The thing is, every nation acts based on their own self-interests. Except they weren't bothered with the "freedom" and "democracy" banner the Americans like to wave around so much. I'm not saying American is worse or better than any other countries, they just have the mean to do those stuff while brainwashing their population with the "justice" cover.
I disagree. A nation can chose to not act, based on the interests of others. The propaganda, however, is of course that we must always act on everything. This is the lie we want to believe so we can fuel our egos, exalting ourselves with the duty of solving all the world's crisis (and ignoring the inconvenient ones)
any video that uses Noam Chomsky as a so-called expert is not to be taken seriously. He is a genocide denier of the first order, claiming recently that the Cambodian communist Khmer Rouge killed only 20,000 people before the Vietnamese invasion. This is a pure lie. He fabricates and ignores history to conform with his thesis that the US is responsible for all that is wrong with the world.
Simply because there was controversy about his figures on Cambodia, it doesn't seem to jive with me at least, that everything else he says should not be taken seriously. He's an authority on a considerable number of topics. Do you offer anything other than your opinion that governments are inherently perfect, and the US has every right to be ruler of the world?
I happen to know a lot about Cambodia, and I have read all of Chomsky's material related to Cambodia. His "estimates" are that 20,000 people were killed by the communists. He is off by a factor of 100. This is not surprising, because he discounted refugee accounts and took the KR at their word. If he uses the same "methods" elsewhere that he did in Cambodia, his writing is little more than pro-leftist and anti-American propaganda.
I agree, Chomsky tends to rely upon published, peer-reviewed material, and takes them at their word. He doesn't take the word off the street usually. Care to enlighten us how exactly one arrives at the "official estimate" of war death tolls, and by which side? The US government is off by a factor of 10 for Iraq, this is demonstrated. Further, I fail to see how exact he needs to be when his point is, which if you cared, is the extent to which it is reported relative to other atrocities
Chomsky has settled on 20,000 or 25,000 killed by the KR. In S21 prison alone, that many people were killed. After a while, a consensus emerges - in Cambodia people (besides Chomsky) place the number killed by the KR at 1.5 million - 2+ million. A quick visit to S21 and any of the thousands of other killing field memorials will inform a person that far more that 25,000 people were killed. Chomsky still stands by that number. He still denies there was a genocide.
I have no idea where you are getting your information from, you yourself have failed to cite any references that Chomsky says this. In Manufacturing Consent, he acknowledges there was genocide. In fact he rather uninterestingly contends all of his arguments about Cambodia and East Timor using the generally agreed estimate of between 1-2 million deaths.
If I am comparing the way the media covers two crimes, but I grossly lie about the nature of those crimes, my analysis is worthless. Such is the case with Chomsky.
Your analysis is in fact worthless, because you have not presented any facts on who says what and when. Should be clear to anyone reading this by now you simply want any excuse to attack those who are critical of the US.
you choose to ignore the facts I have presented. Read Distortions at Forth Hand, an article written by Chomsky and his pal E. Herman. See if that jives with reality.
As I suspect you speak of an irrelevant controversy - try actually reading about those whom you intend to criticize. To get to the bottom of this - "Chomsky observed that Lacouture had inflated Ponchaud's estimates of civilian casualties to the tune of two million. In a correction published subsequently in the NY Review, Lacouture withdrew his claim and confessed that he "should have checked more accurately the figures on victims, figures deriving from sources that are, moreover, questionable."
"The reason for the remarkable campaign of lies about my writings on Cambodia is quite clear. It began after I wrote a personal letter to Lacouture, pointing out to him that he had grossly falsified Ponchaud's book in a review that appeared in Novel Observateur and the New York Review. Lacouture printed partial corrections in the U.S., but, revealing the total contempt that he and his editor feel for the French intelligentsia, he never issued corrections in France, assuming that no one would..."
Try reading what he has written on the matter. In Distortions at Forth Hand, Chomsky claims 20,000 people had been killed by the Khmer Rouge. He and Herman claim that the forced evacuation of Phnom Penh (which alone killed 20,000) may actually have been a good thing. Just this year in January Magazine he claimed he would change nothing in this aforementioned article.
This is simple fallacy of evidence - Chomsky doesn't say Khmer were only responsible for 20,000. You are in a fallacy. Nobody is debating Khmer atrocities. Prove to me in a quote where he denies a genocide, I need it in a direct phrase. You can't. Therefore - Chomsky's aim is to hold people accountable in reporting, and, will bring any lack of evidence to light, especially when nobody else cares to do it. Not just when it enhances enemies of the state, i.e. communists, to benefit the gov't
The quote cannot fit within the 500 character maximum. Chomksy makes his case with a selection of dubious citations. If you google "Chomsky Cambodia", the first hit from Mekong Net goes well into how Chomksy distorted the facts on the ground and continually denied atrocities were occurring.
If I told you that only 80,000 Jews were killed by the Nazis, which is normal for a government in transition, would you take anything else I said seriously?
I'm not sure I said anything suggesting that governments are perfect, or that the US should rule the world.
In corporate special interest.
youngdones 1 year ago
The thing is, every nation acts based on their own self-interests. Except they weren't bothered with the "freedom" and "democracy" banner the Americans like to wave around so much. I'm not saying American is worse or better than any other countries, they just have the mean to do those stuff while brainwashing their population with the "justice" cover.
lateDawn56 3 years ago
I disagree. A nation can chose to not act, based on the interests of others. The propaganda, however, is of course that we must always act on everything. This is the lie we want to believe so we can fuel our egos, exalting ourselves with the duty of solving all the world's crisis (and ignoring the inconvenient ones)
harpoonflyby 3 years ago
any video that uses Noam Chomsky as a so-called expert is not to be taken seriously. He is a genocide denier of the first order, claiming recently that the Cambodian communist Khmer Rouge killed only 20,000 people before the Vietnamese invasion. This is a pure lie. He fabricates and ignores history to conform with his thesis that the US is responsible for all that is wrong with the world.
jeffmagic32 3 years ago
Simply because there was controversy about his figures on Cambodia, it doesn't seem to jive with me at least, that everything else he says should not be taken seriously. He's an authority on a considerable number of topics. Do you offer anything other than your opinion that governments are inherently perfect, and the US has every right to be ruler of the world?
harpoonflyby 3 years ago
I happen to know a lot about Cambodia, and I have read all of Chomsky's material related to Cambodia. His "estimates" are that 20,000 people were killed by the communists. He is off by a factor of 100. This is not surprising, because he discounted refugee accounts and took the KR at their word. If he uses the same "methods" elsewhere that he did in Cambodia, his writing is little more than pro-leftist and anti-American propaganda.
jeffmagic32 3 years ago
I agree, Chomsky tends to rely upon published, peer-reviewed material, and takes them at their word. He doesn't take the word off the street usually. Care to enlighten us how exactly one arrives at the "official estimate" of war death tolls, and by which side? The US government is off by a factor of 10 for Iraq, this is demonstrated. Further, I fail to see how exact he needs to be when his point is, which if you cared, is the extent to which it is reported relative to other atrocities
harpoonflyby 3 years ago
Chomsky has settled on 20,000 or 25,000 killed by the KR. In S21 prison alone, that many people were killed. After a while, a consensus emerges - in Cambodia people (besides Chomsky) place the number killed by the KR at 1.5 million - 2+ million. A quick visit to S21 and any of the thousands of other killing field memorials will inform a person that far more that 25,000 people were killed. Chomsky still stands by that number. He still denies there was a genocide.
jeffmagic32 3 years ago
I have no idea where you are getting your information from, you yourself have failed to cite any references that Chomsky says this. In Manufacturing Consent, he acknowledges there was genocide. In fact he rather uninterestingly contends all of his arguments about Cambodia and East Timor using the generally agreed estimate of between 1-2 million deaths.
harpoonflyby 3 years ago
If I am comparing the way the media covers two crimes, but I grossly lie about the nature of those crimes, my analysis is worthless. Such is the case with Chomsky.
jeffmagic32 3 years ago
Your analysis is in fact worthless, because you have not presented any facts on who says what and when. Should be clear to anyone reading this by now you simply want any excuse to attack those who are critical of the US.
harpoonflyby 3 years ago
you choose to ignore the facts I have presented. Read Distortions at Forth Hand, an article written by Chomsky and his pal E. Herman. See if that jives with reality.
jeffmagic32 3 years ago
As I suspect you speak of an irrelevant controversy - try actually reading about those whom you intend to criticize. To get to the bottom of this - "Chomsky observed that Lacouture had inflated Ponchaud's estimates of civilian casualties to the tune of two million. In a correction published subsequently in the NY Review, Lacouture withdrew his claim and confessed that he "should have checked more accurately the figures on victims, figures deriving from sources that are, moreover, questionable."
harpoonflyby 3 years ago
"The reason for the remarkable campaign of lies about my writings on Cambodia is quite clear. It began after I wrote a personal letter to Lacouture, pointing out to him that he had grossly falsified Ponchaud's book in a review that appeared in Novel Observateur and the New York Review. Lacouture printed partial corrections in the U.S., but, revealing the total contempt that he and his editor feel for the French intelligentsia, he never issued corrections in France, assuming that no one would..."
harpoonflyby 3 years ago
Google is your friend. I believe Chomsky is on your side, so perhaps you should stop attacking him on YouTube?
harpoonflyby 3 years ago
Try reading what he has written on the matter. In Distortions at Forth Hand, Chomsky claims 20,000 people had been killed by the Khmer Rouge. He and Herman claim that the forced evacuation of Phnom Penh (which alone killed 20,000) may actually have been a good thing. Just this year in January Magazine he claimed he would change nothing in this aforementioned article.
jeffmagic32 3 years ago
This is simple fallacy of evidence - Chomsky doesn't say Khmer were only responsible for 20,000. You are in a fallacy. Nobody is debating Khmer atrocities. Prove to me in a quote where he denies a genocide, I need it in a direct phrase. You can't. Therefore - Chomsky's aim is to hold people accountable in reporting, and, will bring any lack of evidence to light, especially when nobody else cares to do it. Not just when it enhances enemies of the state, i.e. communists, to benefit the gov't
harpoonflyby 3 years ago
The quote cannot fit within the 500 character maximum. Chomksy makes his case with a selection of dubious citations. If you google "Chomsky Cambodia", the first hit from Mekong Net goes well into how Chomksy distorted the facts on the ground and continually denied atrocities were occurring.
jeffmagic32 3 years ago
If I told you that only 80,000 Jews were killed by the Nazis, which is normal for a government in transition, would you take anything else I said seriously?
I'm not sure I said anything suggesting that governments are perfect, or that the US should rule the world.
jeffmagic32 3 years ago
If only Americans knew the dirty secrets our Government has been hiding.
USSLIBERTY1 3 years ago
I think this is going to get a lot of views.
jonathan12376 3 years ago
Fantastic film! 5 stars, since I can't give any more.
Irtidad 3 years ago 6
wow..powerful stuff
Oceansize1 3 years ago 5