(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.
(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.