User talk:24.68.194.135

sebrenica was genocidal in nature, it was however not in fact a genocide, as per even rational wiki's own definition - a few hundred does not constitute an entire peoples

"A genocide is the attempted destruction of an entire "people," most often a nation or ethnicity."

http://www.chomsky.info/letters/20051113.htm

here's chomsky's take on the guardian in regards to bosnia

as for the cambodian thing, it is *well known* amongst people who listen to him that he sometimes engages in wry sarcasm, obviously this is lost in translation from text, but that's life, the more you know, anyways here's an account of what was said by a legitimate news source

http://hass.unsw.adfa.edu.au/timor_companion/documents/Cambodia%20corrections.pdf

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2779086.html

They wrote that his "book is serious and worth reading, as distinct from much of the commentary it has elicited. He gives a grisly account of what refugees have reported to him about the barbarity of their treatment at the hands of the Khmer Rouge". However, they did find it was flawed in many ways. They go on to critique a review of this book by Jean Lacouture, which Lacouture agreed was full of errors. Lacouture response in the New York Review of Books included considerable praise of Chomsky:

Noam Chomsky's corrections have caused me great distress. By pointing out serious errors in citation, he calls into question not only my respect for texts and the truth, but also the cause I was trying to defend. ... I fully understand the concerns of Noam Chomsky, whose honesty and sense of freedom I admire immensely, in criticizing, with his admirable sense of exactitude, the accusations directed at the Cambodian regime.