[lbo-talk] Chomsky on Srebrenica & "genocide"

Michael Pugliese michael.098762001 at gmail.com
Sat Nov 19 09:56:18 PST 2005


As for (2), it depends on how one wants to use the term "genocide." Personally, I prefer to keep it in its original intent: the Holocaust, Rwanda, maybe a few other cases. I never even called East Timor "genocide," though maybe 1/3 of the population was killed by Indonesia-US-UK, along with others who thought they could make a buck. Or Vietnam. Or Guatemala and El Salvador.

Hmm. Wholesale ethnic cleansings of entire villagers of Mayan peasants in Guatemala during the Rios Montt regime supported by Reagan. 200,000 killed by those fascist butchers, isn't genocide under the definition of Raphael Lemke?

Because Clinton (or laughably Bush spokesperson Karen Hughes who recently claimed 300,000 were gassed by Saddam Hussein, when it was "only" 5,000 in Halabja, with bio-chem that Reagan admin. sold them) Bush or any other USG official or admin. for their own Imperialist reasons, sez official enemy has committed great atrocities to lay the ground work for a US military intervention, doesn't make the evidence of the crimes of Milosevic, Hussein, etc. disappear.

When frank scott or steve philion have sought to poo-pooh the evidence about Halabja, for example, you have said this.More than enough savagry on the books of the USG in the last century that they are culpable for but, why this disgusting denial of the facts about the crimes committed by regimes that became targets of the USG after being aligned with it previously like the Ba'athists? -- Michael Pugliese



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list