========
Newsgroups: alt.anarchism,alt.society.anarchy,talk.politics.theory,
talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.economics,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,
alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,
talk.politics.libertarian,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Chomsky's bad faith proven:  the Khmer Rouge record
  [was  Re: Chomsky, was " If the left is understood to include
'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate myself from the left.
 Lenin was one of the greatestenemies of socialism, in my opinion,
 for reasons I've discussed.
Re: Ideologies, politics, history (was: The Murder Sweepstakes)
From: hcunn@tiac.net (Hugo S. Cunningham)
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 13:47:56 GMT

I am reposting this from another thread.  It was in answer to my
posting above.

--Hugo S. Cunningham

Nathan Dunn  wrote:

>>> [deleted]
>> Not really true.  Chomsky consistently favors the enemies of the West,
>> most likely because his version of Anarcho-Leftism is far closer to
>> Communism than to America's mixed economy.
>>=20
>>     His bad faith showed most clearly during the Khmer Rouge genocide
>> in Cambodia (1975-78).  Years after everyone else recognized and
>> denounced Khmer Rouge barbarity, Chomsky continued to suggest it was
>> hysteria cooked up by self-serving capitalists.  Only  a.f.t.e.r
>> Communist Vietnam publicly resolved to overthrow the Khmer Rouge (4
>> Dec 1978) did Chomsky suddenly make eloquent denunciations of the
>> Khmer Rouge.

>What he implied was that the Khmer Rouge atrocities in Cambodia were=20
>atrocities, but they were highly emphasized for political reasons=20
>(justification of military action); while at the same time, the violence=20
>in East Timor, a complete genocide, went relatively unreported in the=20
>U.S. mainstream media.  This, of course, was due to the U.S.=20
>administration's (Carter's) ties to the Indonesian dictator at that=20
>time.  I've read quite a bit of Chomsky, and you seem to have accounted=20
>for about 25% of his argument on this issue.

>In further arguments, which might be confused with DEFENDING the Khmer=20
>Rouge, Chomsky and many other political analysts admit that, after=20
>fighting imperialistic aggression for several decades, the "rebels" of=20
>Vietnam might possibly have been shaped by their environment.  An=20
>environment where only the most vicious elements are capable of=20
>surviving.  The Khmer Rouge was brutal, but so were U.S. military=20
>bombings throughout Vietnam and on Cambodia.

>Nathan


>>     One can find a logic, though not a creditable one, to his change
>> of heart.  North Vietnam, a Soviet ally, deserved support as a US
>> opponent.  In contrast, the Khmer Rouge were tied to China, which
>> betrayed leftism by allying with the US against Soviet Russia.  Tacit
>> US acceptance of China's pro-Khmer-Rouge policy after 1978 was not to
>> our credit, but at least we did not tell sneering lies to defend the
>> Khmer Rouge record=20
>>=20
>> [deleted appendix]



========
Newsgroups: alt.anarchism,alt.society.anarchy,talk.politics.theory,
talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.economics,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,
alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,
talk.politics.libertarian,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Chomsky's bad faith proven:  the Khmer Rouge record
  [was  Re: Chomsky, was " If the left is understood to include
'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate myself from the
 left. Lenin was one of the greatestenemies of socialism, in
 my opinion, for reasons I've discussed.
Re: Ideologies, politics, history  (was: The Murder Sweepstakes)
From: hcunn@tiac.net (Hugo S. Cunningham)
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 17:52:39 GMT

[deleted]

>Nathan Dunn  wrote:

>>>> [deleted]
>>> Not really true.  Chomsky consistently favors the enemies of the West,
>>> most likely because his version of Anarcho-Leftism is far closer to
>>> Communism than to America's mixed economy.
>>>=20
>>>     His bad faith showed most clearly during the Khmer Rouge genocide
>>> in Cambodia (1975-78).  Years after everyone else recognized and
>>> denounced Khmer Rouge barbarity, Chomsky continued to suggest it was
>>> hysteria cooked up by self-serving capitalists.  Only  a.f.t.e.r
>>> Communist Vietnam publicly resolved to overthrow the Khmer Rouge (4
>>> Dec 1978) did Chomsky suddenly make eloquent denunciations of the
>>> Khmer Rouge.

>>What he implied was that the Khmer Rouge atrocities in Cambodia were=20
>>atrocities, but they were highly emphasized for political reasons=20
>>(justification of military action); while at the same time, the violence=20
>>in East Timor, a complete genocide, went relatively unreported in the=20
>>U.S. mainstream media.  This, of course, was due to the U.S.=20
>>administration's (Carter's) ties to the Indonesian dictator at that=20
>>time.  I've read quite a bit of Chomsky, and you seem to have accounted=20
>>for about 25% of his argument on this issue.

The principal thrust of Chomsky's 25 Jun 1977 "Nation" article (which
I quote extensively in my 215-line reply to Keith) was that Western
reports of Khmer Rouge death-tolls were wildly exaggerated; the real
toll was much more plausibly in the "thousands."
    It naturally follows (though Chomsky left his readers to draw this
conclusion for themselves)  that if the Khmer Rouge death toll was far
less than that of the US-supported regime in Indonesia, then there is
little justification for opposing Communist revolutionaries. 

   As for East Timor

    (1)  From a pro-Western viewpoint, Indonesian policy has been a
tragic blunder.  They had legitimate fears that the Portuguese colony
of East Timor might become a base for anti-government guerrillas
("terrorists" or "freedom fighters," depending on your political
preferences).  They could have met this threat, however, by declaring
a protectorate over East Timor.  They could have closed foreign
embassies and expelled all foreigners they didn't trust, while
otherwise allowing local forces to sort things out for themselves.

    (2)  Nevertheless, I take issue with those who attribute all the
deaths in East Timor to "genocide" by the Indonesian government.
After all, a war has been going on there.  Many were killed by the
opposition guerrillas, and many civilians have died from the
dislocations of war.  (Is America culpable for all the 40 millions who
died in World War II?)
     There is a difference in depravity between governments that put
down violent opponents and governments securely in power who go out of
their way to massacre civilians (Hitler's "Final Solution," Stalin's
Collectivization and Great Purge, Mao's Cultural Revolution, and the
Khmer Rouge regime).
  
>>In further arguments, which might be confused with DEFENDING the Khmer=20
>>Rouge, Chomsky and many other political analysts admit that, after=20
>>fighting imperialistic aggression for several decades, the "rebels" of=20
>>Vietnam might possibly have been shaped by their environment.  An=20
>>environment where only the most vicious elements are capable of=20
>>surviving.  The Khmer Rouge was brutal, but so were U.S. military=20
>>bombings throughout Vietnam and on Cambodia.

Or, in domestic terms, one shouldn't punish or condemn murderers,
because "society" made them do it.  (But, if so, how come most
children growing in even the worst environments do not become
murderers?)


--Hugo S. Cunningham




========
Newsgroups: alt.anarchism,alt.society.anarchy,talk.politics.theory,
talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.economics,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,
alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,
talk.politics.libertarian,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Chomsky's bad faith proven:  the Khmer Rouge record
  [was  Re: Chomsky, was " If the left is understood to include
'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate myself from the left.
 Lenin was one of the greatestenemies of socialism, in my opinion,
 for reasons I've discussed.
Re: Ideologies, politics, history  (was: The Murder Sweepstakes)
From: hallinan@borg.com (Terry Hallinan)
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 05:56:54 GMT

The following deserves a nomination for Hypocrisy of The Month Award:

hcunn@tiac.net (Hugo S. Cunningham) wrote:

>The principal thrust of Chomsky's 25 Jun 1977 "Nation" article (which
>I quote extensively in my 215-line reply to Keith) was that Western
>reports of Khmer Rouge death-tolls were wildly exaggerated; the real
>toll was much more plausibly in the "thousands."
>    It naturally follows (though Chomsky left his readers to draw this
>conclusion for themselves)  that if the Khmer Rouge death toll was far
>less than that of the US-supported regime in Indonesia, then there is
>little justification for opposing Communist revolutionaries. 

>   As for East Timor

>    (1)  From a pro-Western viewpoint, Indonesian policy has been a
>tragic blunder.  They had legitimate fears that the Portuguese colony
>of East Timor might become a base for anti-government guerrillas
>("terrorists" or "freedom fighters," depending on your political
>preferences).  They could have met this threat, however, by declaring
>a protectorate over East Timor.  They could have closed foreign
>embassies and expelled all foreigners they didn't trust, while
>otherwise allowing local forces to sort things out for themselves.

>    (2)  Nevertheless, I take issue with those who attribute all the
>deaths in East Timor to "genocide" by the Indonesian government.
>After all, a war has been going on there.  Many were killed by the
>opposition guerrillas, and many civilians have died from the
>dislocations of war.  (Is America culpable for all the 40 millions who
>died in World War II?)
>     There is a difference in depravity between governments that put
>down violent opponents and governments securely in power who go out of
>their way to massacre civilians (Hitler's "Final Solution," Stalin's
>Collectivization and Great Purge, Mao's Cultural Revolution, and the
>Khmer Rouge regime).


The bloodthirsty government instituted by the Khmer Rouge exceeded
anything seen previously in this century.  Maybe a fifth to a quarter
of the population died with Communist ideology gone mad.  Whole cities
were depopulated of their citizens who were herded into the
countryside to build a rural agrarian paradise.  Those who could not
survive the rigors were simply killed.  The entire country became a
vast prison that exceeded in horror even the regimes of Hitler or
Stalin.

One of the incredible features of American foreign policy is that we
long supported a return to power of the Khmer Rouge as the legitimate
government after it was overthrown by the Vietnamese.  Hang Sen may
not have been any freedom lover's choice for head of the government of
Cambodia but he was certainly preferable to Pol Pot.  Our insistence
that the Khmer Rouge be included in the unity government formed
recently could eventually pave the way to return of one of the most
monstrous regimes in this century.  A great tribute to American
foreign policy.  :-{

Obviously Noam Chomsky's ideological leanings colored his picture of
Cambodia as it commonly does for leftists of the brutal dictatorship
of Fidel Castro. 

It is difficult to beat that record but East Timor is my nominee.
Perhaps a third of the population has perished by a regime every bit
as brutal as the Khmer Rouge.  Indonesia was given a wink and a not by
President Ford and Kissinger when they invaded the fledgeling
republic.  An American warship was said to be strategically stationed
offshore to warn the Portuguese to not interfere.

For any that do not know this is a venture of  Freeport McMoran Mining
Company in cooperation with Indonesian government which in addition to
adding to the empire coveted the income from mining.  Anything that
that has interfered with this fine business venture has been dealt
with harshly indeed.  Few of the surviving inhabitants of EastTimor
have not suffered imprisonment, torture, rape, and the other niceties
of totalitarian regimes.  It is said guards at the McMoran mine when
bored have shot at natives much as some of us once shot at
jackrabbits.

The vast killing has naturally led to some resistance (the war Mr.
Cunningham refers to).  Some people have the effrontery to resist
torture, rape, and murder.  The only hope for the people of East Timor
is the bad publicity that was generated by a recent massacre that was
witnessed by foreigners.  At least one was a casualty.  Businesses
like to keep their nefarious activities in the shadows as it tends to
repel customers and stockholders and such and there are currently some
hopes of a semi-autonomous government.  The only other option for the
Indonesian government is to complete their extermination of the
population.

I have seen few postings where the hypocrisy of the writer was so
evident.  Strange how he condemns Noam Chomsky's blind ideology.

>--Hugo S. Cunningham





"Occident - That portion of the world as opposed to the Orient where the
the major industries are murder and robbery known respectively as war and
commerce.  These are also the major industries of the Orient."
                                    - The Devil's Dictionary


========
Newsgroups: alt.anarchism,alt.society.anarchy,talk.politics.theory,
talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.economics,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,
alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,
talk.politics.libertarian,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Chomsky's bad faith proven:  the Khmer Rouge record
  [was  Re: Chomsky, was " If the left is understood to include
'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate myself from the left.
 Lenin was one of the greatestenemies of socialism, in my opinion, for reasons I've discussed.
Re: Ideologies, politics, history  (was: The Murder Sweepstakes)
From: hcunn@tiac.net (Hugo S. Cunningham)
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 05:49:42 GMT

hallinan@borg.com (Terry Hallinan) wrote:

>The following deserves a nomination for Hypocrisy of The Month Award:

>hcunn@tiac.net (Hugo S. Cunningham) wrote:

>>The principal thrust of Chomsky's 25 Jun 1977 "Nation" article (which
>>I quote extensively in my 215-line reply to Keith) was that Western
>>reports of Khmer Rouge death-tolls were wildly exaggerated; the real
>>toll was much more plausibly in the "thousands."
>>    It naturally follows (though Chomsky left his readers to draw this
>>conclusion for themselves)  that if the Khmer Rouge death toll was far
>>less than that of the US-supported regime in Indonesia, then there is
>>little justification for opposing Communist revolutionaries. 

>>   As for East Timor

>>    (1)  From a pro-Western viewpoint, Indonesian policy has been a
>>tragic blunder.  They had legitimate fears that the Portuguese colony
>>of East Timor might become a base for anti-government guerrillas
>>("terrorists" or "freedom fighters," depending on your political
>>preferences).  They could have met this threat, however, by declaring
>>a protectorate over East Timor.  They could have closed foreign
>>embassies and expelled all foreigners they didn't trust, while
>>otherwise allowing local forces to sort things out for themselves.

>>    (2)  Nevertheless, I take issue with those who attribute all the
>>deaths in East Timor to "genocide" by the Indonesian government.
>>After all, a war has been going on there.  Many were killed by the
>>opposition guerrillas, and many civilians have died from the
>>dislocations of war.  (Is America culpable for all the 40 millions who
>>died in World War II?)
>>     There is a difference in depravity between governments that put
>>down violent opponents and governments securely in power who go out of
>>their way to massacre civilians (Hitler's "Final Solution," Stalin's
>>Collectivization and Great Purge, Mao's Cultural Revolution, and the
>>Khmer Rouge regime).


>The bloodthirsty government instituted by the Khmer Rouge exceeded
>anything seen previously in this century.  Maybe a fifth to a quarter
>of the population died with Communist ideology gone mad.  Whole cities
>were depopulated of their citizens who were herded into the
>countryside to build a rural agrarian paradise.  Those who could not
>survive the rigors were simply killed.  The entire country became a
>vast prison that exceeded in horror even the regimes of Hitler or
>Stalin.

>One of the incredible features of American foreign policy is that we
>long supported a return to power of the Khmer Rouge as the legitimate
>government after it was overthrown by the Vietnamese.  Hang Sen may
>not have been any freedom lover's choice for head of the government of
>Cambodia but he was certainly preferable to Pol Pot.  Our insistence
>that the Khmer Rouge be included in the unity government formed
>recently could eventually pave the way to return of one of the most
>monstrous regimes in this century.  A great tribute to American
>foreign policy.  :-{

How was my posting "hypocritical"?  Did I anywhere say that US policy
toward Cambodia after the 1978 Vietnamese takeover was angelic?  Read
the last sentence of the third paragraph of my original 112-line
posting in this thread.
 
>Obviously Noam Chomsky's ideological leanings colored his picture of
>Cambodia as it commonly does for leftists of the brutal dictatorship
>of Fidel Castro. 

>It is difficult to beat that record

What record?  The 1 to 2 million killed by the Khmer Rouge?

>but East Timor is my nominee.
>Perhaps a third of the population has perished by a regime every bit
>as brutal as the Khmer Rouge.

A common estimate is 200,000 dead, a third of a far smaller population
than in Cambodia.

I repeat:  there was a war in East Timor.  When the shooting lets up,
military operations and damage by the Indonesian government lets up.
(Whether that war was advisable is another question.) 

In contrast, Cambodia lay unresisting, prostrate at the feet of the
Khmer Rouge.  In 1975, the US wanted no part of any further Indochina
entanglements.  Khmer Rouge Cambodia had diplomatic support from
China, and neither of its important neighbors (Thailand and Communist
Vietnam) was looking for trouble.  The Khmer Rouge were as secure in
power as Stalin was on the eve of the Great Purge (1936).  Their
attack on their own people was pointless viciousness and bloodlust.

>Indonesia was given a wink and a not by
>President Ford and Kissinger when they invaded the fledgeling
>republic.  An American warship was said to be strategically stationed
>offshore to warn the Portuguese to not interfere.

I wonder about that.  It is news to me that Portugal in 1975 was a
global naval power.

>For any that do not know this is a venture of  Freeport McMoran Mining
>Company in cooperation with Indonesian government which in addition to
>adding to the empire coveted the income from mining.  Anything that
>that has interfered with this fine business venture has been dealt
>with harshly indeed.  Few of the surviving inhabitants of EastTimor
>have not suffered imprisonment, torture, rape, and the other niceties
>of totalitarian regimes.  It is said guards at the McMoran mine when
>bored have shot at natives much as some of us once shot at
>jackrabbits.

>The vast killing has naturally led to some resistance (the war Mr.
>Cunningham refers to)

The "killing" and the "resistance" presumably started about the same
time.  Or would you have us believe the original Indonesian invaders
were greeted with flowers, and unaccountably got seized with a wild
bloodlust?

>Some people have the effrontery to resist
>torture, rape, and murder.  The only hope for the people of East Timor
>is the bad publicity that was generated by a recent massacre that was
>witnessed by foreigners.

Another difference between the Indonesian regime and the Khmer Rouge
is that foreign witnesses are allowed.

>At least one was a casualty.  Businesses
>like to keep their nefarious activities in the shadows as it tends to
>repel customers and stockholders and such and there are currently some
>hopes of a semi-autonomous government.  The only other option for the
>Indonesian government is to complete their extermination of the
>population.

>I have seen few postings where the hypocrisy of the writer was so
>evident.  Strange how he condemns Noam Chomsky's blind ideology.

Where in my posting did I say that all was sweetness and light in East
Timor?

--Hugo S. Cunningham


========
Newsgroups: alt.anarchism,alt.society.anarchy,talk.politics.theory,
talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.economics,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,
alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,
talk.politics.libertarian,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Chomsky's bad faith proven:  the Khmer Rouge record
  [was  Re: Chomsky, was " If the left is understood to include
'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate myself from the
 left. Lenin was one of the greatestenemies of socialism, in my
 opinion, for reasons I've discussed.
Re: Ideologies, politics, history  (was: The Murder Sweepstakes)
From: hcunn@tiac.net (Hugo S. Cunningham)
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 21:02:42 GMT

hallinan@borg.com (Terry Hallinan) wrote:

[deletion]

>For any that do not know this is a venture of  Freeport McMoran Mining
>Company in cooperation with Indonesian government which in addition to
>adding to the empire coveted the income from mining.  Anything that
>that has interfered with this fine business venture has been dealt
>with harshly indeed.  Few of the surviving inhabitants of EastTimor
>have not suffered imprisonment, torture, rape, and the other niceties
>of totalitarian regimes.  It is said guards at the McMoran mine when
>bored have shot at natives much as some of us once shot at
>jackrabbits.

For those (like me) unfamiliar with this, pro-Chomsky poster Carwil
James (much to his credit) pointed out that Freeport Moran is actually
in West Irian, not East Timor.  He has been posting to a different
thread, but with the same headline.

[deleted]

--Hugo S. Cunningham

View related thread #2 on East Timor

Table of contents for Chomsky/Khmer-Rouge debate.