Venezuela: la mierda hits el ventilador

[coloradoatheist]

Here is this video he was asked at the beginning if he was seen the light about Pol Pot's atrocities and Chomsky's response, "They are lies" and then he talks about how Pol Pot never killed anyone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3IUU59B6lw

Chomsky explicitly denies ever supporting Pol Pot. Thanks.

And all he did was set the record straight.

The record is incredibly damning to the US. The Nixon administration behaved like psychopaths. Bombed Cambodia and Laos into the stone age.

Which allowed people like Pol Pot to take power in the horrifying vacuum.

So instead of condemning the atrocities like he should have at the time, he deflected like normal. Cambodia and Laos weren't walt Disney Resorts prior to the bombings and the reason we had to bomb them that much was because they had no infrastructure. We're bomb the trail, the next day they were using it again. Did Chomsky condemn the NLF and the NVA for using the neutral countries of Cambodia and Laos as supply lines?

 

[untermensche]

Chomsky explicitly denies ever supporting Pol Pot. Thanks.

And all he did was set the record straight.

The record is incredibly damning to the US. The Nixon administration behaved like psychopaths. Bombed Cambodia and Laos into the stone age.

Which allowed people like Pol Pot to take power in the horrifying vacuum.

So instead of condemning the atrocities like he should have at the time, he deflected like normal. Cambodia and Laos weren't walt Disney Resorts prior to the bombings and the reason we had to bomb them that much was because they had no infrastructure. We're bomb the trail, the next day they were using it again. Did Chomsky condemn the NLF and the NVA for using the neutral countries of Cambodia and Laos as supply lines?

Condemn the atrocities?

He did.

He talked a lot about how the US atrocities led to Pol Pot and the US should not have committed them.

Any coward can condemn the atrocities of some other leader.

What takes courage is to point out the atrocities of your own "leaders".

 

[coloradoatheist]

So instead of condemning the atrocities like he should have at the time, he deflected like normal. Cambodia and Laos weren't walt Disney Resorts prior to the bombings and the reason we had to bomb them that much was because they had no infrastructure. We're bomb the trail, the next day they were using it again. Did Chomsky condemn the NLF and the NVA for using the neutral countries of Cambodia and Laos as supply lines?

Condemn the atrocities?

He did.

He talked a lot about how the US atrocities led to Pol Pot and the US should not have committed them.

Any coward can condemn the atrocities of some other leader.

What takes courage is to point out the atrocities of your own "leaders".

The bombings were not conducted just to kill people indiscriminately. Initially they were used to disrupt the supply lines of the NLF, NVA and Khmer Rouge were using to move people and supplies into Vietnam. Later the bombings were used to help in the civil war against the Khmer Rouge. The Khmer Rouge were the ones who wanted to return a whole country into becoming rice paddie slaves.

 

[Bomb#20]

So instead of condemning the atrocities like he should have at the time, he deflected like normal. ... Did Chomsky condemn the NLF and the NVA for using the neutral countries of Cambodia and Laos as supply lines?

Condemn the atrocities?

He did.

He talked a lot about how the US atrocities led to Pol Pot and the US should not have committed them.

Any coward can condemn the atrocities of some other leader.

What takes courage is to point out the atrocities of your own "leaders".

Yes. Exactly. And Chomsky is a left-winger. Any cowardly left-winger can condemn America's leaders; what takes courage from a left-winger is condemning left-wing leaders. Joan Baez has courage; Jane Fonda is a coward.

Nixon was your enemy. He wasn't your own leader, because you don't follow people like that. So it takes no moral* courage for you to condemn him. So who is your leader? Who do you follow? Who do you take guidance from? Who would it take courage for you to condemn when he's wrong?

Oh yeah, Noam Chomsky.

(* As for the physical courage it takes to condemn one's own country's leader, that's only required in countries without free speech. Nobody is going to hurt you for blaming all the world's ills on America. So don't make believe you're being oh-so-brave.)

 

[Derec]

(* As for the physical courage it takes to condemn one's own country's leader, that's only required in countries without free speech. Nobody is going to hurt you for blaming all the world's ills on America. So don't make believe you're being oh-so-brave.)

Like that old joke ...

Q: Is it true that there is freedom of speech in the Soviet Union the same as there is the USA?
A: In principle, yes. In the USA, you can stand in front of the Washington Monument in Washington, DC, and yell, "Down with Reagan!", and you will not be punished. In the Soviet Union, you can stand in the Red Square in Moscow and yell, "Down with Reagan!", and you will not be punished.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I am curious...what was the press coverage in North Vietnam of the war? Did it allow editorials opposing the leaders?

 

[untermensche]

Condemn the atrocities?

He did.

He talked a lot about how the US atrocities led to Pol Pot and the US should not have committed them.

Any coward can condemn the atrocities of some other leader.

What takes courage is to point out the atrocities of your own "leaders".

The bombings were not conducted just to kill people indiscriminately. Initially they were used to disrupt the supply lines of the NLF, NVA and Khmer Rouge were using to move people and supplies into Vietnam. Later the bombings were used to help in the civil war against the Khmer Rouge. The Khmer Rouge were the ones who wanted to return a whole country into becoming rice paddie slaves.

Bullshit!!!!

It was massive carpet bombing. Mostly on civilians.

Kissenger's order was to kill "everything that flies on everything that moves". To kill all the insects too in other words. That's how massive he wanted the bombing.

It was psychopathic.

And only psychopaths defend it.

 

[untermensche]

Condemn the atrocities?

He did.

He talked a lot about how the US atrocities led to Pol Pot and the US should not have committed them.

Any coward can condemn the atrocities of some other leader.

What takes courage is to point out the atrocities of your own "leaders".

Yes. Exactly. And Chomsky is a left-winger. Any cowardly left-winger can condemn America's leaders; what takes courage from a left-winger is condemning left-wing leaders. Joan Baez has courage; Jane Fonda is a coward.

It took a lot of courage to condemn the US involvement in Vietnam.

When Chomsky began speaking out against Vietnam nobody in the country was against it.

People in those days did not question the lies coming out of Washington. And if you did question anything coming out of Washington you were labeled a commie, a subversive, a traitor.

Even today people who expose the lies of the government are labeled as traitors.

By some.

Nixon was your enemy.

He was the elected president with millions of Americans supporting him and millions more calling anybody who spoke against him an enemy.

It took courage to expose his lies. Chomsky came very close to going to prison. Only Watergate breaking prevented it.

What takes no courage is condemning the people who exposed Nixon's lies.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Yes it is. You posted a completely retarded bullshit mischaracterization of my post and I corrected your retarded bullshit mischaracterization with the ACTUAL substance of my post.

Perhaps you should stop posting retarded bullshit?



No. I am operating on the basis that the U.S. government has a strong anti-communist bias and tends to pressure its media to adopt anti-communist positions and news stories. Thus, any news story that is overly critical of communist/socialist governments, policies, politicians or ideas should be taken with a gain of salt, and all such news stories should be checked for sources to make sure that they ARE, in fact, pushing real stories and not just propaganda.

And so everything you disagree with is fake news by the government to discredit the communists.

I've said nothing about "fake news" or whether or not I agree or disagree with anything at all. I said that the U.S. government has a strong anti-communist bias and tends to pressure its media to adopt anti-communist positions and news stories. Thus, any news story that is overly critical of communist/socialist governments, policies, politicians or ideas should be taken with a gain of salt, and all such news stories should be checked for sources to make sure that they ARE, in fact, pushing real stories and not just propaganda.

Stop being a retard.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

You have yet to show him explicitly denying the actions of the Khmer Rouge. You know when people ask me to prove something I either put up or bow out.

Here is this video he was asked at the beginning if he was seen the light about Pol Pot's atrocities and Chomsky's response, "They are lies"

His response is "No, I've seen the same 'light' about it that I saw in the beginning. There's been a vast amount of lying about this topic including an article that I have right before me in today's daily hammer..." Which the interviewer wrote. He then goes on to explain that the casualty figures in Cambodia were originally based on a misquote of a french journalist and also significantly misatributed (1.2 million deaths are called "murders" when in fact a huge number of them are humanitarian deaths resulting from starvation, lack of access to healthcare or government obstruction).

and then he talks about how Pol Pot never killed anyone.

Actually he goes into detail about the fact that real information about who the Khmer Rouge killed -- and how, and when, and why -- was not available in 1977, and wasn't available at the time of this recording. It probably still isn't available even now.

That's Noam Chomsky literally saying "We didn't actually know what happened then and we should stop pretending like we have enough information to draw definite conclusions" and you saying "He secretly loves Pol Pot and that's why he won't admit that Pol Pot is a mass murderer!"

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Condemn the atrocities?

He did.

He talked a lot about how the US atrocities led to Pol Pot and the US should not have committed them.

Any coward can condemn the atrocities of some other leader.

What takes courage is to point out the atrocities of your own "leaders".

The bombings were not conducted just to kill people indiscriminately.

You have gotten so used to using that as an excuse that you're just throwing it out there on reflex now... but we're talking about Vietnam, where they literally DID conduct those bombings specifically with the goal of killing people indiscriminately. The goal was to break the spirit of the NVA and the Viet Cong, crush their will to fight, destroy their supply lines, their source of food, their entire way of life. Defoliants, napalm, carpet bombing, fuel-air explosives. These are the kinds of weapons you deploy when you're trying to clear an entire area of all living things.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And so everything you disagree with is fake news by the government to discredit the communists.

I've said nothing about "fake news" or whether or not I agree or disagree with anything at all. I said that the U.S. government has a strong anti-communist bias and tends to pressure its media to adopt anti-communist positions and news stories. Thus, any news story that is overly critical of communist/socialist governments, policies, politicians or ideas should be taken with a gain of salt, and all such news stories should be checked for sources to make sure that they ARE, in fact, pushing real stories and not just propaganda.

Stop being a retard.

Stop pretending 7 days isn't a week.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I've said nothing about "fake news" or whether or not I agree or disagree with anything at all. I said that the U.S. government has a strong anti-communist bias and tends to pressure its media to adopt anti-communist positions and news stories. Thus, any news story that is overly critical of communist/socialist governments, policies, politicians or ideas should be taken with a gain of salt, and all such news stories should be checked for sources to make sure that they ARE, in fact, pushing real stories and not just propaganda.

Stop being a retard.

Stop pretending 7 days isn't a week.

You: So you're saying 7 days isn't a week
Me: I'm saying 5 days is a work week for most people, 6 for others.
You: Which means you're saying 7 days isn't a week
Me: No. I'm saying 5 days is a work week for most people, 6, for tohers.
You: Stop pretending 7 days isn't a week.
Me: You're an idiot.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Stop pretending 7 days isn't a week.

You: So you're saying 7 days isn't a week
Me: I'm saying 5 days is a work week for most people, 6 for others.
You: Which means you're saying 7 days isn't a week
Me: No. I'm saying 5 days is a work week for most people, 6, for tohers.
You: Stop pretending 7 days isn't a week.
Me: You're an idiot.

Ok, what anti-communist stuff isn't fake?

 

[Bomb#20]

Yes. Exactly. And Chomsky is a left-winger. Any cowardly left-winger can condemn America's leaders; what takes courage from a left-winger is condemning left-wing leaders. Joan Baez has courage; Jane Fonda is a coward.

It took a lot of courage to condemn the US involvement in Vietnam.

When Chomsky began speaking out against Vietnam nobody in the country was against it.

Don't be an idiot. Of course other Americans were against it. The French had been holding antiwar protests for 15 years when Chomsky got involved; what, you think the Americans and the French don't talk to each other?

People in those days did not question the lies coming out of Washington.

Overgeneralize much? Some did, some didn't.

And if you did question anything coming out of Washington you were labeled a commie, a subversive, a traitor.

Oh the horror, people who disagree with you will call you nasty names! Right here on TFT when people question drivel coming out of your mouth you label them pro-dictatorship. It's called free speech. Sticks and stones...

Nixon was your enemy.

He was the elected president with millions of Americans supporting him and millions more calling anybody who spoke against him an enemy.

See above.

It took courage to expose his lies. Chomsky came very close to going to prison. Only Watergate breaking prevented it.

When the heck was Chomsky ever arrested for anything he said? He was arrested for trespassing, which he committed because he was trying to get himself arrested. If you regard it as brave to get what you want, that's certainly a defensible position to take; but that only means it's brave to engage in civil disobedience. The bravery doesn't magically spill out onto condemning the government.

What takes no courage is condemning the people who exposed Nixon's lies.

So who's condemning him for exposing Nixon's lies? He's getting condemned for turning a blind eye to the Khmer Rouge. What, you figure doing a right thing gives him a free pass to do a wrong thing?

 

[untermensche]

It took a lot of courage to condemn the US involvement in Vietnam.

When Chomsky began speaking out against Vietnam nobody in the country was against it.

Don't be an idiot. Of course other Americans were against it. The French had been holding antiwar protests for 15 years when Chomsky got involved; what, you think the Americans and the French don't talk to each other?

It's a phrase and only simpletons take it literally.

And if you did question anything coming out of Washington you were labeled a commie, a subversive, a traitor.

Oh the horror, people who disagree with you will call you nasty names!

It takes courage to stand up in the face of it. In real life. Speaking out in the real world. Not in your basement on the internet.

You have never done it so you think it is nothing.

When the heck was Chomsky ever arrested for anything he said? He was arrested for trespassing, which he committed because he was trying to get himself arrested.

You clearly don't know the history.

Enjoy your sleep.

He's getting condemned for turning a blind eye to the Khmer Rouge.

Something that never happened. You can't produce ONE quote.

Only the insane condemn people for events that never happened.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The bombings were not conducted just to kill people indiscriminately.

You have gotten so used to using that as an excuse that you're just throwing it out there on reflex now... but we're talking about Vietnam, where they literally DID conduct those bombings specifically with the goal of killing people indiscriminately. The goal was to break the spirit of the NVA and the Viet Cong, crush their will to fight, destroy their supply lines, their source of food, their entire way of life. Defoliants, napalm, carpet bombing, fuel-air explosives. These are the kinds of weapons you deploy when you're trying to clear an entire area of all living things.

But there is a difference going after the supply chain, and the places for the enemy to fight then just saying, "I'm going to kill someone for the fun of it" Did people at the same time criticize the NLF and NVA for using neutral countries and civilians to shield themselves?

 

[untermensche]

You have gotten so used to using that as an excuse that you're just throwing it out there on reflex now... but we're talking about Vietnam, where they literally DID conduct those bombings specifically with the goal of killing people indiscriminately. The goal was to break the spirit of the NVA and the Viet Cong, crush their will to fight, destroy their supply lines, their source of food, their entire way of life. Defoliants, napalm, carpet bombing, fuel-air explosives. These are the kinds of weapons you deploy when you're trying to clear an entire area of all living things.

But there is a difference going after the supply chain, and the places for the enemy to fight then just saying, "I'm going to kill someone for the fun of it" Did people at the same time criticize the NLF and NVA for using neutral countries and civilians to shield themselves?

You mean defend themselves from foreign aggression.

 

[coloradoatheist]

But there is a difference going after the supply chain, and the places for the enemy to fight then just saying, "I'm going to kill someone for the fun of it" Did people at the same time criticize the NLF and NVA for using neutral countries and civilians to shield themselves?

You mean defend themselves from foreign aggression.

You mean the south defending themselves from northern aggression right?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

You have gotten so used to using that as an excuse that you're just throwing it out there on reflex now... but we're talking about Vietnam, where they literally DID conduct those bombings specifically with the goal of killing people indiscriminately. The goal was to break the spirit of the NVA and the Viet Cong, crush their will to fight, destroy their supply lines, their source of food, their entire way of life. Defoliants, napalm, carpet bombing, fuel-air explosives. These are the kinds of weapons you deploy when you're trying to clear an entire area of all living things.

But there is a difference going after the supply chain, and the places for the enemy to fight then just saying, "I'm going to kill someone for the fun of it"

Now you're moving the goalposts. YES, the United States killed Vietnamese citizens indiscriminately. They clearly had some kind of strategic objective in doing so; nobody ever said they did it just for fun. They believed that destroying the NVA and their Vietcong supporters would break their resolve and bring the war to a swift end; in this sense, they were practicing TOTAL WAR and anyone even peripherally related to the war effort was a target.

Did people at the same time criticize the NLF and NVA for using neutral countries and civilians to shield themselves?

No, because that's not what happened. AT ALL. The civilians being targeted were civilians who were openly supporting the NVA, either politically or materially, or just by virtue of their failing to support the south. They weren't "shielding" themselves with the civilians, they WERE the civilians.