[QUOTE=operative;191458]He wrote an entire book attacking the widespread reports of the grave atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge.
Ok, this is a good example of how not to back up your assertions with sources. There is not a single quotation that shows how Chomsky is "defending" the Khmer Rouge. He has compared their atrocities to many of the most appalling crimes of the post-war period, and has lamented the US bombing of Cambodia as an important catalyst to Pol Pot's political and military strength. If you object so violently to the Khmer Rouge's genocide, do you support or condemn Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia-- an invasion that largely halted the atrocities? Or should we just condemn atrocities as loudly as possible if they a) don't require us to consider remedies and b) serve our ideological agenda?
What do you, personally have to say about the atrocities committed in East Timor during 1976-78? These were crimes completely ignored by the Western media, yet they depended on US military, diplomatic, and economic support. What do you have to say about them? There was an easy solution-- stop participating. Had the US halted arms sales or economic aid or diplomatic cover in the UN, the slaughter would have stopped. Yet all you can talk about is the Khmer Rouge. Do you even know about the Timorese genocide? Don't you find it amazing that you know so much about Pol Pot, yet you have never heard of Fretilin or Falintil or Xanana Gusmao? The former is someone to whose crimes you have no possible solution, and the latter are victims of your own government's (and, by extension, your and my) brutality.