Venezuela: la mierda hits el ventilador

[untermensche]

Chomsky never once supported Pol Pot.

That is a lie.

Prove it.

 

[skepticalbip]

Chomsky may (or may not) be a decent scholar of linguistics but all credibility in his political analytical expertise should have been destroyed in the 1970s. This is the man that supported Pol Pot against all criticism. For years, he blamed the reported atrocities in Cambodia on the CIA. After the atrocities could no longer be denied, he attempted to minimize them.

Baloney. Chomsky never supported Pol Pot, that's nonsense, as is any justification for atrocities. What he said in 1977, when conflicting stories about mass killings were circulating, was that apologists for US intervention in Indochina had an interest in reports of mass killings, since they cast US actions in a more favorable light and should therefore be viewed with caution.

In 1977 the atrocities could no longer be denied by Chomsky because the Vietnamese had invaded to put a stop to Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge and were showing the world pictures and movies of what had happened. This is when Chomsky switched to trying to minimize what had happened. However before the Vietnamese stopped it, Chomsky had been denying that the Khmer Rouge were guilty of anything bad, despite the flood of reports - reports that the Vietnamese took seriously enough to mount an invasion to stop them.

In this piece, he says that Chavez had little success in moving the economy away from an oil based economy and in developing agriculture and industry. Reality is that Chavez nationalized the fairly productive agricultural and industrial businesses which then collapsed under the new socialist control. This pushed the Venezuelan economy to be primarily reliant on oil. Oil was always a major part of Venezuelan economy but Chavez's "reforms" made Venezuela almost completely dependent on oil.

Reality is that the so called progressive parties are riddled with corruption and allying themselves with the traditional elites in ripping off the people.

 

[untermensche]

In 1977 the atrocities could no longer be denied by Chomsky because the Vietnamese had invaded to put a stop to Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge and were showing the world pictures and movies of what had happened. This is when Chomsky switched to trying to minimize what had happened. However before the Vietnamese stopped it, Chomsky had been denying that the Khmer Rouge were guilty of anything bad, despite the flood of reports.

Chomsky never once supported Pol Pot. You won't find a word from him in print or on tape supporting any action by Pol Pot.

It is bizarre you are so wrong about this.

Please provide your source.

 

[skepticalbip]

In 1977 the atrocities could no longer be denied by Chomsky because the Vietnamese had invaded to put a stop to Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge and were showing the world pictures and movies of what had happened. This is when Chomsky switched to trying to minimize what had happened. However before the Vietnamese stopped it, Chomsky had been denying that the Khmer Rouge were guilty of anything bad, despite the flood of reports.

Chomsky never once supported Pol Pot.

 

[Horatio Parker]

In 1977 the atrocities could no longer be denied by Chomsky because the Vietnamese had invaded to put a stop to Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge and were showing the world pictures and movies of what had happened. This is when Chomsky switched to trying to minimize what had happened. However before the Vietnamese stopped it, Chomsky had been denying that the Khmer Rouge were guilty of anything bad, despite the flood of reports.

Cite?

Here's mine...

Linguist Noam Chomsky and scholar Edward S. Herman were among the academics who examined the conflicting reports of the situation in Cambodia in 1977. On June 6, 1977, Chomsky and Herman published an article in The Nation which contrasted the views expressed in books by Barron and Paul, Ponchaud, and Porter and Hildebrand, and in articles and accounts by Butterfield, Bragg, Kahin, Cazaux, Shanberg, Tolgraven and others. Their conclusion was: "We do not pretend to know where the truth lies amidst these sharply conflicting assessments; rather, we again want to emphasize some crucial points. What filters through to the American public is a seriously distorted version of the evidence available, emphasizing alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities and downplaying or ignoring the crucial U.S. role, direct and indirect, in the torment that Cambodia has suffered."[15]

Chomsky and Herman noted the conflicting information in the various accounts, and suggested that after the "failure of the American effort to subdue South Vietnam and to crush the mass movements elsewhere in Indochina" that there was now "a campaign to reconstruct the history of these years so as to place the role of the United States in a more favorable light". This rewriting of history by the establishment press was served well by "tales of Communist atrocities, which not only prove the evils of communism but undermine the credibility of those who opposed the war and might interfere with future crusades for freedom." They wrote that the refugee stories of Khmer Rouge atrocities should be treated with great "care and caution" because "refugees are frightened and defenseless, at the mercy of alien forces. They naturally tend to report what they believe their interlocuters wish to hear."[15]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial

Note: this was before Vietnam invaded. Vietnam invaded Cambodia in December of 1978.

Reality is that the so called progressive parties are riddled with corruption and allying themselves with the traditional elites in ripping off the people.

What don't you get?

 

[untermensche]

Chomsky never once supported Pol Pot.

You are a stooge. A brainwashed fool.

You have no evidence. None.

Chomsky never wrote one word in support of Pol Pot.

You can't produce one. You are telling lies.

The only question is are you telling them knowingly or because of extreme ignorance.

 

[skepticalbip]

Cite?

Here's mine...

Linguist Noam Chomsky and scholar Edward S. Herman were among the academics who examined the conflicting reports of the situation in Cambodia in 1977. On June 6, 1977, Chomsky and Herman published an article in The Nation which contrasted the views expressed in books by Barron and Paul, Ponchaud, and Porter and Hildebrand, and in articles and accounts by Butterfield, Bragg, Kahin, Cazaux, Shanberg, Tolgraven and others. Their conclusion was: "We do not pretend to know where the truth lies amidst these sharply conflicting assessments; rather, we again want to emphasize some crucial points. What filters through to the American public is a seriously distorted version of the evidence available, emphasizing alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities and downplaying or ignoring the crucial U.S. role, direct and indirect, in the torment that Cambodia has suffered."[15]

Chomsky and Herman noted the conflicting information in the various accounts, and suggested that after the "failure of the American effort to subdue South Vietnam and to crush the mass movements elsewhere in Indochina" that there was now "a campaign to reconstruct the history of these years so as to place the role of the United States in a more favorable light". This rewriting of history by the establishment press was served well by "tales of Communist atrocities, which not only prove the evils of communism but undermine the credibility of those who opposed the war and might interfere with future crusades for freedom." They wrote that the refugee stories of Khmer Rouge atrocities should be treated with great "care and caution" because "refugees are frightened and defenseless, at the mercy of alien forces. They naturally tend to report what they believe their interlocuters wish to hear."[15]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial

Note: this was before Vietnam invaded. Vietnam invaded Cambodia in December of 1978.

Fair enough... I lived through it and am citing from memory so was apparently off by a year. This quote is apparently from the period when Chomsky was bending under the weight of evidence (away from his earlier support) but still wanting to blame the U.S. - leaving doubt in the role of the Khmer Rouge (even though Vietnam was already raising hell about it).

I do clearly remember this bit from that quote: "care and caution" because "refugees are frightened and defenseless, at the mercy of alien forces. They naturally tend to report what they believe their interlocuters wish to hear.". I was floored that he claimed that the thousands of refugees didn't know what was happening to them because they were only poor peasants.

 

[untermensche]

Fair enough... I lived through it and am citing from memory so was apparently off by a year. This quote is apparently from the period when Chomsky was bending under the weight of evidence (away from his earlier support) but still wanting to blame the U.S. - leaving doubt in the role of the Khmer Rouge (even though Vietnam was already raising hell about it).

No earlier support existed.

You are full of shit!

 

[coloradoatheist]

The best piece probably for reading for Chomsky regarding this would his Distortions at Fourth Hand in '77.

https://chomsky.info/19770625/

In it he is comparing the different sources that are related to what was happening in Cambodia. Some sources say that Cambodia was good and that the atrocities reported were very small and nothing. The other side was that these atrocities were horrible and commited by the Khmer Rogue. chmosky opinion in this piece was, hey we can't trust the sources that make the Khmer Rouge look bad because we know the west uses the media to bias people and these stories have to be greatly exaggerated.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Cite?

Here's mine...



Note: this was before Vietnam invaded. Vietnam invaded Cambodia in December of 1978.

Fair enough... I lived through it and am citing from memory so was apparently off by a year. This quote is apparently from the period when Chomsky was bending under the weight of evidence (away from his earlier support) but still wanting to blame the U.S. - leaving doubt in the role of the Khmer Rouge (even though Vietnam was already raising hell about it).

I do clearly remember this bit from that quote: "care and caution" because "refugees are frightened and defenseless, at the mercy of alien forces. They naturally tend to report what they believe their interlocuters wish to hear.". I was floored that he claimed that the thousands of refugees didn't know what was happening to them because they were only poor peasants.

No, this quote is from the time when no one knew for sure what was happening inside Cambodia.

Never mind your memory, clear or cloudy - do you have any cites or not?

 

[Horatio Parker]

The best piece probably for reading for Chomsky regarding this would his Distortions at Fourth Hand in '77.

https://chomsky.info/19770625/

In it he is comparing the different sources that are related to what was happening in Cambodia. Some sources say that Cambodia was good and that the atrocities reported were very small and nothing. The other side was that these atrocities were horrible and commited by the Khmer Rogue. chmosky opinion in this piece was, hey we can't trust the sources that make the Khmer Rouge look bad because we know the west uses the media to bias people and these stories have to be greatly exaggerated.

Yes. That's the article I quoted (from Wikipedia).

 

[untermensche]

The best piece probably for reading for Chomsky regarding this would his Distortions at Fourth Hand in '77.

https://chomsky.info/19770625/

In it he is comparing the different sources that are related to what was happening in Cambodia. Some sources say that Cambodia was good and that the atrocities reported were very small and nothing. The other side was that these atrocities were horrible and commited by the Khmer Rogue. chmosky opinion in this piece was, hey we can't trust the sources that make the Khmer Rouge look bad because we know the west uses the media to bias people and these stories have to be greatly exaggerated.

Absurd.

Chomsky is merely pointing out that the only reason Pol Pot had any power was because of the chaos caused by the insane and genocidal US bombing and atrocities in Cambodia.

 

[skepticalbip]

Fair enough... I lived through it and am citing from memory so was apparently off by a year. This quote is apparently from the period when Chomsky was bending under the weight of evidence (away from his earlier support) but still wanting to blame the U.S. - leaving doubt in the role of the Khmer Rouge (even though Vietnam was already raising hell about it).

I do clearly remember this bit from that quote: "care and caution" because "refugees are frightened and defenseless, at the mercy of alien forces. They naturally tend to report what they believe their interlocuters wish to hear.". I was floored that he claimed that the thousands of refugees didn't know what was happening to them because they were only poor peasants.

No, this quote is from the time when no one knew for sure what was happening inside Cambodia.

Never mind your memory, clear or cloudy - do you have any cites or not?

Plenty of people knew what was going on. Thousands and thousands of refugees told what was happening. Regardless of the fact that Chomsky claims that "mere peasants" couldn't possibly know what was happening to them, I and aid workers know, that "poor peasants" in Cambodia can recognize Khmer Rouge troops and can recognize and report specific atrocities. The U.S. State department, the UN, and certainly Vietnam knew what was happening.

 

[Horatio Parker]

No, this quote is from the time when no one knew for sure what was happening inside Cambodia.

Never mind your memory, clear or cloudy - do you have any cites or not?

Plenty of people knew what was going on. Thousands and thousands of refugees told what was happening. Regardless of the fact that Chomsky claims that "mere peasants" couldn't possibly know what was happening to them, I and aid workers know, that "poor peasants" in Cambodia can recognize Khmer Rouge troops and can recognize and report specific atrocities. The U.S. State department, the UN, and certainly Vietnam knew what was happening.

Chomsky's point was that refugees are more likely than usual to say what their potential refuge-givers want to hear.

Still waiting for something beyond your so far baseless assertions.

 

[untermensche]

Plenty of people knew what was going on. Thousands and thousands of refugees told what was happening. Regardless of the fact that Chomsky claims that "mere peasants" couldn't possibly know what was happening to them, I and aid workers know, that "poor peasants" in Cambodia can recognize Khmer Rouge troops and can recognize and report specific atrocities. The U.S. State department, the UN, and certainly Vietnam knew what was happening.

That's not what Chomsky says.

You clearly didn't even read the article.

Of course people know what is happening to them.

All those people who were killed or fled US bombings know what happened to them.

What Chomsky is asking is why doesn't the US media seem to know about all that US bombing?

Why is none of that massive bombing figured into any calculation or explanation?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Forbes doesn't go looking for billionaires that don't want to admit their wealth.

True... Forbes lists industrialists and business magnates, not just anyone who owns many large estates and stashes cash in accounts spread around the world.

I don't think they deliberately exclude anyone based on the source or nature of their assets. However, they don't look for hidden assets which from a practical standpoint means that those with ill-gotten gains don't show up. You don't see the ultra-rich leaders who are looting their nations in the list despite the fact that several belong there. (Off the top of my head: Putin, Arafat, Morsi--I'm sure there are more.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My dude, you're like a child refusing to believe Santa Claus isn't real. How do you think the Chavez's daughter got so wealthy?

What, EXACTLY, makes you think she's wealthy at all?

Let's start with the basics: how do you even know Hugo Chavez HAS a daughter? What's her name, how old is she, what does she do for a living and where does she currently live? All of which are things you would probably have to know before you can claim she's rich.

Really, now, you question whether he has one??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Chávez

Looks like he had three.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/11/world/americas/hugo-chavez---fast-facts/index.html

Again, three.

And something of their wealth:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...uela-the-wealth-of-Chavez-family-exposed.html

- - - Updated - - -

Here's the interesting question:

If it wasn't *real* socialism, why do the socialist fanboys go to such ridiculous lengths to defend it?

It was a legitimate attempt to include all citizens in the process.

It was a reaction to decades of exclusion based on ancestry.

Some prefer the apartheid state that existed prior to Chavez.

They call it justice.

Once again you demonstrate that you don't even know what words mean.

And note that the result was as usual, to make the average person worse off. The ones at the top change, there's a pile of looting, the average person gets some perks for a while but overall they suffer.

 

[skepticalbip]

Plenty of people knew what was going on. Thousands and thousands of refugees told what was happening. Regardless of the fact that Chomsky claims that "mere peasants" couldn't possibly know what was happening to them, I and aid workers know, that "poor peasants" in Cambodia can recognize Khmer Rouge troops and can recognize and report specific atrocities. The U.S. State department, the UN, and certainly Vietnam knew what was happening.

Chomsky's point was that refugees are more likely than usual to say what their potential refuge-givers want to hear.

Still waiting for something beyond your so far baseless assertions.

Chomsky apparently has never dealt with refugees. The ones I have dealt with certainly are not dumb (though they were peasants) and they are a great source of reliable information. He also is writing this nonsense from his office in Massachusetts with apparently no real factual input other than what he sees on the nightly news (filtered through his idiology) and his futile imagination... and, of course, presents his views in a way that deflects responsibility from socialist or communist groups. It is much like the way he worded his "understanding" of Venezuela as Chavez not able to sufficiently expand industry and agriculture rather than pointing out that Chavez's "reforms" destroyed much of Venezula's industry and agriculture.

 

[untermensche]

And something of their wealth:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...uela-the-wealth-of-Chavez-family-exposed.html

That is hearsay. Not evidence.

The source of that story are claims from a website, not any documents or evidence.

But you believe it anyway.

 

[untermensche]

Chomsky apparently has never dealt with refugees. The ones I have dealt with certainly are not dumb (though they were peasants) and they are a great source of reliable information. He also is writing this nonsense from his office in Massachusetts with apparently no real factual input other than what he sees on the nightly news and his futile imagination... and, of course, presents his views in a way that deflects responsibility from socialist or communist groups. It is much like the way he worded his "understanding" of Venezuela as Chavez not able to sufficiently expand industry and agriculture rather than pointing out that Chavez's "reforms" destroyed much of Venezula's industry and agriculture.

The article is an account of what sources were used by what outlets and how the selection of sources distorts the story.

Chomsky was not in Cambodia. He was not supporting anybody in Cambodia. He was not supporting anybody in Vietnam.

He was opposed to the violence the US carried out in South Vietnam, North Vietnam and Cambodia.