176988

神经网络昆斯林的新闻组分类2006

Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu misc.legal:60019 talk.politics.misc:176988 talk.politics.mideast:75415
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!ogicse!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!malgudi.oar.net!hyperion!desire.wright.edu!demon
From: [e-mail] (Not a Boomer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Noam Chomsky (Timor)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 6 Apr 93 17:48:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: desire.1993Apr6.124828.8261
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]><[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: ACME Products
Lines: 51

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Matt Austern) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Not a Boomer) writes:
> 
>> 	Is Chomsky thus equivacating the genocide in Cambodia with the invasion
>> and occupation of E. Timor?
> 
> I think the word you have in mind is "equating".  And no, Noam Chomsky
> is considerably too intelligent to think that history ever repeats
> itself exactly.  He has said, however (repeatedly), that the two acts
> were of comparable brutality, and should receive comparable
> condemnation.  There's a good case to be made that he's right; what's
> happened (and is happening) in East Timor is considerably worse than
> most Americans realize.  This is in part because there are very few
> stories about East Timor in the mainstream press.

	Ok, as far as that goes I agree.  The situatio in E. Timor does deserve
the attention that Bosnia, Angola, etc. get.  But...I also think that the
"press" can't be forced to print articles, air shows about it, etc.
	The religious right got tired of the mainstream media and started
buying their own stations/papers.  The left should do the same thing instead of
relying on NPR and public stations.

>> 	If so, how does he explain (away) the difference between an intended
>> goal of genocide (Cambodia) and a brutal occupation?
> 
> I don't think that anyone can ever say for sure what the "intended
> goal" of the Khmer Rouge was.  What we can do, though, is look at
> their actions---and those actions have been quite horrible, both those
> of the Khmer Rouge and of the Indonesian occupiers.  I don't think
> that the word "genocide" is too strong to apply to either situation.

	I wouldn't venture that far (to say the situation in E. Timor is
genocide).  The Indonesians seem perfectly willing to not kill anyone who
doesn't get in their way: which is something the Khmer Rouge didn't do. 
Virtually everyone not in the Khmer Rouge suffered the "killing fields".
	(Once again, not to downplay the violence in Timor....)

>> 	If so, why isn't he in Australia chanting "no blood for oil"?
> 
> Probably because he thinks that this form of protest would be silly
> and ineffective?  Or is that explanation too obvious?

	I don't agree.  Right now Australia is the most effective lever against
Indonesia.  They are negotiating for oil drilling rights off Timor, and
stopping that process would go a long way towards making Indonesia realize that
people don't want to see the situation swept under the rug.

Brett
________________________________________________________________________________
	"There's nothing so passionate as a vested interest disguised as an
intellectual conviction."  Sean O'Casey in _The White Plague_ by Frank Herbert.