Noam Chomsky - 'Obama is Worse Than Bush'

[untermensche]

Indonesia killed some 100,000 to 200,000 in East Timor. And while we should no doubt all deplore the general degradation of precision in the terminology used in public comment and the Wikipedia author probably ought to have said "minimizer" instead of "denier", the fact remains that people who suggest that He Who Must Not Be Named killed 500,000 Jews are customarily categorized as "Holocaust deniers".

All it ought to say is, "skeptic of the constant lies that flow from the American government and media". Which of course is a rational position.

This whole issue of so-called "denial" was invented whole by supporters of US imperialistic aggression, and therefore enemies of Chomsky. The real story in Cambodia was how the massive US bombing led to the Khmer Rough. Not Noam Chomsky.

When examined closely it reduces to absolutely nothing. Chomsky never supported the Khmer Rough. All he ever tried to do was get to the facts.

Which isn't appreciated by those painting constant lies about US intentions and actions.

- - - Updated - - -

People still listen to Chomsky?

Wait, Chomsky's still alive?

Damn right.

In his eighties he has more to say than just about anyone else alive.

 

[ksen]

Why hasn't he become the victim of a drone strike yet?

 

[untermensche]

Why hasn't he become the victim of a drone strike yet?

Why is he invisible in the American corporate media?

 

[NobleSavage]

Why is he invisible in the American corporate media?

He is so far left of the normal left that he gets ignored. Acknowledging him would be an inconvenience.

 

[fromderinside]

Why hasn't he become the victim of a drone strike yet?

Why is he invisible in the American corporate media?

He is to Corporate media as I am to this thread apparently http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...-Worse-Than-Bush&p=10879&viewfull=1#post10879

 

[untermensche]

Why is he invisible in the American corporate media?

He is so far left of the normal left that he gets ignored. Acknowledging him would be an inconvenience.

An inconvenience to who?

People that want to get a full range of opinion?

Why is it there is nobody on the right too far out to get their opinions heard? You can't get more insane than denial of things like evolution and man made climate change.

 

[untermensche]

Why hasn't he become the victim of a drone strike yet?

Why is he invisible in the American corporate media?

He is to Corporate media as I am to this thread apparently http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...-Worse-Than-Bush&p=10879&viewfull=1#post10879

You have opinions but not one convincing argument for their validity.

 

[boneyard bill]

Okay admittedly I'm not across Noam and all his positions but what is he an apologist for?

The Khmer Rouge

Many deniers or doubters of the Cambodian genocide recanted their previous opinions, but Chomsky continued to insist that his analysis of Cambodia was without error based on the information available to him at the time

Chomsky could in no way be described (rationally) as a denier or doubter of the genocide. The writer has a clear agenda.

Chomsky compared the genocide to the Indonesian genocide in East Timor, which was massive.

No thinking person can make the connection between comparing the genocide to the East Timor genocide and denial.

Chomsky only did that very late in the game, and after the Khmer Rouge were overthrown. When they were in power he definitely wrote apologetics for them. It was quite subtle but unquestionable. In fact, he appears to be the one who started the ridiculous idea, still being repeated, that the mass starvation in Cambodia was due the US bombing of that country. (That bombing had ended two years before the Khmer Rouge took power).

Chomsky is a polemicist. He presents an issue with his own particular spin, and that spin isn't simply an interpretation of the events. It is an interpretation derived from a pre-existing agenda.

That said, I think he does happen to be right on this issue, and he is right to focus on the process as the crucial factor that makes Obama worse than Bush.

Oh yeah it was subtle.

It was subtle because it is nonsense.

He tried to get to the facts as best he could. He had no agenda beyond trying to know what really happened.

It is those with an agenda that distort his position and call it subtle.

What was subtle was that he sought to shift the blame to the United States without addressing the activities of the Khmer Rouge directly.

What "truth" did he try to get out? The US bombing of Cambodia ended two years before the Khmer Rouge came to power. Chomsky counted on his readers not knowing that. What sense does it make to claim that massive bombing two years earlier suddenly caused mass starvation when it hadn't caused mass starvation while it was actually going on?

 

[untermensche]

Okay admittedly I'm not across Noam and all his positions but what is he an apologist for?

The Khmer Rouge

Many deniers or doubters of the Cambodian genocide recanted their previous opinions, but Chomsky continued to insist that his analysis of Cambodia was without error based on the information available to him at the time

Chomsky could in no way be described (rationally) as a denier or doubter of the genocide. The writer has a clear agenda.

Chomsky compared the genocide to the Indonesian genocide in East Timor, which was massive.

No thinking person can make the connection between comparing the genocide to the East Timor genocide and denial.

Chomsky only did that very late in the game, and after the Khmer Rouge were overthrown. When they were in power he definitely wrote apologetics for them. It was quite subtle but unquestionable. In fact, he appears to be the one who started the ridiculous idea, still being repeated, that the mass starvation in Cambodia was due the US bombing of that country. (That bombing had ended two years before the Khmer Rouge took power).

Chomsky is a polemicist. He presents an issue with his own particular spin, and that spin isn't simply an interpretation of the events. It is an interpretation derived from a pre-existing agenda.

That said, I think he does happen to be right on this issue, and he is right to focus on the process as the crucial factor that makes Obama worse than Bush.

Oh yeah it was subtle.

It was subtle because it is nonsense.

He tried to get to the facts as best he could. He had no agenda beyond trying to know what really happened.

It is those with an agenda that distort his position and call it subtle.

What was subtle was that he sought to shift the blame to the United States without addressing the activities of the Khmer Rouge directly.

What "truth" did he try to get out? The US bombing of Cambodia ended two years before the Khmer Rouge came to power. Chomsky counted on his readers not knowing that. What sense does it make to claim that massive bombing two years earlier suddenly caused mass starvation when it hadn't caused mass starvation while it was actually going on?

The bombing is what gave us the Khmer Rouge.

Two years after the US genocide in Cambodia the place was a murderous hell hole.

Another shining example of US foreign policy in action. We recently did a similar thing in Iraq, albeit on a smaller scale, and guess what, it is still a hell hole.

The issue is incredibly violent and irrational and counter-productive US policy.

Not Noam Chomsky.