You would think that decent people would rejoice at the possibility that, if recent reports are correct, perhaps fewer people died in the Bosnian war than was originally believed. Of course, 100,000 is absolutely appalling, especially when one considers that the vast majority of these were Bosnian Muslim civilians massacred in cold blood in a vicious campaign of what the Serb militias themselves dubbed "ethnic cleansing", a campaign that turned the entire Drina Valley, in which Muslims had been the plurality before the war, into now a high Serb majority (and an integral part of the Muslim-rein Serb entity known as Republika Srpska). Peterson and Herman, however, are in obscene ecstasy for another reason: they see it as helping their dogged agenda of denying, excusing, minimising, and apologising for Serb crimes in Bosnia. And why do they do this? Only because the American administration finally intervened militarily in Bosnia (and because the American media and human rights groups reported on the Serb atrocities for three years). The intervention ended the Serbs' bloody campaign within two weeks, and most decent people rejoice at both these events: the ending of the horrific genocide, and the later discovery that the extent of the genocide was less than previously feared. But no, Peterson and Herman denounce the American intervention (not, as decent people do, because it came three years and at least 100,000 lives too late, but because it came at all) and at the same time rejoice over the new statistics. Simply obscene. They and Chomsky are little David Irvings looking for any reason to minimise the scale of events in Bosnia. Their prejudices aren't anti-Muslim, so that's one disanalogy with the anti-semite Irving, but anti-American - does that make them any better? I doubt it.

Just to add a little more: The Guardian also acknowledged Chomsky was defending Johnstone's right to free speech in the open letter quoted by zubub. "No question in that form was put to Prof Chomsky. This part of the interview related to his support for Diana Johnstone (not Diane as it appeared in the published interview) over the withdrawal of a book in which she discussed the reporting of casualty figures in the war in former Yugoslavia. Both Prof Chomsky and Ms Johnstone, who has also written to the Guardian, have made it clear that Prof Chomsky's support for Ms Johnstone, made in the form of an open letter with other signatories, related entirely to her right to freedom of speech. The Guardian also accepts that and acknowledges that the headline was wrong and unjustified by the text."

Clearly you are reading this from a position of pre-existing dislike of Chomsky. I don't find anything in the blog post to suggest he is comparing his own treatment to the slaughter of 'dissidents' in El Salvador, only that it exists and that it is not in the media that often. Also you're going to need to show examples of his apologetics. Are you not quoting the Guardian article directly to 'prove' your point? In fact the Guardian has now apologised for some of the articles errors: "Ms Brockes's misrepresentation of Prof Chomsky's views on Srebrenica stemmed from her misunderstanding of his support for Ms Johnstone. Neither Prof Chomsky nor Ms Johnstone have ever denied the fact of the massacre." So will you clarify where we can find Chomsky 'apologising'for the massacre?

Chomsky's shameful genocide-denial regarding Bosnia, including his minimising Srebrenica's massacre, cagily stops short of collaborators like Ed Herman: "The ‘Srebrenica massacre' is the greatest triumph of propaganda to emerge from the Balkan wars... But the link of this propaganda triumph to truth and justice is non-existent." Chomsky doesn't volunteer his opinion of Herman's quotation marks around 'Srebrenica massacre', but does something more despicable, namely doing the same about 'genocide' in Bosnia. Z-blogger David Peterson, alternatively, praised Herman's writing as ‘powerful analysis'. Chomsky signed an open letter to the Swedish magazine Ordfront: "We regard Johnstone's Fools' Crusade as an outstanding work, dissenting from the mainstream view but doing so by an appeal to fact and reason, in a great tradition." Chomsky personally confirmed the evaluation: "I have known her for many years, have read the book, and feel that it is quite serious and important." Now he whimpers the Guardian did him a disservice comparable to Salvadoran death squad slaughter of "dissidents". Apart from the grotesquely inane self-importance of the analogy, the Guardian did him no disservice: if anything Brockes' article failed to show the extent of Chomsky's systematic apologetics for the Serbian campaign of mass murder and expulsion.

What´s the difference between 10 and 10.000 deaths !!!??? I hate bodycounts. And we continue to obey - and then support - war based governments. Why do americans pay taxes? What are americans afraid of?

"In short, Chomsky does try to minimise the Srebrenica atrocity, contrary to the finding of The Guardian correspondent in the Bosnian town whom he concedes is “a good journalist”. Brockes cannot be accused of misrepresenting his essential position. No doubt Chomsky's point is that the West has been guilty of far worse enormities in its dealings with the Third World, and he is right. But for the victims and their families, a massacre is a massacre, and he is grossly insensitive to belittle it. ... So what is all the over-the-top clamour really about? There is a clue in Fortin's complaint about the interview's “generally mocking tone”. The suggestion appears to be that, because of a kind of “benefit of clergy”, Chomsky should be immune from mockery. Brockes's real sin is to show disrespect for one of the major saints in the hagiology of the left. "

Friends: FYA:

Deutsche Presse-Agentur November 21, 2005, Monday Bosnian war "claimed 100,000 lives" The confirmed death toll in the 1992-1995 war in Bosnia appears to be closer to 100,000 dead than the often- quoted figure of 200,000, a Norwegian news agency reported Monday, quoting the head of the Sarajevo-based Research and Documentation Center (RDC). "In October we had 93,000 names on our lists and the numbers are increasing slightly. But the final tally will likely be around 100,000," Mirsad Tokaca was quoted as saying. The centre was set up in April 2004 "to investigate and gather facts, documents and data on genocide, war crimes and human rights violations, regardless of the ethnic, political, religious, social, or racial affiliation of the victims." It has received funding from among others the Norwegian government. A similar estimate has also been used by population statisticians at the United Nations war crimes tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY). The estimate published by researchers Ewa Tabeau and Jacub Biljak was 102,000. All of the casualties listed by Tokaca and his co-researchers have been identified by name. "Our research suggests that about 70 per cent of those killed were Bosniacs (Bosnian Moslems), 25 per cent of the killed were Bosnian Serbs and 5 per cent were Bosnian Croats," Tokaca said. Tokaca said the number of 250,000 or even 300,000 dead has "never been based on research".

Friends: Very little in circulation these days on the topic of body-counts in Bosnia and Herzegovina. But for one wire-service report, see:

"Research halves Bosnia war death toll to 100,000," Nedim Dervisbegovic, Reuters, November 23, 2005

By the way, it might interest you to know that, to date (Nov. 24), the only mention of Mirsad Tokaca's claims that I've been able to find in the English-language print media was a blurb in the November 24 Irish Times. Based on the same November 23 Reuters item that I've just linked, the Irish Times's blurb in its totality reported as follows:

SARAJEVO - The death toll from the Bosnian war, which ended 10 years ago this week, was half of the widely used figure of about 200,000, a leading Bosnian war crimes researcher has said. "This is still an extremely high figure but there is a big difference now that people cannot irresponsibly use inflated numbers for their political goals," said Mirsad Tokaca, who heads the Sarajevo-based Investigation and Documentation Centre. Mr Tokaca estimated the number of victims at between 100,000 and 150,000 a year ago.

The subject we choose is much more important than our position on it. Newspapers are papers with combinations of letters. They are not suposed to be the holders of the universal truth. But, they have a reason for everything they write. Once we comprehend them we realise they are sincere.

Friends:

The Henry Jackson Society, a rats' nest at Cambridge University (though the exact nature of the affiliation is anybody's guess), continues to play a role the Chomsky smear. (See, e.g., Marko Attila Hoare and Oliver Kamm.) Among the signatories to this outfit's Statement of Principles (March 11, 2005) are Richard Dearlove, Oliver Kamm, Denis MacShane, and Jamie Shea. Furthermore, its complete list of "International Patrons" includes Bruce Jackson, Robert Kagan, William Kristol, Vytautas Landsbergis, Michael McFaul, Joshua Muravchik, Richard Perle, Jack Sheehan, and James Woolsey. All in all---a combination of cranks, madmen, and professional hitmen whose common task appears to be the care and nurturing of Great Power.

Here's a useful link, for those who haven't already found it themselves: http://www.craigmurray.co.uk Craig Murray was the British Ambassador to Uzbekistan. He helped expose the human rights violations being committed by Islam Karimov's barbaric regime. Tony Blair has tried to silence Mr. Murray. That's because, over the last few years, Britain and America - in an unequal partnership with one another - have strengthened Karimov's grip on power. Tony Blair's new friend: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2003/10/28/tony-blairs-new-friend/ Terrified Uzbeks tell of three massacres: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1622286,00.html "I used not to believe all the horror stories that I heard about Karimov, but after what he did to us in Andijan I can believe anything. He is not a human being. He must be brought to justice for this bloodbath." http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2004/10/how_can_britain.html See, there's no need for this over-reliance on Chomsky, who merely poaches information from other people. No doubt, though, when Chomsky next speaks about Uzbekistan, his supporters on here will call him a genius, the most humane man alive, and the only person speaking the truth. Yeah, right! Pull the other one. All Chomsky does is work people up, get them arguing with each other, and while everyone is arguing, Chomsky is quietly raking in a fortune.

There was a man once named James Martin - an IT guru. Everywhere you looked in the IT world, his name was plastered all over the place. He was every bit the prolific writer that Chomsky is - seems he came out with a book every month. He was always the last and highest authority on anything IT. I absolutely abhored the man. Why? Because if you advocated a position in IT that he had not yet blessed, you were doomed to failure in the corporate IT world. The man must have made millions through books, personal appearances, and sponsorships. Only later in life did I understand that the value of such men lies not in their knowledge or hopw much money they are able to make, but in the message they are delivering - a message that finds deep harmony and meaning with truth. A messenger who commands the ears of the powerful. Someone people want to hear. And then I realized that it truly didn't matter what Mr Martin's true motives were, or how he delivered his message, or how large his organisation was or how glitsy - only the message mattered. If he made a fortune on it, good for him. But it was the message. Noam Chomsky has a message. Sometimes he's wrong. sometimes he errs. But still I want to hear it. I need to hear it. He might even be an asshole (though I'm certain he's not!), but nothing else about Mr. Chomsky matters to me. So go on, bewareoffalseprophets - rail on. It matters not to me, for his message is greater than yours.

Don't listen to Bewarefal$eprophet$. He's just regurgitating his own posts, so that in thirty years' time he will be famous and able to charge $1,000,000,000 for every after-dinner speech he gives.

Attacking the messenger is a pure sign of the validity of the message and the weakness of the opposing argument. Chomsky has for decades eluded critisism because of his high level of accuracy. Now because of a smear campaign people are beginging to attack him personally, still not denying what he has reported in volumes and volumes of inciteful documented work. Abyss you seriously need help. Obsessing over a psudo celebrity takes a very high level of delusion.

Professor Chomsky is one of recent history's greatest critics, but I just can't swallow this newest piece. I highly doubt that a simple misquote is any type of conspiracy to "silence dissent." If anything, I'm sure The Guardian is a huge fan of Chomsky and everything he does (as am I). Chomsky's political analysis is next to none, but I sometimes wonder how he sees conspiracies brewing a little too often. I have a little experience with government figures and powerful people -- and while there is some analysis to be done on how they behave, there certainly isn't a dark conspiracy behind every action they take. Professor Chomsky is fallible like all human beings -- I think that's the ultimate lesson of all this

I had to visit the so-called "Official Noam Chomsky Web Site" to check some facts, and discovered old Noam is up to his old tricks: http://www.chomsky.info/whatsnew.htm What's new, Mr Chomsky? NC: Well, I have a new book out, except it's not really a book, it's a transcript of me chatting away nineteen to the dozen to my good friend and agent, David Barsamian. "Imperial Ambitions : Conversations on the Post-9/11 World", that's the title. There's a convenient link that takes you straight to Amazon's Web site. There you have it, folks. Noam Chomsky screwing his supporters for every penny they have. Chomsky could easily post this stuff up for free, or do one version for the Web and one for print. But, hey, Chom$sky likes money, the more, the merrier. I read the excerpt on Amazon, and all Chomsky is doing is regurgitating old stuff, excusing the American people for turning a blind eye to what their government is doing in Iraq, and so on. So it really is a waste of money for those familiar with what Chomsky has to say. But Chomsky likes wrapping up stale bread in fancy, new packaging, because, then, you can sell it for - LOADS A MONEY! $12,000 here, $100,000 there – it all adds up!

PART 2 In a separate section on page 245, Moynihan does talk about the slaughter that occurred (and the invasion by Indonesia), but says nothing about his role in it. What he does say about the 60,000 killed is this: "In February the deputy chairman of the provisional government forecast that the Indonesian forces would complete their takeover in three to four weeks, AND ESTIMATED THAT SOME SIXTY THOUSAND PERSONS HAD BEEN KILLED SINCE THE OUTBREAK OF CIVIL WAR. This would have been 10 percent of the population, ALMOST THE PROPORTION OF CASUALTIES EXPERIENCED BY THE SOVIET UNION DURING THE SECOND WORLD WAR." Moynihan is quoting the deputy chairman of the provisional government, who estimated that 60,000 people had been killed since the outbreak of civil war. Daniel Patrick Moynihan died in 2003. If you want to know what I really think about the guy, I hope he's burning in hell. :oD

PART 1 Here's Moynihan's actual quote in context. Remember, we're not interested at this point in what actually occurred in East Timor or people's actual roles, only in what people did or did not say, because Chomsky claims words were put in his mouth, and that he wouldn't dare stoop so low. "On the other hand, such was the power of the anticolonial idea that great powers from outside a region had relatively little influence unless they were prepared to use force. China altogether backed Fretilin in Timor, and lost. In Spanish Sahara, Russia just as completely backed Algeria, and its front, known as Polisario, and lost. In both instances THE UNITED STATES WISHED THINGS TO TURN OUT AS THEY DID, AND WORKED TO BRING THIS ABOUT. THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE DESIRED THAT THE UNITED NATIONS PROVE UTTERLY INEFFECTIVE IN WHATEVER MEASURES IT UNDERTOOK. THIS TASK WAS GIVEN TO ME, AND I CARRIED IT FORWARD WITH NO INCONSIDERABLE SUCCESS." (p. 247) There is no mention of 60,000 being killed, or, indeed, anyone being killed. All Moynihan is saying is China backed Fretilin, and his job was to ensure it lost.

r4d20: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." Yes, the lady does. Because Chomsky has been known to quote others out of context in order to distort what they said. In the introduction to "East Timor: Genocide In Paradise", Chomsky writes: "Another lesson in realism was given by UN Ambassador Daniel Patrick Moynihan, celebrated for his courageous defense of international law and human rights. 'The United States wished things to turn out as they did,' he writes in his memoirs, 'and worked to bring this about. The Department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook. This task was given me, and I carried it forward with no inconsiderable success.' Moynihan cites figures of 60,000 killed in the first few months, 'almost the proportion of casualties experienced by the Soviet Union during the Second World War,' a foretaste of still greater successes soon to come." The impression Chomsky gives is of Moynihan brazenly telling us that his task was to ensure the slaughter proceeded successfully and without hindrance: 60,000 slaughtered already; greater successes soon to come. However, this is not what Moynihan writes in his memoirs.

"Moreover, perhaps you could show evidence of how we are constantly under seige from terrorists? " My house is currently surrounded by about 200 Al-Queda operatives with 2 catapults and I think they are building a seige tower. I have plenty of boiling oil and more than enough arrows. TO ARMS!!!!!!!!

And that's fine; hypocrites abound in this world - one gets used to that fact. But what would someone intelligent do, someone who genuinely wanted the masses to be informed, without focusing too much attention on him or herself. For starters, they would refer people to a list of recommended books to read, and post the list on a Web site. Visit www.chomsky.info, or “my” blog, Chomsky might say. But Chomsky has no recommended reading list, except for what HE has written. This hypothetical person might also point out that there are many sources to turn to, Web sites to visit; that he or she is not an investigative journalist, does not have a research team, and so must rely on a lot of work that is done by others, and here are some places to look for more information, some names of organizations to check out. I really don't know what harm Chomsky thinks this "slur" has done. The world he wants to go away doesn't know who he is. His books do not appeal to the masses because his writing style is so poor. It's possible "The Guardian" paid him for the interview he gave, so that's one consolation. Perhaps it's time for Chom$ky to invest his wealth in his own media outlet, or would that require too much initiative. If Chomsky's supporters are so numerous, so concerned, and really believe in this guy's ability to single-handedly save the world, they will also happily invest in this venture.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

>Chomsky['s] list of enemies is impressive. His stupidity is also impressive. He's babbling on about being misquoted. About what HE wrote, what HE said, what HE thought, about HIM! The victims have been lost in all this. We're back to Chomsky's favorite topic: Chomsky! That's Chomsky's glorious achievement in life, turning the spotlight on him. The people he's talking to, the people he's trying to reach, are not the common people, but the better educated, the more affluent class. This, despite the fact that Chomsky has said: if you want to change the system, you have to give the facts to the only people who CAN change the system: the masses! Yet, at the end of "Manufacturing Consent" (DVD version), he says he wants "the world to go away", for people to leave him alone. He's politely telling people to FUCK OFF! Chomsky didn't make "Manufacturing Consent" - other people decided to make it. Chomsky just went about his business, they filmed him, and then turned it into a documentary. The people Chomsky wants to disappear are not the well-educated students who listen to his paid speeches for $12,000 a pop, or his congregation that he regularly preaches to, but the plebs who watched "Manufacturing Consent", and subsequently contacted him. The man who wants to reach the masses, in reality, wants the masses kept a mile away from him. He doesn't want to engage with them at their level, because they're not interesting enough, they don't know enough.

I am impressed with the rapidity by which the campaign against the Guardian for its fallacious "interview" (to which I may have contributed) achieved its goal. But, as I said earlier, I didn't like the Guardian's removal of its story. It should've been filed under "pseudo-journalism" or "fiction" so as to serve a future reference example of how not to do honest work in this field.

If one is best known by his enemies, then Mr. Chomsky is indeed a man to be admired. His list of enemies is impressive. Newspapers were once judged on the quality of the news they reported. They taught us in school the value of truth, objectivity and integrity in reporting the news. Once, however, they became parts of giant media corporations, their focus changed. Instead of an accurate report of the news, they were tasked with increased sales and thus, profits. Now it is a well-established principle that you do not increase sales through the same ole drivel. Give the readers excitement. Give them gore. Give them sexual fantasies. Truth? Integrity? Sorry - doesn't sell. And while you're at it, be sure to back Rupert's favourite political candidates as well. A few well-placed words to stretch the truth a bit here and there won't hurt. Omit this fact - it's just not consistent with our message. Lie about this event - we can bury the retraction later after the initial effects. Capitalism and big media were made for each other. The Law of the Jungle rules over all.