbia mai pronunciato parole di condanna
in questo senso. Tuttavia, anche qui non cediamo a certa agiografia di
sinistra e ricordiamoci che il "golpe" cileno della destra e dei militari fu
avallato dalla gravissima crisi economica che il governo di Allende non
seppe affrontare. Quanto al dramma di Cuba, non vedo che cosa ci sia di
opinabile nell'imporre sanzioni ad un regime che applica la pena di morte e
mette in galera i dissidenti, che per anni ha finanziato e combattuto guerre
in America centrale e in Africa (spendendo miliardi in armamenti, mentre i
propri cittadini faticano a mettere insieme pranzo e cena). Fortunatamente,
grazie all'azione personale e privata di tanti simpatizzanti per il popolo
cubano, in quel paese ancora non si muore di fame. Citerei però anche la
Corea del Nord: lì nessuno ha fatto "blocchi", eppure la dittatura comunista
(e ricordiamo che i vari Bertinotti, Cossutta, ecc. che oggi sbraitano
contro l'imperialismo occidentale affamatore del Sud del mondo, negli anni
'70 andavano come ospiti riveriti del Pci a Pyongyang) sta facendo veramente
morire di fame la gente per strada. Quanto al Vietnam, anche lì scelte
sbagliate senz'altro: va anche detto che non appena gli americani se ne sono
andati, i vari regimi comunisti locali (Cina, Vietnam, Laos e Cambogia)
hanno cominciato a scannarsi a vicenda, causando milioni di vittime e
profughi.
saluti
Alessandro

Alessandro
Sono daccordissimo su tutta la linea:
non è vendendo "habana club" ed importando turismo sessuale, per poi
comprare dalla Russia Mig29 e compagnia bella, che si risolverà il problema
della miseria a Cuba...
Solo dove si può votare democraticamente e dove ci
può essere (di destra, come di sinistra) un'opposizione libera e civile ci
può essere progresso e benessere.
Ciao F
--------------------------------
Inviato via 
http://usenet.iol.it
 

 posso farti una domanda? dove stavi quando bruciavano i Balcani?
E gia', un paragone veramente calzante.


 profughi.
Chi avrebbe scannato, ad esempio, il Vietnam dopo che se ne sono andati gli
americani (che qualche milione di vittime vietnamite dovrebbero averle sul
groppone, oltre a quelli che moriranno per le devastazioni che hanno lasciato in
quelle zone con i loro bombardamenti a tappeto e i agenti chimici che hanno
riversato sulle piantagioni... ma questo l'hai dimenticato eh?)

 riversato sulle piantagioni... ma questo l'hai dimenticato eh?)
Qua è il caso di fare un piccolo excursus più strettamente militare. Gli Usa
sbagliarono a lasciarsi coinvolgere in quella guerra assurda, soprattutto in
un momento in cui il morale del paese era a zero, così come l'efficienza
militare. Ma ritenere quella guerra come una guerra di "liberazione" è
abbastanza ironico: che il sud volesse essere liberato è tutto da
dimostrare. Va comunque detto che se gli americani commisero molti errori e
stragi, queste non furono più (anzi!) di quelle compiute dai Viet cong sulle
popolazioni contadine che non collaboravano. Dopo l'offensiva del Tet (che,
in termini strettamente militari, per i Vc non fu affatto un successo, anzi)
la leva di "volontari" del sud si ridusse drasticamente, e i ranghi dei
"guerriglieri del popolo" furono generosamente integrati con uomini
provenienti dal nord. Se comunque i sudvietnamiti erano così entusiasti di
lasciarsi "liberare" dai fratelli del nord, mi devi spiegare perché a
centinaia di migliaia fuggirono dal paese (il famoso "boat people"). Io non
dimentico il napalm e i defolianti: tu non ti dimenticare che quella fu una
guerra strana e disperata per tutti. Le forze armate Usa - primi ed unici,
credo, in quegli anni - avevano ordini d'ingaggio precisi: non potevano
bombardare il Nord a tappeto quando volevano (i militari avevano bisogno di
autorizzazioni politiche ogni volta che volevano farlo), e lo stesso
succedeva nelle regioni del Sud, in cui occorreva un'autorizzazione di
"fuoco libero" per poter impiegare liberamente le armi. Ora non voglio dire
che i soldati Usa fossero degli angioletti con mazzi di fiori in mano, però
non si può negare che cercarono almeno di limitare le sofferenze della
popolazione civile.
In conclusione, ti dico questo: l'Italia è piena a metà di gente che sputa
sugli Usa in continuazione. Io non sono tra queste, per quanto mi renda
conto dei crimini di cui si sono macchiati, perché credo che sia una
democrazia più o meno vera ed efficace, in cui la gente di solito paga per i
reati di cui si rende colpevole. Io, con il mio voto, la mia libertà di
espressione, ed il mio libero e personale comportamento nella vita di tutti
i giorni,  cerco di migliorare il mondo in cui viviamo e non esito a
condannare gli errori del sistema in cui vivo, così come sto a sentire chi
lo critica e sono contento che ci sia chi lo critica. Ma non ammetto che si
dica che "gli americani se lo meritano", perché se se lo meritano loro,
allora ce lo meritiamo anche noi: e io credo che non sia così, così come non
credo che Togliatti, Berlinguer, tante persone che erano ragazzi negli anni
'70 ed oggi sono padri di famiglia, vadano processati o fatti esplodere
perché all'epoca appoggiavano - magari senza capirlo fino in fondo - gli
orrori del mondo comunista.
Saluti
Alessandro

situazioni.
[...]
  La non interferenza dei governi locali e' almeno in parte implicita
nella scelta di aprirsi al commercio mondiale, perche' e' scontato che
gli stipendii saranno bassi quando ai lavoratori non rimarranno
alternative di lavoro alle possibilita' offerte loro dalla ipotetica
multinazionale.
  ave atque vale
  Eros
-Odi profanum vulgus et arceo- Hor

 Ma non ammetto che si dica che "gli americani se lo meritano",
Io non ho detto questo, e tantomeno dai politici che seguo ho sentito fare
queste dichiarazioni. Tu?
Ciao
Sergio

 queste dichiarazioni. Tu?
Non proprio, anche perché al momento è impolitico dirlo (eppure scommetti
che, quando il dolore e lo shock saranno passati, qualche politico prima o
poi lo dirà?) ma considerazioni del tipo "vista la politica estera che fanno
gli Usa è praticamente ovvio che succeda così" è un po' come dire "se lo
meritano". Invertiamo i fattori: mettiamo che dicessi (e nota bene NON LO
PENSO affatto, anche se so che molti lo fanno): "Carlo Giuliani, povero
ragazzo, non si meritava di morire, ma visto che è andato in mezzo alla
manifestazione e si è trovato in mezzo agli scontri, beh... insomma c'era da
aspettarselo, è una cosa normale"... Come la prenderesti?
Ciao
Alessandro

 aspettarselo, è una cosa normale"... Come la prenderesti?
direi che non e' una cosa normale morire durante una manifestazione.
ciao
Sergio

 1)
  John Pilger writes in "The Long Secret Alliance: Uncle
Sam and Pol Pot" (at 
http://www.users.bigpond.com/nlevine/alliance.html
 )
 The US not only helped create conditions that brought Cambodia's Khmer Rouge to power in 1975, but actively supported the genocidal force, politically and
financially. By January 1980, the US was secretly funding Pol Pot's exiled forces on the Thai border. The extent of this support-$85 million from 1980 to
1986-was revealed six years later in correspondence between congressional lawyer Jonathan Winer, then counsel to Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, and the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation. Winer said the information had come from the Congressional Research Service (CRS). When
copies of his letter were circulated, the Reagan administration was furious. Then, without adequately explaining why, Winer repudiated the statistics, while not
disputing that they had come from the CRS. In a second letter to Noam Chomsky, however, Winer repeated the original charge, which, he confirmed to me, was
"absolutely correct." Washington also backed the Khmer Rouge through the United Nations, which provided Pol Pot's vehicle of return. Although the Khmer Rouge
government ceased to exist in January 1979, when the Vietnamese army drove it out, its representatives continued to occupy Cambodia's UN seat. Their right to do
so was defended and promoted by Washington as an extension of the Cold War, as a mechanism for US revenge on Vietnam, and as part of its new alliance with China
(Pol Pot's principal underwriter and Vietnam's ancient foe). In 1981, President 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 through Thailand.
A s a cover for its secret war against Cambodia, Washington set up the Kampuchean Emergency Group (KEG) in the US embassy in Bangkok and on the Thai-Cambodian
border. KEG's job was to "monitor" the distribution of Western humanitarian supplies sent to the refugee camps in Thailand and to ensure that Khmer Rouge bases
were fed. Working through "Task Force 80" of the Thai Army, which had liaison officers with the Khmer Rouge, the Americans ensured a constant flow of UN
supplies. Two US relief aid workers, Linda Mason and Roger Brown, later wrote, "The US Government insisted that the Khmer Rouge be fed ... the US prefered that
the Khmer Rouge operation benefit from the credibility of an internationally known relief operation." In 1980, under US pressure, the World Food Program handed
over food worth $12 million to the Thai army to pass on to the Khmer Rouge. According to former Assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke, "20,000 to
40,000 Pol Pot guerrillas benefited." This aid helped restore the Khmer Rouge to a fighting force, based in Thailand, from which it Although ostensibly a State
Department operation, KEG's principals were intelligence officers with long experience in
With 50 CIA agents running Washington's Cambodia operation from Thailand, the dividing line between the international relief operation and the US war blurred.
Indochina. In the early 1980s it was run by Michael Eiland, whose career underscored the continuity of American intervention in Indochina.
In 1969-70, he was operations officer of a clandestine Special Forces group code-named "Daniel Boone," which was responsible for the reconnaissance of the US
bombing of Cambodia.5 By 1980, Col. Eiland was running KEG out of the US embassy in Bangkok, where it was described as a "humanitarian" organization.
Responsible for interpreting satellite surveillance photos of Cambodia, Eiland became a valued source for some of Bangkok's resident Western press corps, who
referred to him in their reports as a "Western analyst." Eiland's "humanitarian" duties led to his appointment as Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) chief in
charge of the Southeast Asia Region, one of the most important positions in US espionage. In November 1980, the just elected Reagan administration and the Khmer
Rouge made direct contact when Dr. Ray Cline, a former deputy director of the CIA, secretly visited a Khmer Rouge operational headquarters inside Cambodia.
Cline was then a foreign policy adviser on President-elect Reagan's transitional team. Within a year,according to Washington sources, 50 CIA agents were running
Washington's Cambodia operation from Thailand. The dividing line between the international relief operation and the US war became more and more confused. For
example, a Defense Intelligence Agency colonel was appointed "security liaison officer" between the United Nations Border Relief Operation (unbro) and the
Displaced Persons Protection Unit (dppu). In Washington, sources revealed him as a link between the US government and the Khmer Rouge.
THE UN AS A BASE
By 1981, a number of governments, including US allies, became decidedly uneasy about the charade of continued UN recognition of Pol Pot as legitimate head of
the country. This discomfort was dramatically demonstrated when a colleague of mine, Nicholas Claxton, entered a bar at the UN in New York with Thaoun Prasith,
Pol Pot's representative. "Within minutes," said Claxton, "the bar had emptied." Clearly, something had to be done. In 1982, the US and China, supported by
Singapore, invented the Coalition of the Democratic Government of Kampuchea, which was, as Ben Kiernan pointed out, neither a coalition, nor democratic, nor a
government, nor in Kampuchea. Rather, it was what the CIA calls "a master illusion." Cambodia's former ruler, Prince Norodom Sihanouk, was appointed its head;
otherwise little changed. The Khmer Rouge dominated the two "non-communist" members, the Sihanoukists and the Khmer People's National Liberation Front (kpnlf).
From his office at the UN, Pol Pot's ambassador, the urbane Thaoun Prasith, continued to speak for Cambodia. A close associate of Pol Pot, he had in 175 called
on Khmer expatriates to return home, whereupon many of them "disappeared."
The United Nations was now the instrument of Cambodia's punishment. In all its history, the world body has withheld development aid from only one Third World
country: Cambodia. Not only did the UN-at US and Chinese insistence-deny the government in Phnom Penh a seat, but the major international financial institutions
barred Cambodia from all international agreements on trade and communications. Even the World Health Organization refused to aid the country. At home, the US
denied religious groups export licenses for books and toys for orphans. A law dating from the First World War, the Trading with the Enemy Act, was applied to
Cambodia and, of course, Vietnam. Not even Cuba and the Soviet Union faced such a complete ban with no humanitarian or cultural exceptions. By 1987, KEG had
been reincarnated as the Kampuchea Working Group, run by the same Col. Eiland of the Defense Intelligence Agency. The Working Group's brief was to provide
battle plans, war materiel, and satellite intelligence to the so-called "non-communist" members of the "resistance forces." The non-communist fig leaf allowed
Congress, spurred on by an anti-Vietnamese zealot, then-Rep. Stephen Solarz (D-NY), to approve both "overt" and "covert" aid estimated at
$24 million to the "resistance." Until 1990,
 The "trial" of PolPot was a
wonderful Khmer Rouge theater-
cum-media-event, but was
otherwise worthless.
 Congress accepted Solarz' specious argument that US aid did not end up with or even help Pol Pot and that the mass murderer's US-supplied allies "are not even
in close proximity with them [the Khmer Rouge]."
MILITARY LINKS
While Washington paid the bills and the Thai army provided logistics support, Singapore, as middleman, was the main conduit for Western arms. Former Prime
Minister Lee Kuan Yew was a major backer of the US and Chinese position that the Khmer Rouge be part of a settlement in Cambodia. "It is journalists," he said,
"who have made them into demons."
Weapons from West Germany, the US, and Sweden were passed on directly by Singapore or made under license by Chartered Industries, which is owned by the
Singapore government. These same weapons were captured from the Khmer Rouge. The Singapore connection allowed the Bush administration to continue its secret aid
to the "resistance," even though this assistance broke a law passed by Congress in 1989 banning even indirect "lethal aid" to Pol Pot. In August 1990, a former
member of the US Special Forces disclosed that he had been ordered to destroy records that showed US munitions in Thailand going to the Khmer Rouge. The
records, he said, implicated the National Security Council, the president's foreign policy advisory body.
In 1982, when the US, Chinese, and asean governments contrived the "coalition" that enabled Pol Pot to retain Cambodia's UN seat, the US set about training and
equipping the "non-communist" factions in the "resistance" army. These followers of Prince Sihanouk and his former minister, Son Sann, leader of th kpnlf, were
mostly irregulars and bandits. This resistance was nothing without Pol Pot's 25,000 well-trÐained, armed, and motivated guerrillas, whose leadership was
acknowledged by Prince Sihanouk's military commander, his son, Norodom Ranariddh. "The Khmer Rouge," he said, are the "major attacking forces" whose victories
were "celebrated as our own."
The guerrillas' tactic, like that of the Contras in Nicaragua, was to terrorize the countryside by setting up ambushes and seeding minefields. In this way, the
government in Phnom Penh would be destabilized and the Vietnamese trapped in an untenable war: its own "Vietnam." For the Americans in Bangkok and Washington,
the fate of Cambodia was tied to a war they had technically lost seven years earlier. "Bleeding the Vietnamese white on the battlefields of Cambodia" was an
expression popular with the US policy-making establishment. Destroying the crippled Vietnamese economy and, if necessary, overturning the government in Hanoi,
was the ultimate goal. Out of that ruin, American power would again assert itself in Indochina.
The British-who have had special military forces in Southeast Asia since World War II-also played a key role in supporting Pol Pot's armed force. After the
"Irangate" arms-for-hostages scandal broke in Washington in 1986, the Cambodian training became an exclusively British operation. "If Congress had found out
that Americans were mixed up in clandestine training in Indochina, let alone with Pol Pot," a Ministry of Defense source told Simon O'Dwyer-Russell of the
London Sunday Telegraph, "the balloon would have gone right up. It was one of those classic Thatcher-Reagan arrangements. It was put to her that the SAS should
take over the Cambodia show, and she agreed."
POL POT'S WASHINGTON IMPUNITY
Shortly after the start of the Gulf War in January 1991, President Bush described Saddam Hussein as "Adolf Hitler revisited." Bush's call for "another
Nuremberg" to try Saddam under the Genocide Convention was echoed in Congress and across the Atlantic in London. It was an ironic distraction. Since the
original Fuhrer expired in his bunker, the US has maintained a network of dictators with Hitlerian tendencies-from Suharto in Indonesia to Mobutu in Zaire and a
variety of Latin American mobsters, many of them graduates of the US Army School of the Americas. But only one has been identified by the world community as a
genuine "Adolf Hitler revisited," whose crimes are documented in a 1979 report of the UN Human Rights Commission as "the worst to have occurred anywhere in the
world since Nazism." He is, of course, Pol Pot, who must surely wonder at his good fortune. Not only was he cosseted, his troops fed, supplied, and trained, his
envoys afforded all diplomatic privileges, but-unlike Saddam Hussein Ñ he was assured by his patrons that he would never be brought to justice for his crimes.
These assurances were given publicly in 1991 when the UN Human Rights Sub-commission dropped from its agenda a draft resolution on Cambodia that referred to
"the atrocities reaching the level of genocide committed in particular during the period of Khmer Rouge rule."16 No more, the UN body decided,should member
governments seek to "detect, arrest, extradite or bring to trial those who have been responsible for crimes against humanity in Cambodia." No more are
governments called upon to "prevent the return to government positions of those who were responsible for genocidal actions during the period 1975 to 1978."
Such guarantees of impunity for the genocidists were also part of the UN "peace plan" drafted by the permanent members of the Security Council: that is, by the
United States. To avoid offending Pol Pot's principal backers, the Chinese, the plan dropped all mention of "genocide," replacing it with the euphemism:
"policies and practices of the recent past." On this, Henry Kissinger, who played a leading part in the mass bombing of Cambodia in the early 1970s, was an
important influence. Western propaganda prior to the UN "peace process" in Cambodia concentrated on the strength of the Khmer Rouge, so as to justify their
inclusion. UN officials and American and Australian diplomats talked about 35-40,000 Khmer Rouge. "You will understand," they would say, "we can't leave a force
as powerful as that outside the tent." As soon as the Khmer Rouge had been welcomed back to Phnom Penh and, in effect, given a quarter to a third of the
countryside, they refused to take part in the elections. The tune then changed. They were now "finished," chorused Western diplomats. They were "weakened beyond
hope."
In the meantime, the Khmer Rouge was establishing itself as the richest terrorist group in history by selling off tracts of Cambodia's forests, as well as its
precious stones, to the Thai, whose government was a signatory to the "peace accords." No one stopped them. They established four large new bases inside
Thailand, complete with a field hospital. Thai soldiers guarded the road that led to them. The "they are finished" line remains in vogue to this day.
Undoubtedly, they have been numerically diminished by defections and attrition, but their number was always a false measure of their true strength. It seems the
State Department believes they are far from finished. On July 10 this year, the spokesperson Nicholas Burns let slip that Khmer Rouge strength ran into
"thousands."
The real threat from the Khmer Rouge comes from their enduring skill at deception and infiltration. Before they seized power in 1975, they had honeycombed Phnom
Penh. This process is almost certainly under way again. As one resident of Phnom Penh said recently, "They're everywhere." The "trial" of Pol Pot this year was
a wonderful piece of Khmer Rouge theater-cum-  Pol Pot's patrons not only cosseted him, supplied, and trained his troops, but also guaranteed him impunity.
 media-event, but was otherwise worthless as an indication of the organization's strength and immediate aims.
The truth is that no one on the outside can really say what these are, and that alone is a measure of the organization's strength and resilience. The Cambodian
leader Hun Sen, for one, clearly retains a respect for the veracity and menace of their ambitions.
The media relish Pol Pot as a unique monster. That is too easy and too dangerous. It is his Faustian partners in Washington, Beijing, London, Bangkok,
Singapore, and elsewhere who deserve proper recognition. The Khmer Rouge have been useful to all their converging aims in the region. Eric Falt, the UN's senior
spokesperson in Phnom Penh at the time of that manipulated organization's "triumph" in Cambodia, told me with a fixed smile, "The peace process was aimed at
allowing [the Khmer Rouge] to gain respectability." Unfortunately, many ordinary Cambodian people share his cynicism. They deserve better.
2) Mentre su questo link si fa riferimento ad un articolo comparso sul The Times
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Kissinger/PolPotKissinger_Herman.html

^Veramente che io sappia Pol Pot creò la base del suo potere anche partendo
da una campagna d'odio antiamericano. Non so che armi avesse e dubito
fortemente che avesse pieno appoggio politico dall'America... ti pregherei
di citare le fonti perché mi sembra davvero eccessivo, e non vedo che cosa
ci guadagnassero gli Usa, visto che . Il supporto della Cina (di cui nemmeno
so nulla, ti chiederei x favore di portarmi elementi di prova) era
evidentemente in chiave antivietnamita, ma non stiamo parlando della Cina
adesso. Quello che so è che l'Onu - non gli Usa - nel '79, cioè dopo che P.
P. venne buttato fuori, votò l'embargo alla Cambogia... e mantenendo il
paese nelle condizioni bestiali in cui i khmer rossi l'avevano lasciata.
altro materiale che ho dalla rete..
 da
http://www.users.bigpond.com/nlevine/polpot.htm
The Friends of Pol Pot
"It is my duty," wrote the correspondent for The Times of London at the liberation of the Nazi death camp at Belsen, "to describe something beyond the
imagination of mankind." That was how I felt in the summer of 1979 when I arrived in Cambodia. In the silent humidity, houses, office blocks, hotels and schools
stood empty, as if vacated that day. In the ruined National Bank, blown up by the retreating Khmer Rouge, a pair of spectacles rested on a ledger. When the
afternoon monsoon broke, the streets nearby ran with money as thousands of brand-new banknotes washed away in the gutter. Children, orphans, collected and dried
them for fuel; I can still hear the crackle as the money burned.
As if in a mirage, a pyramid of cars rose on a football field. It included an ambulance, a fire engine, police cars, refrigerators, washing machines, TV sets,
telephones and typewriters. It was as if these had been swept there by a gigantic broom on April 17, 1975--Year Zero in Pol Pot's calendar. From that date,
anybody who had owned them, anybody who had lived in a city or town, or anybody who knew or worked with foreigners was in mortal danger. More than a million and
a half would die--although recent discoveries of mass graves by a Yale University team suggest that this figure may be a gross underestimate. During the three
years and eight months they held power, Pol Pot and his medievalists may have put to death a third of the nation.
It is all too easy and too dangerous to remember Pol Pot as a unique monster. What is remarkable about the U.S. coverage of his death is the omission of U.S.
complicity in his rise to power, a complicity that sustained him for almost two decades. For the truth is that Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge would be historical
nonentities--and a great many people would be alive today--had Washington not helped bring them to power and the governments of the United States, Britain,
China and Thailand not supported them, armed them, sustained them and restored them. In other words, the iconic images of the piles of skulls ought to include
those who, often at great remove in distance and culture, were Pol Pot's accessories and Faustian partners for the purposes of their own imperial imperatives.
To hear Henry Kissinger deny recently that the United States and especially the Nixon Administration bore any responsibility for Cambodia's horror was to hear
truth denigrated and our intelligence insulted. For Cambodia's nightmare did not begin with Year Zero but on the eve of the U.S. land invasion of neutral
Cambodia in 1970. The invasion provided a small group of extreme ethnic nationalists with Maoist pretensions, the Khmer Rouge, with a catalyst for a revolution
that had no popular base among the Cambodian people. Between 1969 and 1973, U.S. bombers killed perhaps three-quarters of a million Cambodian peasants in an
attempt to destroy North Vietnamese supply bases, many of which did not exist. During one six-month period in 1973, B-52s dropped more bombs on Cambodians,
living mostly in straw huts, than were dropped on Japan during all of World War II, the equivalent of five Hiroshimas. Evidence from U.S. official documents,
declassified in 1987, leaves no doubt that this U.S. terror was critical in Pol Pot's drive for power. "They are using [the bombing] as the main theme of the
propaganda," reported the C.I.A. Director of Operations on May 2, 1973. "This approach has resulted in the successful recruitment of a number of young men [and]
the propaganda has been most effective among refugees subjected to B-52 strikes."
What Kissinger and Nixon began, Pol Pot completed. Had the United States and China allowed it, Cambodia's suffering could have stopped when the Vietnamese
finally responded to years of Khmer Rouge attacks across their border and liberated the country in January 1979. But almost immediately the United States began
secretly backing Pol Pot in exile. Direct contact was made between the Reagan White House and the Khmer Rouge when Dr. Ray Cline, a former deputy director of
the C.I.A., made a clandestine visit to Pol Pot's operational base inside Cambodia in November 1980. Cline was then a foreign policy adviser to President-elect
Reagan. Within a year some fifty C.I.A. and other intelligence agents were running Washington's secret war against Cambodia from the U.S. Embassy in Bangkok and
along the Thai-Cambodian border. The aim was to appease China, the great Soviet foe and Pol Pot's most enduring backer, and to rehabilitate and use the Khmer
Rouge to bring pressure on the source of recent U.S. humiliation in the region: the Vietnamese. Cambodia was now America's "last battle of the Vietnam War," as
one U.S. official put it, "so that we can achieve a better result."
Two U.S. relief aid workers, Linda Mason and Roger Brown, later wrote, "The U.S. government insisted that the Khmer Rouge be fed...the U.S. preferred that the
Khmer Rouge operation benefit from the credibility of an internationally known relief operation." In 1980, under U.S. pressure, the World Food Programme handed
over food worth $12 million to pass on to the Khmer Rouge. In that year, I traveled on a U.N. convoy of forty trucks into Cambodia from Thailand and filmed a
U.N. official handing the supplies over to a Khmer Rouge general, Nam Phan, known to Western aid officials as The Butcher. There is little doubt that without
this support and the flow of arms from China through Thailand the Khmer Rouge would have withered on the vine.
If the U.S. bombing was the first phase of Cambodia's holocaust and Pol Pot's Year Zero the second, the third phase was the use of the United Nations by
Washington, its allies and China as the instrument of Cambodia's, and Vietnam's, punishment. With Vietnamese troops preventing the return of the Khmer Rouge and
a Hanoi-installed regime in Phnom Penh, a U.N. embargo barred Cambodia from all international agreements on trade and communications, even from the World Health
Organization. The U.N. withheld development aid from only one Third World country: Cambodia, which lay unreconstituted from the years of bombing and neglect.
For the United States the blockade was total. Not even Cuba and the Soviet Union were treated this way.
If on his deathbed Pol Pot had felt moved to offer thanks to his Western collaborators, he surely would have made special mention of an unworkable U.N. "peace
plan" imposed by the West and China in 1992. At the insistence of Washington and Beijing, the Khmer Rouge was included in the U.N. operation as a legitimate
"warring faction"; the rationale was that they were far too powerful to be left out. Since then, the argument has been turned upside down. Thanks to the
"triumph" of the U.N. in Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge has "virtually disappeared." In 1993 the U.N.'s military maps showed that in half of Cambodia Pol Pot had a
military advantage he did not have before the U.N. arrived. "You must understand," the U.N. spokesman in Phnom Penh, Eric Falt, told me in 1992, "the peace
process was aimed at allowing the Khmer Rouge to gain respectability."
I watched Khmer Rouge officials welcomed back to Phnom Penh by U.N. officials who went to astonishing lengths not to offend them. Khieu Samphan, Pol Pot's
henchman who once said that the only mistake the Khmer Rouge had made was not killing enough people, took the salute of U.S. and other U.N. troops as a guest of
honor on United Nations Day in Phnom Penh.
The West, with the U.N. as its vehicle, brought to Cambodia elections, the "free market," AIDS and massive corruption, all of it reminiscent of the surreal and
violent days in the early seventies when the B-52s were bombing the countryside and the Khmer Rouge was infiltrating the cities and towns. The fact that this
process of infiltration is under way again was one of the reasons Cambodia's "second prime minister," Hun Sen, last year attacked the forces and supporters of
the "first prime minister," Prince Ranariddh, who in exile had been the leader of the Khmer Rouge­dominated coalition.
Are the Khmer Rouge now finished? I doubt it. The more pertinent question is: Will those foreign governments that backed Pol Pot while wringing their hands now
help rebuild the country they helped devastate? Henry Kissinger appeared to answer this when he said, "Why should we flagellate ourselves for what the
Cambodians did to each other?"
John Pilger
John Pilger has twice won Britain's highest award for journalism. His documentary films have won awards in the United States and Britain.
The Nation Digital Edition 
http://www.thenation.com