Happy Anniversary, Noam Chomsky!
"How many of those who say they are unreservedly in support of the Khmer revolution would consent to endure one hundredth part of the present sufferings of the Cambodian people?"
- François Ponchaud, 1977
The Associated Press has a story today about the aftermath of the Khmer Rouge takeover of Cambodia, whose 30-year anniversary is this week. It describes how ordinary Cambodians suffered, and it focuses on the plight of one representative Cambodian, Nai Oeurn:
"Thirty years later, after the 'killing fields' and the death of one-sixth of the Cambodian population, his dream has come to this: collecting cow dung for a living, earning 90 cents for a 3-foot-high pile that takes five days to collect."We have a practical suggestion for Nai Oeurn and people like him. Why not file a suit against MIT professor Noam Chomsky?
Why Chomsky? Because, throughout the years of Cambodia's "killing fields," throughout the communist genocide committed against Cambodia's people, Noam Chomsky was the unofficial apologist and academic spokesman for the Khmer Rouge regime.
Chomsky insisted throughout the slaughter that anything uncivil going on in Cambodia was all the fault of American imperialism. As the massacres proceeded, Chomsky repeated communist propaganda, insisting over and over again that no massacres were taking place and that the countless news stories of such massacres were American disinformation. These statements of Noam Chomsky have been carefully cataloged by James Liberty here. Other collections of Chomsky citations can be found here and here and here.
Chomsky is the leading "academic" spokesman of anti-Americanism, hatred of Israel, endorsement of terrorism against the US and Israel, and defense of Holocaust Deniers. Chomsky says that Bin Laden was just trying to pass on to us a message of truth that we needed to hear:
"They are telling us just what they think. The United States wants to silence the one free television channel in the Arab world because it's broadcasting a whole range of things from Powell over to Osama bin Laden. So the US is now joining the repressive regimes of the Arab world that try to shut it up. But if you listen to it, if you listen to what bin Laden says, it's worth it."Chomsky is for the Khmer Rouge what David Irving is for the Jewish victims of World War II.
So happy anniversary, Noam Chomsky. Have a nice full meal at the expense of victims of the Khmer Rouge who starved to death in countless numbers!
Come to think of it, Chomsky long ago joined Nai Oeurn in collecting dung for HIS living as well — at the Masschussetts Institute of Technology to boot!
9 Comments:
What typical right-wing idiocy. For example, Chomsky defending the Al-Jazeera network - including the benefits of hearing what bin Laden has to say, which many Americans are interested in not because they support bin Laden's attacks but because of reasons ranging from 'know your enemy' to simply not wanting to set a precedent that the government should block the rulers of this country - we citizens - from hearing all the sides - is turned into Chomsky being an Al Queda supporter.
Get a life and leave this great nation alone from right-wing idiocy.
What typical right-wing idiocy. For example, Chomsky defending the Al-Jazeera network - including the benefits of hearing what bin Laden has to say, which many Americans are interested in not because they support bin Laden's attacks but because of reasons ranging from 'know your enemy' to simply not wanting to set a precedent that the government should block the rulers of this country - we citizens - from hearing all the sides - is turned into Chomsky being an Al Queda supporter.
Huh? Is the Khmer Rouge a part of Al Qaida, or is the above quote an example of the product of moonbat reading comprehension skills?
Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit, though craig's post does deserve a sharp rebuttal, you missed his point. The MOONBAT CENTRAL post did give the past example in which Chomsky criticized an attempt to shut down al Jazeera. It was to this that craig referred.
The usual right-wing drivel. Chomsky ssid oh about 10,000 times that he never defended the atrocities in Cambodia, and of course he didn't. He compared them with the atrocities in East Timor and Central America. Isn't it interesting how everyone "knows" about the death fields in Cambodia, but what about the atrocities in El Salvador and elsewhere that the US funded, abetted, enabled, or otherwise supported?
Tell a culture-of-life nut that his tax dollars supported the murder of babies by machete at El Mozote, and then show him the evidence. Ask him why he continues to support these same politicians now (Elliot Abrams, John Negroponte, etc.).
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
craig and tubino:
The phrases right-wing idiocy, get a life, and right-wing drivel don't go very far toward discrediting the need for and value of systematic, harsh, and well-deserved criticism of Noam Chomsky.
I am sure you would agree with the following statement: it is appropriate to call out and harshly criticize public statements that intentionally obfuscate facts of history or current events. Right? When misinformation influences readers to accept unacceptable behavior, there is a palpable loss of moral clarity.
Not just right-wingers, but others argue that Noam Chomsky has done this consistently over decades.
Chomsky ssid oh about 10,000 times that he never defended the atrocities in Cambodia.
Did you expect him to declare he supported the genocide? While the Khmer Rouge atrocities were happening, he used his influence to promote their falsehoods. That's what Noam Chomsky continues to do now with Islamic radicalism. His next morally indefensible step is always to argue a moral equivalence, as tubino has done here.
The numbers don't compare, the atrocities don't compare, the events don't compare. That said, it is perfectly valid to criticize the actions of US foreign policy and the results of those policies. Most reasonable people will balance some unintentional consequences with the fact that the US established priorities to fight Communism and were right to do so.
prowlerneedsajump:
Obviously Craig's "typical right-wing idiocy" rant in which we're supposed to see:
"Chomsky is the leading "academic" spokesman of anti-Americanism, hatred of Israel, endorsement of terrorism against the US and Israel, and defense of Holocaust Deniers. Chomsky says that Bin Laden was just trying to pass on to us a message of truth that we needed to hear:"They are telling us just what they think. The United States wants to silence the one free television channel in the Arab world because it's broadcasting a whole range of things from Powell over to Osama bin Laden. So the US is now joining the repressive regimes of the Arab world that try to shut it up. But if you listen to it, if you listen to what bin Laden says, it's worth it."Chomsky is for the Khmer Rouge what David Irving is for the Jewish victims of World War II."
and hear:
"Chomsky defending the Al-Jazeera network - including the benefits of hearing what bin Laden has to say, which many Americans are interested in not because they support bin Laden's attacks but because of reasons ranging from 'know your enemy' to simply not wanting to set a precedent that the government should block the rulers of this country - we citizens - from hearing all the sides - is turned into Chomsky being an Al Queda supporter."
Since James Randi isn't around to shut down Chomsky and his Psychic Friends Network, I have to ask the question that I did. I certainly didn't hear the message Craig divined out of that paragraph.
Is Craig's accusing Plaut's Complaint of making an Al Qaeda supporter of Chomsky an example of left-wing idiocy, or some kind of sick joke?
Post a Comment
<< Home