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.

Pastimes : Kosovo -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Enigma who wrote (7964)	5/11/1999 10:05:00 PM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17770

LOL! You want context? Ok, here is the context of his diatribe on Cambodia. The US lost the war in Vietnam and hence had to redirect attention away from the successes of the communist Vietnamese by claiming that the communist "revolution" in Vietnam resulted in mass massacres and crackdowns. This was all a plot by the US government to vilify the successful Vietnamese revolution in hopes of destroying the credibility of a socialist revolt being successful. When Vietnam exported communism to Cambodia through Pol Pot, the US had to vilify that revolution as being bloodthirsty and murderous in order to discredit it and maintain US global hegenomy. All the reports coming out of Vietnam, and especially out of the glorious peasant revolution in Cambodia, were falsified and lies. Now, he was only halfway done with his book when even the Vietnamese got sickened by Pol Pot's excesses and invaded. So, the glorious innocence of his Third World peasant crusaders being stained, unable to vilify either Ho Chi Min or Pol Pot and the Khmer, he instead argued that "maybe some" of the reports were true, but they were isolated cases were the population put up excessive resistance and the autarkic methods of the Khmer only occurred in regions which had been severely bombed by the US. The mass murders were a response to US bombing, and the severe austerity (dragging people out of the cities at gunpoint into the countryside to starve to death) was only occuring in regions of severe poverty due to US bombing. Bait n switch, I believe is the term... In case you may think that he was justified by the evidence, all of the die-hard Leftist academics who had championed the Khmer had since recanted in light of the evidence. Why is it that only Chomsky drew these conclusions, does he have a monopoly on the truth? Or does he see the world through Red-colored glasses? Even the far-Left admitted afterwards that the atrocities committed in Cambodia were on par with those committed by Josef Stalin in the Purges.