That might be how others here have tantrums but not me.
No, it is definitely you.
Do you think its fine to conflate different death tolls and fake photos in Thailand? Do you think its fine to do this to implicitly blame the anti-war movement and absolve America for its actions in the region? Do you think its fine to focus on something you cant change while ignoring something you can change?
Lol, let's focus on what you are doing here, you are trying to absolve what Chomsky is shown to be completely wrong about for several decades now, trying to whitewash the supposed "anti-war" movement, when almost no one else decided to come out in support of Pol Pot like ol' Chumpsky here, and then focus on some sort of weird parochial attitude where "I don't need to be correct about another country or give a shit about being accurate, because I'm an American, and what matters to me is America".
Is there an adherence to the truth we should aspire to do or can we just say whatever feels good and right no matter how dubious the claim and evidence?
I love how your "adherence to truth" makes you still defend Chomsky being entirely wrong about Kampuchea.
That’s your response to being reminded the whole point was to compare the outrage to the silence on East Timor. Wonderful. 200,000 people dead out of a population of just 700,000. Occupied for 24 miserable years. And all you can do is this lousy lameass tactic.
No, that's my response to you still defending fucking Chumpsky over Pol Pot. Like you don't need to fucking cast doubt over fucking genocide in Kampuchea and also criticize the silence of East Timor. You fucking miserable piece of genocide denying shit.
In 20 years you’re gonna be a neocon.
That gives me twenty years to get to where you are now.
let’s focus on what you are doing here, you are trying to absolve what Chomsky is shown to be completely wrong about for several decades now
Photos faked in Thailand.
The figures in the priests book conflated and misattributed.
Any wild claim accepted uncritically without any research even when it had been disproved by foreign press.
Chomsky and Herman went for verifiable figures.
The whole point of their endeavor was to compare the media coverage to the coverage of the invasion and occupation of East Timor.
They even predicted that the response would be to accuse them of denial and ignore Timor.
trying to whitewash the supposed “anti-war” movement
The smear is implicit and obvious: "we pulled out and look what happened the region fell into chaos"
when almost no one else decided to come out in support of Pol Pot like ol’ Chumpsky here
When Vietnam invaded the USA began aiding Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, I dare say that was a bit more supportive than your imaginings about Chomsky. Seems to be that is also around the time criticism dried up and people lambasting Chomsky are strangely silent on this turn of event.
No, that’s my response to you still defending fucking Chumpsky over Pol Pot.
I'm setting the record straight on what he said and did. You could go and find out for yourself by reading him or listen to his explanation but you prefer repeating what you heard others say.
That gives me twenty years to get to where you are now.
(1) Lol, can't believe there are still actual Khmer Rouge denialists. Suppose that he tried the same thing for the Holocaust (and he certainly went on to defend a Holocaust Denialist, another of Chomsky's absolute fucking idiocy in his pedantry), people would rightly vilify him today, and not hold him as standard bearer of all that is left. Instead, you try to pretend that Chomsky has a point here, when his own arguments are extremely specious- for example, he cites an unnamed "Thai intelligence officer" for proof that the photos are faked- certainly damning for a guy that claims to like "facts". So, where does that leave Chomsky and Herman, but still in the wrong, and you still a genocide denier in your quest to defend them. Fuck off.
(2) Name another anti-War figure who came out in favor of Pol Pot like Chomsky here? As to the US aiding Pol Pot to get back at the Vietnamese, that is completely irrelevant to Chomsky supporting Pol Pot, if anything, it shows how much of an Imperialist American stooge Chomsky was and has always been.
(3) You are trying to obfuscate and equivocate.
(4) Of course, you are not even a Neo-Con, you are just a Social Fascist.
There is no Khmer Rouge denial here. There is criticism of media exaggerations - conflating a books figures, not checking on photos that had been faked in Thailand. You dont seem to have a problem with this. And the whole time the was breathlessly reporting everything and anything without checking they were SILENT about East Timor. That is what they were comparing this to. Your exaggerations dont get a retroactive justification because later verifiable information comes along showing that similar things did in fact happen. You don't seem to understand the finer points here, the media exaggerating without checking, silence on East Timor, and the comparison of the two. All that goes over your head. Not a word from you about conflating the figures in the priests book, not a word about photos faked in Thailand. Not a word about the silence about East Timor. Its all okay to you because later on reliable evidence came along that at the same time this happened there really were mass killings.
he cites an unnamed “Thai intelligence officer” for proof that the photos are faked- certainly damning for a guy that claims to like “facts”.
It was thoroughly debunked in foreign press.
and he certainly went on to defend a Holocaust Denialist, another of Chomsky’s absolute fucking idiocy in his pedantry
Chomsky was 1 of 500 people who signed a petition. Chomsky is the only one who gets attacked for this. Why? Faurisson was being tried for 'Falsification of History' and would have served time in jail - do you believe that the state should determine what is historical fact and punish those who deviate?
(2) Name another anti-War figure who came out in favor of Pol Pot like Chomsky here?
He wasn't in favor of Pol Pot so this is just a fucking lie. Whats next, "do you still beat your wife?"
(3) You are trying to obfuscate and equivocate.
Says the fella who thinks its okay to exaggerate and accept any claim because hey maybe later something similar might turn out to be true.
I've been sticking to the facts the whole time. They were questioning the uncritical reporting. You say this defends Pol Pot. He signed a petition for free speech, you call him a defender of a Holocaust Denier.
(4) Of course, you are not even a Neo-Con, you are just a Social Fascist.
Look at how you react to anyone who doesn't agree with you. Reduce everything down to accusing them of Holocaust Denial.
No, it is definitely you.
Lol, let's focus on what you are doing here, you are trying to absolve what Chomsky is shown to be completely wrong about for several decades now, trying to whitewash the supposed "anti-war" movement, when almost no one else decided to come out in support of Pol Pot like ol' Chumpsky here, and then focus on some sort of weird parochial attitude where "I don't need to be correct about another country or give a shit about being accurate, because I'm an American, and what matters to me is America".
I love how your "adherence to truth" makes you still defend Chomsky being entirely wrong about Kampuchea.
No, that's my response to you still defending fucking Chumpsky over Pol Pot. Like you don't need to fucking cast doubt over fucking genocide in Kampuchea and also criticize the silence of East Timor. You fucking miserable piece of genocide denying shit.
That gives me twenty years to get to where you are now.
Photos faked in Thailand.
The figures in the priests book conflated and misattributed.
Any wild claim accepted uncritically without any research even when it had been disproved by foreign press.
Chomsky and Herman went for verifiable figures.
The whole point of their endeavor was to compare the media coverage to the coverage of the invasion and occupation of East Timor.
They even predicted that the response would be to accuse them of denial and ignore Timor.
The smear is implicit and obvious: "we pulled out and look what happened the region fell into chaos"
When Vietnam invaded the USA began aiding Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, I dare say that was a bit more supportive than your imaginings about Chomsky. Seems to be that is also around the time criticism dried up and people lambasting Chomsky are strangely silent on this turn of event.
I'm setting the record straight on what he said and did. You could go and find out for yourself by reading him or listen to his explanation but you prefer repeating what you heard others say.
I know you are but what am I hurr hurr hurr
(1) Lol, can't believe there are still actual Khmer Rouge denialists. Suppose that he tried the same thing for the Holocaust (and he certainly went on to defend a Holocaust Denialist, another of Chomsky's absolute fucking idiocy in his pedantry), people would rightly vilify him today, and not hold him as standard bearer of all that is left. Instead, you try to pretend that Chomsky has a point here, when his own arguments are extremely specious- for example, he cites an unnamed "Thai intelligence officer" for proof that the photos are faked- certainly damning for a guy that claims to like "facts". So, where does that leave Chomsky and Herman, but still in the wrong, and you still a genocide denier in your quest to defend them. Fuck off.
(2) Name another anti-War figure who came out in favor of Pol Pot like Chomsky here? As to the US aiding Pol Pot to get back at the Vietnamese, that is completely irrelevant to Chomsky supporting Pol Pot, if anything, it shows how much of an Imperialist American stooge Chomsky was and has always been.
(3) You are trying to obfuscate and equivocate.
(4) Of course, you are not even a Neo-Con, you are just a Social Fascist.
There is no Khmer Rouge denial here. There is criticism of media exaggerations - conflating a books figures, not checking on photos that had been faked in Thailand. You dont seem to have a problem with this. And the whole time the was breathlessly reporting everything and anything without checking they were SILENT about East Timor. That is what they were comparing this to. Your exaggerations dont get a retroactive justification because later verifiable information comes along showing that similar things did in fact happen. You don't seem to understand the finer points here, the media exaggerating without checking, silence on East Timor, and the comparison of the two. All that goes over your head. Not a word from you about conflating the figures in the priests book, not a word about photos faked in Thailand. Not a word about the silence about East Timor. Its all okay to you because later on reliable evidence came along that at the same time this happened there really were mass killings.
It was thoroughly debunked in foreign press.
Chomsky was 1 of 500 people who signed a petition. Chomsky is the only one who gets attacked for this. Why? Faurisson was being tried for 'Falsification of History' and would have served time in jail - do you believe that the state should determine what is historical fact and punish those who deviate?
He wasn't in favor of Pol Pot so this is just a fucking lie. Whats next, "do you still beat your wife?"
Says the fella who thinks its okay to exaggerate and accept any claim because hey maybe later something similar might turn out to be true.
I've been sticking to the facts the whole time. They were questioning the uncritical reporting. You say this defends Pol Pot. He signed a petition for free speech, you call him a defender of a Holocaust Denier.
Look at how you react to anyone who doesn't agree with you. Reduce everything down to accusing them of Holocaust Denial.