V:
Thanks for making my job easier and supplying the debate.
I will recopy some of that debate here for MT’s consumption.
From the “Nation” article:
Chomsky approvingly refers to “analyses by highly qualified
specialists who have studied the full range of evidence available, and
who concluded that executions have numbered at most in the thousands.”
(N., p. 791, column 1)
Chomsky repeatedly ridicules refugee reports, which later turned out
to be accurate. (A generation earlier, other leftists showered
similar contempt on refugee reports from Stalinist Russia, which later
turned out to be accurate.):
[Authors approved by Chomsky] “testify to the extreme
unreliability of refugee reports, and the need to treat them with
great caution, a fact that we and others have discussed elsewhere (cf.
Chomsky: ‘At War with Asia’ on the problems of interpreting reports
of refugees from American bombing in Laos). Refugees are frightened
and defenseless, at the mercy of alien forces. They naturally tend to
report what they believe their interlocutors wish to hear. While
their reports must be considered seriously, care and caution are
necessary. Specifically, refugees questioned by Westerners or Thais
have a vested interest in reporting atrocities on the part of
Cambodian revolutionaries, an obvious fact that no serious reporter
will fail to take into account.” (N, p. 791, column 2)
“It is interesting that a 1.2 million estimate [of the Khmer Rouge
death toll] is attributed by Ponchaud to the American Embassy
(presumably Bangkok), a completely worthless source, as the historical
record amply demonstrates. The figure bears a suggestive similarity
to the prediction by U.S. officials at the war’s end that a million
would die in the next year.” (N., p. 791, columns 2 to 3)
“The ‘slaughter’ by the Khmer Rouge is a Moss-‘New York Times’
creation” (N., p. 792, column 1)
Now, as to whether or not he is a linguistics expert that deserves the treatment he gets Hoedad, that is what I am asking. I do not understand linguistics to the degree that is required. I am merely asking whether he deserves these accolades or whether this is “manufactured consent?”
Finally, Noam and I may both be convinced that a certain set of beliefs is true, etc. but I do not see Fred Smith quoting himself to prove points. Why is it that every debate about Noam Chomsky has a series of quotes that are eventually traced back to zmag.org or Noam himself? See the many quotes that v supplied above?
Okay must run. Will try to get back to this later. AGAIN not at the computer much this week so give me time to respond.
.