4 ms·

> Chomsky, for some weird reason, chose to take Russia's side. Chomsky's foreign policy views can somewhat accurately be reduced to "everything is either Ameri

> Chomsky, for some weird reason, chose to take Russia's side. Chomsky's foreign policy views can somewhat accurately be reduced to "everything is either American imperialism or reactions against it," to a degree that he ignores the imperialist tendencies (and other unpleasantries) of countries that aren't the US because they're against the US. For example, his denial of the Cambodian genocide essentially boiled down to "well, the US doesn't like the Khmer Rouge, so therefore everybody criticizing the Khmer Rouge was overselling the criticism, how was anyone at the time to know what they were doing?"

spdgg 2y ago
While not fresh on the specifics of this controversy, my implicit understanding through Manufacturing Consent was that the Cambodian genocide was more likely a consequence of the United States bombing Cambodia's arable farmland into a booby trapped hellscape, which caused many people to flee to the capital. After some geopolitical games the US played, a psychopath became head of state for Cambodia, and one of those initiatives was ordering those starving people to suddenly leave the capital and go farm, and another was to unalive people at death camps. I don't think he denied the genocide. It makes a lot of sense that many people died of famine as a direct consequence of US destruction of arable farmland, and that the US would create a narrative to hide that and did not let the tragedy of Pol Pot "go to waste".
- tim333 2y ago
  >It makes a lot of sense that many people died of famine as a direct consequence of US destruction of arable farmland I don't think that makes sense - they only bombed a small percentage of Cambodia but no doubt the turmoil helped Pol Pot get into power.
  - spdgg 2y ago
    Assuming that small percentage were most of the arable farmland in Cambodia, would it make more sense? That is to say, if you were misled to believe the impact was smaller than reality would it make you think differently? Small being a relative term. IIRC, IT WAS 25% of Cambodia's landmass and most of its good farmland.
charlesfries 2y ago
Christopher Hitchens on Chomsky and 9/11: "...it would be a credulous fool who swallowed the (unsupported) word of Osama Bin Laden that his group was the one responsible. An attempt to kidnap or murder an ex-president of the United States (and presumably, by extension, the sitting one) would be as legally justified as the hit on Abbottabad. And America is an incarnation of the Third Reich that doesn’t even conceal its genocidal methods and aspirations. This is the sum total of what has been learned, by the guru of the left, in the last decade." https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2011/05/noam-chomsky-on-osama-bin-laden-stupid-inconsistent-and-ignorant.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2011/05/noam-chomsky-on-...
- Cacti 2y ago
  Hitchens supported the war and voted for Bush. Of course he hates Chomsky.
- matteoraso 2y ago
  This is a serious mischaracterization of what Chomsky said. He didn't argue that Osama bin Laden didn't do 9/11, he argued that the American government denied him the right to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
- darby_nine 2y ago
  [flagged]

spdgg 2y ago

While not fresh on the specifics of this controversy, my implicit understanding through Manufacturing Consent was that the Cambodian genocide was more likely a consequence of the United States bombing Cambodia's arable farmland into a booby trapped hellscape, which caused many people to flee to the capital. After some geopolitical games the US played, a psychopath became head of state for Cambodia, and one of those initiatives was ordering those starving people to suddenly leave the capital and go farm, and another was to unalive people at death camps. I don't think he denied the genocide. It makes a lot of sense that many people died of famine as a direct consequence of US destruction of arable farmland, and that the US would create a narrative to hide that and did not let the tragedy of Pol Pot "go to waste".

tim333 2y ago
>It makes a lot of sense that many people died of famine as a direct consequence of US destruction of arable farmland I don't think that makes sense - they only bombed a small percentage of Cambodia but no doubt the turmoil helped Pol Pot get into power.
- spdgg 2y ago
  Assuming that small percentage were most of the arable farmland in Cambodia, would it make more sense? That is to say, if you were misled to believe the impact was smaller than reality would it make you think differently? Small being a relative term. IIRC, IT WAS 25% of Cambodia's landmass and most of its good farmland.

charlesfries 2y ago

Christopher Hitchens on Chomsky and 9/11: "...it would be a credulous fool who swallowed the (unsupported) word of Osama Bin Laden that his group was the one responsible. An attempt to kidnap or murder an ex-president of the United States (and presumably, by extension, the sitting one) would be as legally justified as the hit on Abbottabad. And America is an incarnation of the Third Reich that doesn’t even conceal its genocidal methods and aspirations. This is the sum total of what has been learned, by the guru of the left, in the last decade." https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2011/05/noam-chomsky-on-osama-bin-laden-stupid-inconsistent-and-ignorant.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2011/05/noam-chomsky-on-...

Cacti 2y ago
Hitchens supported the war and voted for Bush. Of course he hates Chomsky.
matteoraso 2y ago
This is a serious mischaracterization of what Chomsky said. He didn't argue that Osama bin Laden didn't do 9/11, he argued that the American government denied him the right to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
darby_nine 2y ago
[flagged]