Hunted Like Animals Documentary by Rebecca Sommer

[hmongviking]

Most of you have seen this too, but I wanted to post it.  This is the Full Documentary, "Hunted Like Animals" by Rebecca Sommer.

This is truly sad and there is nothing we can do about it.  Even the U.N. has ignored this video and has even come to say that, these Hmong people living in the mountains of Laos are "insurgence" rebel forces.  My question is, "What does the Lao government gain from hunting them down?".  They are not in any threat to the Laotian government and it's been over 40 yrs now, they just want to live in peace in.

Many of you will disagree, but if you watch it, General Vang Pao, to his dying day, never forgot about our people and continued to press on and be a voice for our people in Laos to be free.  Yes, he is not the most honest person in the world, nor was he perfect, but he brought us out of the jungles and never once forgotten that some of us are still there.  He was just powerless.  We all are.  It's one thing for a Hmong person to speak up to the U.N. about these things (we are just ignored, since we hold no political power and of course a minority).  But, when U.K. reporters are speaking about this to the U.N. in May of 2006, and they are just simply ignored, there is a major situation here.  Mainly Political.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWUZ2OrDXt4

[dlabtsi_os]

I remember this way back in 2006 and MrPloverWI era.  It's a touchy/controversial subject that anyone's answer can be right. It has been almost 40 years after the end of Vietnam War.

There are some popular opinion of how to handle this situation. Many people will agree a some sort international diplomacy to help these people. Although I doubt that will ever happen soon. Because it depends on priority of the UN.

And then there is another option, although I know many people will disagree this option. It's basically a full-drawn out skirmish to get these people out. Something like an intervention by military. More extremist and anti-communist Hmong may favor this.

But in the end you have to select a particular Hmong interest group you want to support to guarantee them to support you. Not all Hmong people support this documentary. It is sad and cruel, but any Hmong that supports and benefit from Laos government will denied this documentary.

[Reporter]

The Laotian government wanted the Hmong to be extinct from the face of the Earth.  That's why.

Most of you have seen this too, but I wanted to post it.  This is the Full Documentary, "Hunted Like Animals" by Rebecca Sommer.

This is truly sad and there is nothing we can do about it.  Even the U.N. has ignored this video and has even come to say that, these Hmong people living in the mountains of Laos are "insurgence" rebel forces.  My question is, "What does the Lao government gain from hunting them down?".  They are not in any threat to the Laotian government and it's been over 40 yrs now, they just want to live in peace in.

Many of you will disagree, but if you watch it, General Vang Pao, to his dying day, never forgot about our people and continued to press on and be a voice for our people in Laos to be free.  Yes, he is not the most honest person in the world, nor was he perfect, but he brought us out of the jungles and never once forgotten that some of us are still there.  He was just powerless.  We all are.  It's one thing for a Hmong person to speak up to the U.N. about these things (we are just ignored, since we hold no political power and of course a minority).  But, when U.K. reporters are speaking about this to the U.N. in May of 2006, and they are just simply ignored, there is a major situation here.  Mainly Political.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWUZ2OrDXt4

[Reporter]

I remember this way back in 2006 and MrPloverWI era.  It's a touchy/controversial subject that anyone's answer can be right. It has been almost 40 years after the end of Vietnam War.

There are some popular opinion of how to handle this situation. Many people will agree a some sort international diplomacy to help these people. Although I doubt that will ever happen soon. Because it depends on priority of the UN.

And then there is another option, although I know many people will disagree this option. It's basically a full-drawn out skirmish to get these people out. Something like an intervention by military. More extremist and anti-communist Hmong may favor this.

But in the end you have to select a particular Hmong interest group you want to support to guarantee them to support you. Not all Hmong people support this documentary. It is sad and cruel, but any Hmong that supports and benefit from Laos government will denied this documentary.

The documentary is well-made. But, like Dr. Pobzeb's picture, I don't know how much the Western world takes the speakers to be honest, truthful and the facts accurate or true. That's because filmmakers, politicians, and even journalists can create special effects.

 

[dlabtsi_os]

The Laotian government wanted the Hmong to be extinct from the face of the Earth.  That's why.

I doubt the Laotian government want an ethnic cleansing. However, in terms of ethnic or nationalities superiority,  they seem themselves as superior to Hmong in terms of Sovereignty. Laotian government aren't evil as some of us Hmong claim them to be. However, the Laotion government needs to justified their place in power, needs to justified threats of the power, liberty, and belief. And Chao Fa, and any Hmong resistant is perfect ingredient for it.

However, the exile Lao Prince, can countermeasure this Sovereignty, but not in a Democratic nor a Socialist society of today. The exile Laotian Prince can address this problem. Why I put so much emphasis? Although many states want to declare themselves not of Monarchy and what not, they still want a symbol of their sovereignty(Prime minister is just recent so it has barely any history); Royal and Upper class can easily represents due to strong influence and long history, whether by merit, wealth and other political ties.

The documentary is well-made. But, like Dr. Pobzeb's picture, I don't know how much the Western world takes the speakers to be honest, truthful and the facts accurate or true. That's because filmmakers, politicians, and even journalists can create special effects.

Yes the evaluation of the video must be consider. However, many people will try to propose a propaganda to justified their claims. The question is "Does the claim benefits them(like the UN) in the long run?" For now I will say no.

[Reporter]

At one time, it did. But today it might have second thoughts about that. Why? It has realized that there are still millions in southern China that it cannot touch. If those just walk down, Laos will be outnumbered and trampled on badlyl. Plus, over the last 30 years, the Hmong-Americans have returned to Laos with pots of dollars, flooding its economy and has made it thrive better than ever. There's been a change of heart. Now Lao chicks and guys are looking to have Hmong husbands and wives, respectively. The Lao OGs look forward to having Hmong daughters-in-law and sons-in-law.

The Lao people are a bit more systematic than the Hmong just because they are more used to a system, especially the French system. Dispersed from China in the centuries, the Hmong hardly learned a governing system that would apply effectively to all or internationall y but one where each clan "chief" would manipulate for his liking only.  That wouldn't fly in the international political eyes.

Any government in the LPDR's position would have to retaliate against any insurgent or rebel within its borders. Its national security is at risk. How will the control be stable if it let rebels run all over it? Its retaliation is justifiable in that respect. But I think there's some human rights issues that it may have crossed unreasonably.

The Lao Prince is very helpless right now. What VP and the Lao Prince failed to see when VP was still alive was that no government was going to re-plant the royal seed back to Laos.  There wouldn't be any democracy then. Monarchs are just as communistic as Communism itself. Pilgrims abandoned English because of the monarchs. America's founders retaliated against the English king because they wanted a government by the people, not by a monarch who controlled their freedom in every way--from the media to judicial processes.  VP did connect well with the American CIA  and also with the  Royal Lao family. But VP kept  pushing to re-plant the Lao monarch in Laos. America would not be the appropriate country to back him up on that, since America detested and continue to detest the monarchy as the only ruler of a country or people.

I doubt the Laotian government want an ethnic cleansing. However, in terms of ethnic or nationalities superiority,  they seem themselves as superior to Hmong in terms of Sovereignty. Laotian government aren't evil as some of us Hmong claim them to be. However, the Laotion government needs to justified their place in power, needs to justified threats of the power, liberty, and belief. And Chao Fa, and any Hmong resistant is perfect ingredient for it.

However, the exile Lao Prince, can countermeasure this Sovereignty, but not in a Democratic nor a Socialist society of today. The exile Laotian Prince can address this problem. Why I put so much emphasis? Although many states want to declare themselves not of Monarchy and what not, they still want a symbol of their sovereignty(Prime minister is just recent so it has barely any history); Royal and Upper class can easily represents due to strong influence and long history, whether by merit, wealth and other political ties.

Yes the evaluation of the video must be consider. However, many people will try to propose a propaganda to justified their claims. The question is "Does the claim benefits them(like the UN) in the long run?" For now I will say no.

[Reporter]

Yes the evaluation of the video must be consider. However, many people will try to propose a propaganda to justified their claims. The question is "Does the claim benefits them(like the UN) in the long run?" For now I will say no.

The Hmong weren't ever listened to simply because those leaders have used the wrong tactics. I think Kofi Anan even told the two Hmong human rights organization that approached the UN that the UN had no authorization to grant or recognize anyone's sovereignty. And he was right. The UN doesn't have that right. Yet the Hmong kept thinking the UN just didn't pay attention to us due to our smaller number. Not true. We have never approached them correctly the way the world is functioning these days. Plus, just imagine what credibility we had when we had two human rights organization going to the UN separately, each claiming it was the one for the Hmong? lol

[dlabtsi_os]

At one time, it did. But today it might have second thoughts about that. Why? It has realized that there are still millions in southern China that it cannot touch. If those just walk down, Laos will be outnumbered and trampled on badlyl. Plus, over the last 30 years, the Hmong-Americans have returned to Laos with pots of dollars, flooding its economy and has made it thrive better than ever. There's been a change of heart. Now Lao chicks and guys are looking to have Hmong husbands and wives, respectively. The Lao OGs look forward to having Hmong daughters-in-law and sons-in-law.

The Lao people are a bit more systematic than the Hmong just because they are more used to a system, especially the French system. Dispersed from China in the centuries, the Hmong hardly learned a governing system that would apply effectively to all or internationall y but one where each clan "chief" would manipulate for his liking only.  That wouldn't fly in the international political eyes.

Any government in the LPDR's position would have to retaliate against any insurgent or rebel within its borders. Its national security is at risk. How will the control be stable if it let rebels run all over it? Its retaliation is justifiable in that respect. But I think there's some human rights issues that it may have crossed unreasonably.

The Lao Prince is very helpless right now. What VP and the Lao Prince failed to see when VP was still alive was that no government was going to re-plant the royal seed back to Laos.  There wouldn't be any democracy then. Monarchs are just as communistic as Communism itself. Pilgrims abandoned English because of the monarchs. America's founders retaliated against the English king because they wanted a government by the people, not by a monarch who controlled their freedom in every way--from the media to judicial processes.  VP did connect well with the American CIA  and also with the  Royal Lao family. But VP kept  pushing to re-plant the Lao monarch in Laos. America would not be the appropriate country to back him up on that, since America detested and continue to detest the monarchy as the only ruler of a country or people.

First, there are a lot misconceptions on which I bolded. First I will address the Royalties helplessness. Now I will agree if the last King of Laos was a puppet. However a puppet King is actually consider very useful. I would argue that Japan was defeated in WW2 and was dissolved into a more Democractic state, yet they have Emperor. And the image of their Emperor  still stand strong.

Monarchs and Communism are different. They can lead to an Authoritarian and Totalitarian government, but are not the same. The founding fathers weren't enlighten people as many American would like to praised.Althou gh would that it be true as descendants of American ally.

Detest monarchy? Yet American and America medias go "Gogo Gaga" over the British Monarchs; Prince William and Kate's baby over the summer 2013. Just like their marriage back in April 2012.

Second, the system of the government. I can't argue that. The Lao government hasn't done any much progress, yet I haven't see much of regress. The economic impact dues to touring, that is your opinion whether its an advantage or disadvantage to the Hmong or Laotian government.

The Hmong weren't ever listened to simply because those leaders have used the wrong tactics. I think Kofi Anan even told the two Hmong human rights organization that approached the UN that the UN had no authorization to grant or recognize anyone's sovereignty. And he was right. The UN doesn't have that right. Yet the Hmong kept thinking the UN just didn't pay attention to us due to our smaller number. Not true. We have never approached them correctly the way the world is functioning these days. Plus, just imagine what credibility we had when we had two human rights organization going to the UN separately, each claiming it was the one for the Hmong? lol

Personally I consider the UN a useless organization from an international political relationship; It is effective from an economic view, that is what I referring as benefits. Again when comes to peaceful diplomacy, UN has different priority. Now if let's say I decided to create and fund of a militia secretly to retake Laos in the name of the exile Prince(referring the accusation of Vang Pao back in 2007: Operation Tarnish Eagle except for the Lao Prince, I made that one up) the UN will zerks. I am not suggesting an assault, that is bad proposal in my view.

But what I try to say is that UN will responds when major players responds to major threat.

[Reporter]

Yes, detest the controlling monarch at the government level. But, sure, there's respect for the royal family. Americans have a fence between us and the British now. So it's ok to express some admiration towards the royal family. But let it threaten America's government and missiles will be flying over the British throne via the modern Stealths any time.  See if America will allow it to control us? No way. "We hold these truths to be inalienable rights that all men are created equal...." came about just so that the monarch wasn't the only "unequal superior" man/woman.

First, there are a lot misconceptions on which I bolded. First I will address the Royalties helplessness. Now I will agree if the last King of Laos was a puppet. However a puppet King is actually consider very useful. I would argue that Japan was defeated in WW2 and was dissolved into a more Democractic state, yet they have Emperor. And the image of their Emperor  still stand strong.

Monarchs and Communism are different. They can lead to an Authoritarian and Totalitarian government, but are not the same. The founding fathers weren't enlighten people as many American would like to praised.Althou gh would that it be true as descendants of American ally.

Detest monarchy? Yet American and America medias go "Gogo Gaga" over the British Monarchs; Prince William and Kate's baby over the summer 2013. Just like their marriage back in April 2012.

Second, the system of the government. I can't argue that. The Lao government hasn't done any much progress, yet I haven't see much of regress. The economic impact dues to touring, that is your opinion whether its an advantage or disadvantage to the Hmong or Laotian government.

Personally I consider the UN a useless organization from an international political relationship; It is effective from an economic view, that is what I referring as benefits. Again when comes to peaceful diplomacy, UN has different priority. Now if let's say I decided to create and fund of a militia secretly to retake Laos in the name of the exile Prince(referring the accusation of Vang Pao back in 2007: Operation Tarnish Eagle except for the Lao Prince, I made that one up) the UN will zerks. I am not suggesting an assault, that is bad proposal in my view.

But what I try to say is that UN will responds when major players responds to major threat.

The UN can be  helpful in some ways.

[Reporter]

Japan never needed outsiders to return its imperial figures to its lands. It was always there, except parliament just formed out of that in order to be a more effective country.  But the Lao King had lost its territory/sovereignty in an actual combat and uprooted completely into exile. It no longer had any authority to return to a land victored and owned by the LPDR.

First, there are a lot misconceptions on which I bolded. First I will address the Royalties helplessness. Now I will agree if the last King of Laos was a puppet. However a puppet King is actually consider very useful. I would argue that Japan was defeated in WW2 and was dissolved into a more Democractic state, yet they have Emperor. And the image of their Emperor  still stand strong.

Monarchs and Communism are different. They can lead to an Authoritarian and Totalitarian government, but are not the same. The founding fathers weren't enlighten people as many American would like to praised.Althou gh would that it be true as descendants of American ally.

Detest monarchy? Yet American and America medias go "Gogo Gaga" over the British Monarchs; Prince William and Kate's baby over the summer 2013. Just like their marriage back in April 2012.

Second, the system of the government. I can't argue that. The Lao government hasn't done any much progress, yet I haven't see much of regress. The economic impact dues to touring, that is your opinion whether its an advantage or disadvantage to the Hmong or Laotian government.

Personally I consider the UN a useless organization from an international political relationship; It is effective from an economic view, that is what I referring as benefits. Again when comes to peaceful diplomacy, UN has different priority. Now if let's say I decided to create and fund of a militia secretly to retake Laos in the name of the exile Prince(referring the accusation of Vang Pao back in 2007: Operation Tarnish Eagle except for the Lao Prince, I made that one up) the UN will zerks. I am not suggesting an assault, that is bad proposal in my view.

But what I try to say is that UN will responds when major players responds to major threat.

[dlabtsi_os]

I really don't want to stray off topic so let's agree to disagree if there are any. 

Edit: Just one more clarification. Lao King was never exile. That was one of his son and his current grandson.  The last Lao king passed due to old age.  The Lao Royalties really looking forward towards independent: Constitutional monarchy, it just that the Prince in charge of the LPDR never got along with the other two LPDR. It goes deeper than this.

I support GVP, but not really that blind. 

[Reporter]

I really don't want to stray off topic so let's agree to disagree if there are any. 

Edit: Just one more clarification. Lao King was never exile. That was one of his son and his current grandson.  The last Lao king passed due to old age.  The Lao Royalties really looking forward towards independent: Constitutional monarchy, it just that the Prince in charge of the LPDR never got along with the other two LPDR. It goes deeper than this.

I support GVP, but not really that blind. 

Oh, well.