Willy 2's source (not at all surprising):
http://conservapedia.com/Noam_Chomsky
You voting Perry or Romney or writing in for Rush, Willy 2?
On Sep 14, 2011, at 8:54 PM, emptybill wrote:
> Chomsky is a bullshit academic who never lets facts stand in the way of
> rhetoric.
>
> Chomsky denied the Cambodian Genocide, claiming that the killing had been
> inflated "by a factor of 100." He further asserted that the (in reality) 2 to
> 3 million Cambodians slaughtered by the Khmer Rouge from 1975 to 1978 were
> morally comparable to Nazi collaborators during WW2, and that Pol Pot's
> Cambodia was "comparable to France after liberation [from the Nazis]."
> Chomsky recently (1995) claimed, in the wake of overwhelming evidence to the
> contrary, that the death toll in Cambodia may have been inflated "by a factor
> of a thousand." Since he was responding to an estimate of two million dead,
> his words would imply that the real toll was on the order of two thousand.
> (Note: Investigators have uncovered and examined the remains of 1,386,734
> Cambodians found in mass graves near Khmer Rouge execution centers whose
> cause of death has been determined by the investigators to have been
> virtually exclusively execution by the former Khmer Rouge regime. Because no
> more than roughly half of those who died during the Khmer Rouge years were
> executed (the rest having died from other causes like state-created famine,
> the deliberate withholding of basic necessities by the state, the refusal by
> the state to allow foreign aid, the abolishing of medicine and hospitals by
> the state, systematic overwork and slave labor by the state, and normal
> mortality), the Documentation Center of Cambodia estimates that the former
> regime killed or otherwise caused the unnecessary deaths of, between 2 and
> 2.5 million Cambodians (with 2.5 to 3 million dying and half a million of
> these representing normal mortality for the period). A UN investigation
> reported 2-3 million dead, while UNICEF estimated 3 million dead. Even the
> Khmer Rouge acknowledged that 2 million had been killed—though they
> attributed those deaths to a subsequent Vietnamese invasion.
> Chomsky has claimed that Pearl Harbor saved millions of lives and that
> America and Britain used Nazi armies to attack the Soviet Union and prolong
> the Holocaust.
> Chomsky has stated: "Of course, no one supposed that Mao literally murdered
> tens of millions of people, or that he `intended' that any die at all." In
> fact, a comprehensive analysis by Professor R.J. Rummel concluded that Mao
> was responsible for the deaths of 76 million Chinese.
> Chomsky regularly compares the "alleged" genocide in Cambodia to the 24-year
> occupation of East Timor by Indonesia. He wrote: "The harshest critics claim
> that perhaps 100,000 people have been slaughtered [inCambodia]… Comparing
> East Timor with Cambodia, we see that the time frame of alleged atrocities is
> the same, the numbers allegedly slaughtered are roughly comparable in
> absolute terms, and five to ten times as high in East Timor relative to
> population… my own conclusion is that the sources in the [case of] East Timor
> are more credible…" Based on the findings of genocide investigators, as
> mentioned above; about 2.2 million people were killed by the Khmer Rouge in
> Cambodia in less than 4 years. A Truth Commission found that 89-214,000
> Timorese out of more than 700,000 were killed during the 24-year occupation,
> about 3/4 of them by Indonesia. Suharto killed far less people in absolute
> terms over decades in one of the world's most populous countries than Pol Pot
> killed in three years in a country with 8 million people, and exponentially
> less relative to the size of the population.
> Chomsky denied any genocide or mass reprisals in Laos after the Communist
> victory, stating that the Pathet Lao "have made some efforts to achieve
> reconciliation with the mountain tribesmen who had been organized in the CIA
> clandestine army." Some 100,000 tribes people had been exterminated in a
> campaign of genocide at the time.
> Chomsky once wrote: "At the end of 1978 Cambodia [under the Khmer Rouge] was
> the only country in Indochina that had succeeded at all in overcoming the
> agricultural crisis that was left by the American destruction." By late 1979,
> UN and Red Cross officials were warning that another 2.25 million Cambodians
> faced death by starvation due to "the near destruction of Cambodian society
> under the regime of ousted Prime Minister Pol Pot," who were saved by
> American and international aid. The Cambodian communists' economic plans
> were, at times, utterly surreal. Scholar David Chandler notes that, in a
> Democratic Kampuchea report on General Political Tasks of 1976, there are
> three lines devoted to education, and six devoted to urine. The document
> states that, regarding human urine, "We collect thirty per cent. That leaves
> a surplus of 70%." These were indicative of the types of policies that
> Chomsky and his co-writer, Edward Herman, claimed had lifted Cambodia out of
> the ashes of war.
> Chomsky openly claimed in 1977 that Pol Pot had saved more than one million
> lives. He did so by citing a Nixon administration statement that US aid to
> Cambodia should continue because the Khmer Rouge would likely kill more than
> one million people if they took over, and then falsely restating it to imply
> that more than one million Cambodians would starve to death if aid was cut
> off. At the time of this essay, the Khmer Rouge had probably already killed
> more than one million people, but Chomsky was still claiming that "executions
> numbered at most in the thousands," that Khmer Rouge atrocities had been
> "inflated by a factor of 100" and that those the Khmer Rouge had allegedly
> refrained from killing were actually saved by the Khmer Rouge. One million
> people had not died since aid was terminated, he said, therefore one million
> lives had been saved from starvation by the Khmer Rouge's ingenious economic
> policies. Thus did Chomsky praise Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge for "saving"
> the lives of dead people who they had murdered. (Chomsky is also implying
> that the US cut off aid to Cambodia, when it actually had an unconditional
> offer to supply aid to it. Aid was terminated by the Khmer Rouge).
> Chomsky has praised Imperial Japan for allegedly "saving maybe tens of
> millions of lives."
> Chomsky has expressed support for the former Communist dictatorship of
> Angola: "The defense of Angola was one of Cuba's most significant
> contributions to the liberation of Africa." Cuban military intervention in
> support of the communist MPLA dictatorship in Angola led to decades of civil
> war that cost 1 million lives. Other Cuban "contributions to the liberation
> of Africa" include fighting for the communist dictatorship inEthiopia, which
> killed 1.25 million people by massacre and forced starvation.
> Chomsky has repeatedly denied that the former Sandinista regime in Nicaragua
> committed any human rights violations at all. According to the Nicaraguan
> Commission of Jurists, the regime carried out some 8,000 political murders
> within its first three years in power.
> Chomsky also strongly approved of the Sandinista's economic policies, writing
> that "the crime of the Sandinistas was to carry out successful development…
> they immediately began to divert resources to the poor part of the
> population." Within a few years of Sandinista rule, wages had been fixed
> below poverty level and there was mass unemployment. There were shortages of
> nearly all basic goods, with inflation at 30,000%. Government studies found
> that three-quarters of schoolchildren suffered from malnutrition, while
> living standards were lower than Haiti. The World Bank found that Nicaragua
> was on the economic level of Somalia.
> Chomsky referred to 22 Israeli schoolchildren murdered by Palestinian
> terrorists as "members of a paramilitary youth group." He falsely claimed
> there had been "an exchange of fire" between the schoolchildren and the
> terrorists.
> Chomsky claimed after the 9/11 attacks that "Western civilization is
> anticipating the slaughter of, well do the arithmetic, 3-4 million people or
> something like that [in Afghanistan]… Looks like what's happening is some
> sort of silent genocide… we are in the midst of apparently trying to murder 3
> or 4 million people…" Far from killing millions, the American intervention
> saved lives. UNICEF figures indicate that the deaths of 112,000 children and
> 7,500 pregnant women have been prevented every year since as a result. The US
> invasion saved millions of Afghans from starvation. Chomsky responded by
> claiming in 2002 that it was still possible that millions might starve to
> death, but that the Americans and the media could cover it up: "What the
> effects will be, we will never know. Starvation is not something that kills
> people instantly. People eat roots and leaves and they drag on for a while.
> And the effects of starvation may be the death of children born from
> malnourished mothers a year or two from now, and all sorts of consequences.
> Furthermore, nobody's going to look because the West is not interested in
> such things and others don't have the resources."
> Chomsky believes that there are "no anti-Semitic implications in denial of
> the existence of gas chambers, or even denial of the Holocaust."
> Chomsky has repeatedly claimed that there has never been so much as a
> misplaced comma in any of his writings and that no valid criticism of any of
> his statements or ideas has ever been published by anyone.
> Chomsky has lied about the views of Holocaust deniers (Faurisson, Serge
> Thion) by praising them as "libertarian Socialists with a long-standing
> record of opposition to all forms of totalitarianism." He also published one
> of his books (The Political Economy of Human Rights, a book filled with more
> noble efforts to disprove the bloodbath in Cambodia) in a series directed by
> a Holocaust denier (Pierre Guillaume). He has praised Holocaust deniers,
> endorsed their political and academic credentials, collaborated in their
> propaganda campaigns, and whitewashed their anti-Semitic and neo-Nazi agenda.
> He signed a petition in support of Faurisson's denials of the Holocaust;
> although he claimed that he was only expressing solidarity with his right to
> free speech, the petition that Chomsky signed dignified Faurisson's writings
> by affirming his scholarly credentials ("a respected professor" of "document
> criticism"); describing his lies as "extensive historical research"; placing
> the term "Holocaust" in derisory quotation marks; and portraying his lies as
> "findings" (a very typical Chomsky propaganda technique). More obscenely,
> Chomsky added that "I sign innumerable petitions of this nature, and do not
> recall ever having refused to sign one." At the time of this controversy,
> Chomsky had just finished publicly bragging about his outspoken refusal to
> sign petitions calling for human rights in Communist Vietnam--even as it
> massacred many hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese men, women, and
> children en masse and drowned at sea hundreds of thousands more. On that
> occasion, he had explained that "public protest is a political act, to be
> judged in terms of its likely human consequences," which included the
> likelihood that the American media "would distort and exploit it for their
> propagandistic purposes.
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anitaoaks4u@... <no_reply@...> wrote:
> >
> > That's why most Republicans want to reform it to keep it viable, (even the
> > Democrats realize that). Romney would be an excellent choice in November
> > 2012!
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
> > >
> > > The whole article is well worth reading.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > But I think, myself, that there's a more subtle reason why they're
> > > opposed to it, and I think it's rather similar to the reason for the
> > > effort to pretty much dismantle the public education system. Social
> > > Security is based on a principle. It's based on the principle that you
> > > care about other people. You care whether the widow across town, a
> > > disabled widow, is going to be able to have food to eat. And that's a
> > > notion you have to drive out of people's heads. The idea of solidarity,
> > > sympathy, mutual support, that's doctrinally dangerous. The preferred
> > > doctrines are just care about yourself, don't care about anyone else.
> > > That's a very good way to trap and control people. And the very idea that
> > > we're in it together, that we care about each other, that we have
> > > responsibility for one another, that's sort of frightening to those who
> > > want a society which is dominated by power, authority, wealth, in which
> > > people are passive and obedient. And I suspect—I don't know how to
> > > measure it exactly, but I think that that's a considerable part of the
> > > drive on the part of small, privileged sectors to undermine a very
> > > efficient, very effective system on which a large part of the population
> > > relies, actually relies more than ever, because wealth, personal wealth,
> > > was very much tied up in the housing market. That was people's personal
> > > wealth. Well, OK, that, quite predictably, totally collapsed. People
> > > aren't destitute by the standards of, say, slums in India or southern
> > > Africa, but very many are suffering severely. And they have nothing else
> > > to rely on, but the pittance that they're getting from Social Security.
> > > To take that away would be just disastrous.
> > >
> > > © 2011 Democracy Now! All rights reserved.
> > > View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/152398/
> > >
> >
>
>
>
