CDR: Re: Niiice kitty....

James A.. Donald jamesd at echeque.com
Thu Oct 5 21:02:25 PDT 2000


     --
James A. Donald:
 > > Almost every Chomsky citation that I have checked was at best somewhat 
misleading, and at worst a lie.

At 03:31 PM 10/5/2000 -1000, Reese wrote:
 > We've already seen how you picked up an extra word in that massacre quote,
 > is it safe to assume you've made other errors?

Big deal.  Chomsky tells the reader that somewhere there is some 
underreported evidence that the reports of Khmer Rouge massacres were fake, 
implying that the photographs of murdered women and children that his 
readers had seen in the newspapers a few months previously were fraudulent.

So where is this evidence that he so confidently cites?

We are not talking about left out commas, or even omitted ellipses.  We are 
talking about whole damned citations that just are not there.  Chomsky 
complains bitterly because Shawcross' editors left out three ellipses when 
quoting Chomsky, and then fabricates stuff wholesale and attributes it to 
Shawcross.

 > News flash for ya goodbuddy - that quote of yours has already been 
repudiated.

Liar.

In his 1977 Nation article Chomsky claimed:
: : 	such journals as the Far Eastern Economic Review , the
: : 	London Economist , the Melbourne Journal of Politics , and
: : 	others elsewhere, have provided 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; that these were
: : 	localized in areas of limited Khmer Rouge influence and
: : 	unusual peasant discontent, where brutal revenge killings
: : 	were aggravated by the threat of starvation resulting from
: : 	the American destruction and killing. These reports also
: : 	emphasize both the extraordinary brutality on both sides
: : 	during the civil war (provoked by the American attack) and
: : 	repeated discoveries that massacre reports were false.

Pretty much every word in his claim is of course false in one way or 
another, a mixture of misleading half truths and outrageous blatant 
lies.  I can go through it word by word if anyone cares.

But let us take a different approach.  Is there any phrase in that stream 
of lies and misdirections that you wish to defend?  Is there anything in 
his claim that you are willing to defend as true?

     --digsig
          James A. Donald
      6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
      d7Zg1dd3YMbY+qe2HcnAuJ0KtJ/IFibx+iozE+x/
      4U/P6jjNfg+dLFSb0iUoOJsOI+z7rKS/Dd0dKWeRG





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list