How come when people accuse Chomsky of supporting Pol Pot they dont quote him or cite the work?

How come when people accuse Chomsky of supporting Pol Pot they dont quote him or cite the work?
Isn't that a somewhat glaring omission?

Other urls found in this thread:

mekong.net/cambodia/chomsky.htm
youtube.com/watch?v=f3IUU59B6lw
youtube.com/watch?v=7yVXVTBcmsc
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Because no one has any legitimate criticisms of him, he's simply right.

When mom interrupts your masturbation, you don't want a discussion you just want her to go away so you can get back to fucking yourself. So you imply she supports some crazy fascist regime.

>The question of whether or not Noam Chomsky supported the Khmer Rouge is not as clear as either his critics or his defenders would like to pretend. His critics frequently extract a handful of quotes from "Distortions at Fourth Hand" or After the Cataclysm and suggest that Chomsky was an enthusiastic advocate for the Cambodian communists. His defenders, meanwhile, limit their collections of quotes to Chomsky's disclaimers and qualifiers, conveniently ignoring the underlying theme of his articles: that Khmer Rouge Cambodia was not nearly as bad as the regime's detractors claimed.

Lots of stuff here bub.

mekong.net/cambodia/chomsky.htm

Even if he did support Pol Pot the situation in Cambodia was fucked beyond belief and there wasn't a flow of reliable information to have known what the Khmer Rouge were actually about

underrated post.

>lots of stuff here bub

No, theres not
youtube.com/watch?v=f3IUU59B6lw

>collections of disclaimers and qualifers
>we don't know
>the state department says
>it could very well turn out to be true

The point of their work was twofold

1) We should stick to the truth.
Everyone was citing a translation of a review of a French priests book that said a million. Chomsky and Bernard Herman did a really radical thing: they went and got a copy of the book!
And low and behold guess what it did not say the Khmer Rouge killed a million.
It said 500,000 were killed by the AMERICAN bombing, and a couple hundred thousand more by the resulting breakdown of society. And then had a figure for the Khmers rise to power.
Somewhere along the line in the translation or the review these figures had been conflated into one and attributed to a single source.
When Chomsky pointed this out to the reviewer and that everyone was citing him and he ought to correct it, his reply was that it didn't matter if it was 10,000 or a million.
Imagine if Chomsky defended someone with a statement like that?
There were other examples, like concentration camp photos that were faked in Cambodia, but I wont bother explaining them because you get the idea by now.
So Chomsky and Herman went to the State Department and got its figures - which were in the tens of thousands, and qualified it by saying its sources are limited and the scope could very well prove to be what people are exaggerating.

2) Comparing the outrage to East Timor
At the exact same time Cambodia was occurring, another atrocity was taking place. Indonesia was invading East Timor, in the opening months the death toll was said to have been as high as 10% of the population.
Unlike the Khmer Rouge, there was something America could do about East Timor.
Ford and Kissinger had visited Jakarta to approve the whole thing. 90% of Indonesias arms came from the USA and America sells arms on the condition they only be used for defence.
So America is directly complicit having sanctioned the action and could readily stop it by cutting off the arms.
And the American media and academia was silent about this.
While tearing its hair out over Cambodia

You want to see what support for Pol Pot sounds like, look up what Samuel P. Huntington was writing about him after 1979 when the USA began supporting the Khmer Rouge

>in the opening months the death toll was said to have been as high as 10% of the population.
By the end of the 24 year occupation, aprox. 1/3rd of the population had been killed
The population at the time of the invasion was only 700,000

>Give him lots of stuff
>He links me a fucking Youtube video in response

Mein Gott.

the video answers everything

And I wrote a long and detailed response

>The United States wished things to turn out as they did, and worked to bring this about. The Department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook. This task was given to me, and I carried it forward with no inconsiderable success.
>Daniel Patrick Moynihan. US Ambassador to the UN. Describing his role in blocking UN resolutions to condemn Indonesias invasion and sanction Indonesia.

Imagine if someone had said this about Cambodia?

>He thinks his singular post can compare to an incredibly long, detailed and well-cited page on an impartial website dedicated to Cambodian history

>youtube.com/watch?v=f3IUU59B6lw
>youtube.com/watch?v=f3IUU59B6lw
>youtube.com/watch?v=f3IUU59B6lw

youtube.com/watch?v=7yVXVTBcmsc

Chomsky never recovered

I'm pretty sure Chomsky just did like he always does which is discounting whatever American media and the U.S government says about other countries as most likely propaganda, and hence this is simply what he reflexively believed about Cambodia as well.

He was obviously blinded by his ideological convictions.

>translation of review conflates several different figures
>photos faked in Thailand
>Chomsky just did like he always does which is discounting whatever American media and the U.S government says
>He was obviously blinded by his ideological convictions

>American client state doing the exact same thing in the region is given zero media coverage

>translation of review conflates several different figures
>photos faked in Thailand

What?

>least rare pepy

Cambodia
Everyone was citing a translation of a review of a French priests book. The book had several different death tolls attributed to different acts, one of the biggest was the deaths caused by the American bombing.
Somehow all these different figures were conflated into one and attributed to the Khmer Rouge
Then everyone in American media and academia began tearing their hair out of Cambodia and citing this work, or the translated review anyway
Another piece of evidence everyone loved were photos of concentration camps - that were in fact faked in Thailand

So what's your point? The media sensationalizes something that turns out to be correct, and Chomsky was wrong either way?

It's mostly autistic """""""Zizekians""""""""

Who really are a bunch of edgy commies who can't deal with the fact that communism is a joke in the 21st century and have to flock to a meme """""philosopher"""""who is pretty much an useless sophistical fraud with the likes of a charlatan.

Pol Pot did nothing wrong but Chomsky is still a low T faggot cuck

>It's mostly autistic """""""Zizekians""""""""
It's definitely not, the Pol Pot thing has been going on for decades now. It's more an accident of Chomsky's success since that time, others were more famous than him and also said similar things (quite a few even went much further). But how many 70s lefty intellectuals are prominent today? Chomsky is like the big daddy now, so people fling all sorts of bs.

Yes except Chomsky was justified in his belief.

The fuck are you on about. Lurk more retard

>ywn have long, sweaty, argumentative meetings in MIT seminar rooms with Chomsky, Lees, Postal, and Katz as you pound out the beginnings of generative grammar in the early 60's, always followed by intense stress-reducing gay orgies with chalk dust and pipe smoke in the air

#born in the wrong generation

I'd like to mention that the whole "American bombings killed more than the Khmer Rouge" is actual common sense outside of the anglosphere. No one in the rest of the world even bats an eye at the US committing war crimes anymore, everyone just sort of accepts since no one wants to be target to war crimes.