Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (39699)	4/15/2004 10:20:05 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793868

As can be seen in the history of statements on the Khmer Rouge, whom he stopped defending at some point, without any acknowledgement of having ever changed his position, much less having been mistaken about them. I'm not terribly interested in this because to discuss it seriously would take more homework than I wish to give to it. And I should note that I agree, in the abstract, with your formulation that Chomsky may have contributed to some of this. But, to offer just one example, you assert that he defended the Khmer Rouge. As I understand Hitchens Chomsky's basic position it was not a defense of the Khmer Rouge but criticisms of the media's claims. Also, he seems to be clearly naive as in letting someone he does not know have almost legal authority over a statement of his such that it gets used as an introduction to a book the contents of which he quite obviously despises. Chomsky is not evil, as you assert. But he's no angel either. It is definitely not a black and white world.