• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Venezuela: la mierda hits el ventilador

I've confirmed you have insane ideas that conform to no evidence.

I know Chomsky has his enemies.

I didn't know these enemies had deluded flunkies.

By resorting to namecalling you're showing that you have no actual argument--in effect, you are conceding.

What do you say to a person who is deliberately spreading absolute lies?

Lies that cannot be supported with any evidence?

In no universe did Chomsky ever support Pol Pot.

All he ever did was try to set the record straight and expose the distortions coming out of Washington and the US media.

Chomsky was never for a day in his life a Communist. He is an Anarchist and has condemned Communism countless times.

Chomsky has described what Pol Pot did as atrocities.

That is what he thought of Pol Pot.
 
By resorting to namecalling you're showing that you have no actual argument--in effect, you are conceding.

What do you say to a person who is deliberately spreading absolute lies?

Lies that cannot be supported with any evidence?

In no universe did Chomsky ever support Pol Pot.

All he ever did was try to set the record straight and expose the distortions coming out of Washington and the US media.

Chomsky was never for a day in his life a Communist. He is an Anarchist and has condemned Communism countless times.

Chomsky has described what Pol Pot did as atrocities.

That is what he thought of Pol Pot.

I linked to a long paper about Chomskys position on the regime. He was never fully in support of it, he was luke warm towards it. He only fully came out against Pol Pot after the atrocities couldn't be denied.
 
What do you say to a person who is deliberately spreading absolute lies?

Lies that cannot be supported with any evidence?

In no universe did Chomsky ever support Pol Pot.

All he ever did was try to set the record straight and expose the distortions coming out of Washington and the US media.

Chomsky was never for a day in his life a Communist. He is an Anarchist and has condemned Communism countless times.

Chomsky has described what Pol Pot did as atrocities.

That is what he thought of Pol Pot.

I linked to a long paper about Chomskys position on the regime. He was never fully in support of it, he was luke warm towards it. He only fully came out against Pol Pot after the atrocities couldn't be denied.

Care to quote something, from Chomsky, to that effect?

I tried reading that diatribe, couldn't make it. Long on interpretation and chest beating, and short on facts. Meandering on issues like why Chomsky didn't regard Cambodian crimes as grievously as American(and of course, backed that assertion up with nothing).

If Chomsky was such a Khmer Rouge fan, there should be quotes.
 
There are no quotes from Chomsky supporting Pol Pot.

Not one.

That is why none have been provided.

All Chomsky did was comment on the reporting and look at the sources. He did no reporting himself.
 
There are no quotes from Chomsky supporting Pol Pot.

Not one.

That is why none have been provided.

All Chomsky did was comment on the reporting and look at the sources. He did no reporting himself.

He did more than that. He said the books the portrayed a positive assesment of the regime as well researched and ignored books, while books that pointed out the atrocities he called propaganda crap. He wrote publishers asking them to stop accepting books that talked about atrocities of the Khmer Rouge. If those had been American atrocities he wouldn't have done that but rather praised them for coming forward.
 
There are no quotes from Chomsky supporting Pol Pot.

Not one.

That is why none have been provided.

All Chomsky did was comment on the reporting and look at the sources. He did no reporting himself.

He did more than that. He said the books the portrayed a positive assesment of the regime as well researched and ignored books, while books that pointed out the atrocities he called propaganda crap. He wrote publishers asking them to stop accepting books that talked about atrocities of the Khmer Rouge. If those had been American atrocities he wouldn't have done that but rather praised them for coming forward.

Question.

Do you have any reason to think unter will accept any answer you give him not supported by some kind of cited source? Because he's been very specific about that for at least two pages now.

So if you're not going to meet his request then fine you can do whatever but this post you've just made is only wasting your own time.
 
He did more than that. He said the books the portrayed a positive assesment of the regime as well researched and ignored books, while books that pointed out the atrocities he called propaganda crap. He wrote publishers asking them to stop accepting books that talked about atrocities of the Khmer Rouge. If those had been American atrocities he wouldn't have done that but rather praised them for coming forward.

Question.

Do you have any reason to think unter will accept any answer you give him not supported by some kind of cited source? Because he's been very specific about that for at least two pages now.

He wouldn't accept anything less than Chomsky himself coming on here and saying it. I hadthe long article that went through most of Chomskys work and pointed out issues where he implicitly that he supported the regime and criticized any work that went against that. The opinion that Chomsky was a Pol Pot supporter didn't come from any recent things, it came from seeing his views during the 70s and 80s and it's stuck with him.
 
There are no quotes from Chomsky supporting Pol Pot.

Not one.

That is why none have been provided.

All Chomsky did was comment on the reporting and look at the sources. He did no reporting himself.

He did more than that. He said the books the portrayed a positive assesment of the regime as well researched and ignored books, while books that pointed out the atrocities he called propaganda crap. He wrote publishers asking them to stop accepting books that talked about atrocities of the Khmer Rouge. If those had been American atrocities he wouldn't have done that but rather praised them for coming forward.

He pointed out the facts. US media is biased towards government lies and propaganda.

You have no quote of him supporting Pol Pot.
 
Question.

Do you have any reason to think unter will accept any answer you give him not supported by some kind of cited source? Because he's been very specific about that for at least two pages now.

He wouldn't accept anything less than Chomsky himself coming on here and saying it. I hadthe long article that went through most of Chomskys work and pointed out issues where he implicitly that he supported the regime and criticized any work that went against that. The opinion that Chomsky was a Pol Pot supporter didn't come from any recent things, it came from seeing his views during the 70s and 80s and it's stuck with him.

You could not pull one quote to support your absolute nonsense.

At no time did Chomsky ever express support for Pol Pot.

That is an absolute lie.
 
If by "supposedly only spreads lies" you mean "Openly and directly provides both material support and propaganda support to an illegal coup against a democratically elected president," yes.

Is that better or worse than what Chomsky did?



AFAIK, it's one of the things he was worried about and hoped they would not use RCTV's dickish behavior as an excuse to crack down on freedom of the press, all while acknowledging that RCTV's behavior was undeniably QUITE dickish.

Are people consistent with that? Or is it only allowed if it's something you agree with? Chomsky would point that out in the US where media supposedly only reports news in favor of the government. When the Pentagon Papers came out they tried to get them charged with treason? Did Chomsky think the Pentagon Papers should be kept secret for example?

1a9.gif

I... don't even know what you're asking anymore.
 
Well, various officials in the U.S. government have actually been caught red handed lying about this kind of shit in the past -- if not openly admitted it. So the broader point is that you're better off not believing government sources AT ALL and instead going with independent media sources that can actually verify their claims with hard evidence.

The U.S. Government has a LONG history of fabricating evidence to denounce socialist/communist countries; hell, they even do it to countries we're supposed to be allies with ("Universal healthcare is a disaster and Canadians are dying in emergency rooms waiting for candy stripers to change their IVs!") For the most part, socialist banana republics have an equally long history of hiding or just ignoring their own misdeeds. All other things being equal, it's better to consider them both untrustworthy; however, in some cases, you can point to the U.S. Government's involvement in deliberately trying to undermine one regime or another, and one has to consider they have a much greater interest in lying about what's happening than the regime in question.

Basically: a guy who beats his wife is a lot more likely to lie about his wife being an alcoholic than the wife is.

Anything that disagrees with you is fake news.
That's literally the exact opposite of what I just posted, but on the one in a million chance that you are having a Big Boy Moment and capable of a little critical thinking:

No. The U.S. government has a strong anti-communist bias and tends to pressure its media to adopt anti-communist positions and news stories. Thus, any news story that is overly critical of communist/socialist governments, policies, politicians or ideas should be taken with a gain of salt, and all such news stories should be checked for sources to make sure that they ARE, in fact, pushing real stories and not just propaganda.
 
Question.

Do you have any reason to think unter will accept any answer you give him not supported by some kind of cited source? Because he's been very specific about that for at least two pages now.

He wouldn't accept anything less than Chomsky himself coming on here and saying it. I hadthe long article that went through most of Chomskys work and pointed out issues where he implicitly that he supported the regime and criticized any work that went against that. The opinion that Chomsky was a Pol Pot supporter didn't come from any recent things, it came from seeing his views during the 70s and 80s and it's stuck with him.

Obviously an impersonator!

- - - Updated - - -

Anything that disagrees with you is fake news.
That's literally the exact opposite of what I just posted, but on the one in a million chance that you are having a Big Boy Moment and capable of a little critical thinking:

No. The U.S. government has a strong anti-communist bias and tends to pressure its media to adopt anti-communist positions and news stories. Thus, any news story that is overly critical of communist/socialist governments, policies, politicians or ideas should be taken with a gain of salt, and all such news stories should be checked for sources to make sure that they ARE, in fact, pushing real stories and not just propaganda.

Not a rebuttal.

You're basically operating on a basis of assuming anything that says something you disagree with is fake news.
 
Not a rebuttal.

You're basically operating on a basis of assuming anything that says something you disagree with is fake news.

Your problem is you never read anything.

Here is Chomsky talking about fake news.

For example, on April 8, 1977, The Washington Post devoted half a page to “photographs believed to be the first of actual forced labor conditions in the countryside of Cambodia [to] have reached the West.” The pictures show armed soldiers guarding people pulling plows, others working fields, and one bound man (“It is not known if this man was killed,” the caption reads). Quite a sensational testimonial to Communist atrocities, but there is a slight problem. The Washington Post account of how they were smuggled out by a relative of the photographer who died in the escape is entirely fanciful. The pictures had appeared a year earlier in France, Germany and Australia, as well as in the Bangkok Post (April 19, 1976) with the caption “True or False?” In fact, an attempt by a Thai trader to sell these photos to the Bangkok Post was turned down “because the origin and authenticity of the photographs were in doubt.” The photos appeared in another Thai newspaper two days before the April 4th election. The Bangkok Post then published them, explaining in an accompanying article that “Khmer watchers” were dubious about the clothes and manner of the people depicted, and quoting “other observers” who “pointed to the possibility that the series of pictures could have been taken in Thailand with the prime objective of destroying the image of the Socialist parties” before the election.

This story was reported in the U.S./Indochina Report of the Indochina Resource Center in July 1976, along with the additional information that a Thai intelligence officer later admitted that the photos were indeed posed inside Thailand: “‘Only the photographer and I were supposed to know,’ he confided to a Thai journalist.” The full details were given in the International Bulletin (April 25, 1977; circulation 6,000). A letter of April 20 to the Washington Post on these points has not appeared. In short, the “freedom of the press” assures that readers of the International Bulletin will get the facts.

Even if the photographs had been authentic, we might ask why people should be pulling plows in Cambodia. The reason is clear, if unmentioned. The savage American assault on Cambodia did not spare the animal population. Hildebrand and Porter, in their Cambodia: Starvation and Revolution, cite a Cambodian Government report of April 1976 that several hundred thousand draft animals were killed in the rural areas. The Post did not have to resort to probable fabrications to depict the facts. A hundred-word item buried in The New York Times of June 14, 1976, cites an official U.N. report that teams of “human buffaloes” pull plows in Laos in areas where the buffalo herds, along with everything else, were decimated (by the American bombing, although this goes unmentioned in the Times. Much the same is true in Vietnam. Quite possibly the U.N. or the Laotian Government could supply photographic evidence, but this would not satisfy the needs of current propaganda.
 
Not a rebuttal.
Yes it is. You posted a completely retarded bullshit mischaracterization of my post and I corrected your retarded bullshit mischaracterization with the ACTUAL substance of my post.

Perhaps you should stop posting retarded bullshit?

You're basically operating on a basis of assuming anything that says something you disagree with is fake news.

No. I am operating on the basis that the U.S. government has a strong anti-communist bias and tends to pressure its media to adopt anti-communist positions and news stories. Thus, any news story that is overly critical of communist/socialist governments, policies, politicians or ideas should be taken with a gain of salt, and all such news stories should be checked for sources to make sure that they ARE, in fact, pushing real stories and not just propaganda.
 
Yes it is. You posted a completely retarded bullshit mischaracterization of my post and I corrected your retarded bullshit mischaracterization with the ACTUAL substance of my post.

Perhaps you should stop posting retarded bullshit?

You're basically operating on a basis of assuming anything that says something you disagree with is fake news.

No. I am operating on the basis that the U.S. government has a strong anti-communist bias and tends to pressure its media to adopt anti-communist positions and news stories. Thus, any news story that is overly critical of communist/socialist governments, policies, politicians or ideas should be taken with a gain of salt, and all such news stories should be checked for sources to make sure that they ARE, in fact, pushing real stories and not just propaganda.

Did Chomsky ever come out and apologize with, "Hey I'm sorry for letting my anti-west bias cloud my judgement of the view of the Khmer Rouger. I apologize and won't let it happen again"

Or did Chomsky ever come out and say, "I hate communism like the rest of you and the Khmer Rouge is a prime example of the ills of attempting to implement communism"
 
Yes it is. You posted a completely retarded bullshit mischaracterization of my post and I corrected your retarded bullshit mischaracterization with the ACTUAL substance of my post.

Perhaps you should stop posting retarded bullshit?

You're basically operating on a basis of assuming anything that says something you disagree with is fake news.

No. I am operating on the basis that the U.S. government has a strong anti-communist bias and tends to pressure its media to adopt anti-communist positions and news stories. Thus, any news story that is overly critical of communist/socialist governments, policies, politicians or ideas should be taken with a gain of salt, and all such news stories should be checked for sources to make sure that they ARE, in fact, pushing real stories and not just propaganda.

And so everything you disagree with is fake news by the government to discredit the communists.
 
Yes it is. You posted a completely retarded bullshit mischaracterization of my post and I corrected your retarded bullshit mischaracterization with the ACTUAL substance of my post.

Perhaps you should stop posting retarded bullshit?



No. I am operating on the basis that the U.S. government has a strong anti-communist bias and tends to pressure its media to adopt anti-communist positions and news stories. Thus, any news story that is overly critical of communist/socialist governments, policies, politicians or ideas should be taken with a gain of salt, and all such news stories should be checked for sources to make sure that they ARE, in fact, pushing real stories and not just propaganda.

Did Chomsky ever come out and apologize with, "Hey I'm sorry for letting my anti-west bias cloud my judgement of the view of the Khmer Rouger. I apologize and won't let it happen again"

Or did Chomsky ever come out and say, "I hate communism like the rest of you and the Khmer Rouge is a prime example of the ills of attempting to implement communism"

You have yet to show him explicitly denying the actions of the Khmer Rouge. You know when people ask me to prove something I either put up or bow out.
 
Yes it is. You posted a completely retarded bullshit mischaracterization of my post and I corrected your retarded bullshit mischaracterization with the ACTUAL substance of my post.

Perhaps you should stop posting retarded bullshit?



No. I am operating on the basis that the U.S. government has a strong anti-communist bias and tends to pressure its media to adopt anti-communist positions and news stories. Thus, any news story that is overly critical of communist/socialist governments, policies, politicians or ideas should be taken with a gain of salt, and all such news stories should be checked for sources to make sure that they ARE, in fact, pushing real stories and not just propaganda.

Did Chomsky ever come out and apologize with, "Hey I'm sorry for letting my anti-west bias cloud my judgement of the view of the Khmer Rouger. I apologize and won't let it happen again"

Or did Chomsky ever come out and say, "I hate communism like the rest of you and the Khmer Rouge is a prime example of the ills of attempting to implement communism"

Have you apologized yet for all those chickens you sodomized?
 
Did Chomsky ever come out and apologize with, "Hey I'm sorry for letting my anti-west bias cloud my judgement of the view of the Khmer Rouger. I apologize and won't let it happen again"

Or did Chomsky ever come out and say, "I hate communism like the rest of you and the Khmer Rouge is a prime example of the ills of attempting to implement communism"

You have yet to show him explicitly denying the actions of the Khmer Rouge. You know when people ask me to prove something I either put up or bow out.


Here is this video he was asked at the beginning if he was seen the light about Pol Pot's atrocities and Chomsky's response, "They are lies" and then he talks about how Pol Pot never killed anyone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3IUU59B6lw
 
You have yet to show him explicitly denying the actions of the Khmer Rouge. You know when people ask me to prove something I either put up or bow out.


Here is this video he was asked at the beginning if he was seen the light about Pol Pot's atrocities and Chomsky's response, "They are lies" and then he talks about how Pol Pot never killed anyone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3IUU59B6lw

Chomsky explicitly denies ever supporting Pol Pot. Thanks.

And all he did was set the record straight.

The record is incredibly damning to the US. The Nixon administration behaved like psychopaths. Bombed Cambodia and Laos into the stone age.

Which allowed people like Pol Pot to take power in the horrifying vacuum.
 
Back
Top Bottom