Evidences of Chomsky Case

Case 59-2020: Noam Chomsky

CHARGES

• Genocide Denial

Evidence 1: The Buddhist Genocide of Cambodia

Gabriel Ponti (UBA – Genocide Scholar): “Between 1975 and 1979, during the four years that Khmer Rouge ruled in Cambodia under the Maoist leadership of Pol Pot, more than 2 million people were massacred, constituting one of the worst genocides of the 20th century. The particular feature of this Genocide was to be anti-civilizing, since it sought to destroy all levels of the State, all culture and technology, violating human rights and fundamental freedoms, and forcing the population to leave the cities and to live in one of the worst models of the Middle Ages: slavery and concentration camps disguised as utopian communal farms. In these death camps, hundreds of thousands of people were executed, including women, children, the elderly and monks, many dying from violence and others from famine and disease. Genocidal Pseudo Communism: Pol Pot and Khmer Rouge were deeply influenced by Maoist communism, although they decided to carry out an unprecedented modality that involved emptying cities, closing schools, hospitals and factories, eliminating money, destroying cars, banning religion, expropriating private property, separating families, and murdering hundreds of thousands of Cambodian academic or intellectual professionals,[1] killing even those who knew a foreign language or simply wore glasses. Thus, possessing knowledge became a crime with the death penalty under this insane regime of systematic and widespread torture and extermination. In this way, the beginning of a new social order was sought, starting from scratch and without any connection with the cultural identity of the past, although this new beginning was through a genocidal purge unprecedented in history, since it in no way resembled visions of Communism. In fact, nationalist policies of racial purity were also implemented, all of which led to the extermination of ethnic Vietnamese, Cham Muslims and also Theravada Buddhists, the latter being the most cultured and educated people in the entire country.  Although Pol Pot died in exile in the jungle and enjoying impunity for these crimes, history remembers him as a genocidal tyrant. At the same time, between 2014 and 2018, trials were held against genocidal leaders and some of them were sentenced for committing crimes against humanity. In this sense, it can be speculated from a political science perspective that Pol Pot’s regime was more like Nazism than true Communism. Buddhist Genocide: In April 1975 Khmer Rouge announced that there would be freedom of religion under the new government, which was convenient considering that Buddhism has historically been the main majority culture in Cambodia. However, this positioning did not last long. The Khmer Rouge banned religions and contemplative practices, burning down the ancient libraries of the Bhikkhus, destroying around 3,000 spiritual communities or turning them into extrajudicial execution and torture centers. Although Buddhism was the soul of the country, Khmer Rouge banned and destroyed thousands of Buddhist communities (sanghas) for considering them as reactionary,[2] even sending tens of thousands of Bhikkhus to do forced labor. Around 25,000 noble Bhikkhus refused to give up their tradition and spiritual practice, and therefore they were systematically and widespreadly exterminated in what clearly represented an infernal Buddhist Genocide. In fact, out of a total of 60,000 Cambodian Bhikkhus, only 1,000 Bhikkhus would have remained after Pol Pot.[3]  Undoubtedly, from the perspective of the 1948 International Convention on Genocide, the national, ethnic, racial or religious groups are protected, that is why the systematic and widespread extermination of Theravada Buddhists communities or Islamic Cham communities are proofs of a genocidal purpose by the regime of Pol Pot.[4] The horrors perpetrated against the Buddhist communities (sanghas) produced almost the complete extermination of Buddhism in Cambodia, yet it was not totally extinguished thanks to the efforts of individuals who were responsible for keeping some aspects of the spiritual tradition alive and secretly preserved. Far from being a mere religion, Buddhism was in Cambodia a genuine system of civilization that was developed over centuries until the decline of the Buddhist State led by Sihanouk, who is remembered in the country as a righteous Buddhist ruler. Instead, the rise of Pol Pot’s Maoist revolution regarded Buddhism as one of the three mountains to be eradicated along with imperialism and reactionary capitalism.[5] Obviously, in a Buddhist country this policy brought conflict within the Khmer Rouge itself, which is why in 1976 there was the revolt of the White Khmer or White Scarf Buddhists, who sought harmony between the Khmer and the Buddhists. The result was that the leaders of the revolt were executed and Buddhist monasticism was abolished. Thus, the position of those who sought to imitate the Cultural Revolution of China predominated. [6]   Historiography recalls that the Theravada Buddhist commune played a very important role during Cambodia’s independence against the French government, leading a movement of peaceful protest and Buddhist activism in 1942 in what became known as the umbrella war.[7] In this sense, in his early writings, Pol Pot himself highlighted the democratic virtues of Buddhism as an example to follow in the reconstitution of Cambodia. However, Khmer Rouge abandoned this pro-Buddhist democratic position and instead preferred a genocidal totalitarian system that carried out one of the worst Buddhist purges in history, which began by exterminating the leading Bhikkhus of the Buddhist communities, including the Supreme Patriarch of Cambodia Huot Tat.[8] This insane policy would be nothing more than a reflection of the madness of its leader, since Pol Pot, after having carried out a Buddhist Genocide, manifested in 1979 his desire to live with a Buddhist calmed mind.[9] It should never be forgotten that during the dark era of the psychopathic Khmer Rouge regime there were massive graves on the outskirts of every village, reason why every Cambodian citizen was able to experience one of the most immoral horrors and brutalities that humanity has ever known.[10] Venerable Tep Vong explains that this genocidal stage was caused by the leadership of the Khmer Rouge, who had declared that Buddhism no longer existed in Cambodia, and therefore the people began to behave in a cruel and barbaric way, murdering the monks, destroying temples and burning Buddhist scriptures. According to Tep Vong, the people simply obeyed Pol Pot, because if they disobeyed him then they would die themselves.[11]  Accordingly, the Bhikkhu Em Phoeung explained before the Khmer Rouge Tribunal (ECCC) that the Pol Pot regime tried to completely eradicate Buddhist Spirituality in order to replace it with a culture of work, since it was considered that the Buddhist Sangha did not lead to progress but rather it simply consumed other people’s food.[12]  Post Buddhist Genocide Era: In 1979 the Pol Pot government was overthrown by the invasion of the Marxist government of Vietnam, which set a new government in Cambodia under the leadership of Heng Samrin, allowing the slow resurgence of Buddhism and the restoration of Buddhist communes to happen. Precisely, the Central Committee of this new government was composed of 30 members, and in 1980 about 3 members were Bhikkhus,[13] which demonstrated an attempt by Vietnam to legitimize its government by means of Buddhism.  However, in 1981 the new Cambodian-Vietnamese government of Samrin restricted the new ordinations of Bhikkhus, prohibiting those under 50 years of age from entering the Buddhist commune (sangha) due to the small male population that the country had as a result of the genocide, reason by which the number of Bhikkhus remained very small. Thus, in 1989 there were only 6,500 Bhikkhus in Cambodia, barely being 10% of the previous amount of the Khmer Rouge stage.[14] In any case, in 1988 the Cambodian-Vietnamese government publicly apologized and lifted this ban on Buddhist spiritual ordinations to people under 50 years of age.[15]  Buddhism began to flourish in Cambodia after the Khmer Rouge and the Vietnamese invasion. The Buddhist communes (sanghas) were rebuilt and little by little thousands of new Bhikkhus were ordained. This demonstrates the enormous resilience of the Buddhists, who have played a remarkable role in rebuilding the country, reinforcing the importance of forgiveness rather than seeking revenge, as only a strong sense of solidarity allows Cambodia to move forward.[16]  Faced with a Cambodia where mental health system is virtually non-existent, Buddhism plays a vital role for Genocide survivors, helping them to overcome their post-traumatic stress experiences through meditation techniques that strengthen a sense of security and well-being,[17] as is the case with Samadhi and Vipassana that help to transcend psychic suffering.  But obviously the true process of collective healing in Cambodia is the Khmer Rouge Tribunal, which can be considered as a ritual of national purification in which justice is obtained both for the living and for the dead.[18]  ”

Evidence 2: The Denial Thought of Noam Chomsky

Gabriel Ponti (UBA – Genocide Scholar): “Professor Noam Chomsky, a scholar at MIT and also from the University of Arizona, is considered a hero of social activism and one of the most important intellectuals in the West, being especially known for his anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist vision. In fact, during a time he has been the most quoted academic author in the world.  However, this famous thinker has incurred in various acts of Denialism, such as the denial of the Cambodian Genocide and the Srebrenica Genocide. In addition, Chomsky has publicly supported Rwandan Genocide Denialists, like Edward Herman, and has even supported Jewish Holocaust denialists like Faurisson. This involvement with the Denial of four genocides demonstrates that his conduct is not a mere intellectual error, but is rather an evidence of a denial thought pattern. Although Chomsky has declared himself a libertarian and anarchist, nonetheless, he has defended some of the most authoritarian and murderous regimes in human history.[19]  Jewish Holocaust Denial: Between 1933 and 1945, Nazism exterminated more than 6 million Jews and 1 million Romani people, subjecting them to discrimination, dehumanization, ghettos, concentration camps, slavery and mass murder. The Nuremberg Tribunals tried and sentenced these crimes as crimes against humanity. Given the magnitude of this Genocide, which involved one of the worst hell scenarios on Earth, multiple countries in the world have legislated that Holocaust Denial constitutes a crime. However, Chomsky has defended the right to Jewish Holocaust Denialism, arguing that freedom of expression must be applied to all points of view, which is something that obviously ignores the fact that International Law regulates and limits freedom of expression, which cannot be applied to expressions in favor of war and genocide. In this sense, the prohibition of Genocide Denialism is nothing more than an extension of the criminal prohibition of apology for homicide.  Thus, for having incurred in this kind of support for the Jewish Holocaust Denial, Chomsky has received multiple criticisms at the international level. Cohn has called him the most important patron of the Neo-Nazi movement,[20] while the Anti-Defamation League called Chomsky a Holocaust Denier uncapable of distinguishing between democratic and totalitarian societies or distinguishing between oppressors and victims.[21] Chomsky’s linkage to Holocaust Denialism arose from his explicit support for Robert Faurisson, a denial academic who questioned the existence of Nazi gas chambers and who considers the Holocaust to be a Zionist lie.[22] Chomsky not only publicly supported Faurisson’s freedom of expression, but he even wrote an essay as a foreword to a book by this denialist scholar, even going so far as to claim that Faurisson is not an anti-Semite but a liberal.[23] At the same time, Chomsky has immorally asserted that he does not perceive anti-Semitic implications in the denial of the gas chambers or even in the denial of the Holocaust.[24] Obviously, from a legal point of view, there is no doubt whatsoever in Chomsky’s complicity with Holocaust Denialism, especially considering that Faurisson has been convicted in France for the crime of crimes against humanity denial.[25] In fact, the French courts have determined that Faurisson is a professional liar and falsifier of history,[26] which is quite an appropriate characterization, given the fact that Faurisson has denied the existence of the Jewish Genocide and has sympathized with Nazism.[27] Finally, Serge Thion, Faurisson’s editor, was a denialist of the Cambodian Genocide and would also be associated with Chomsky. Denialism of the Cambodian Genocide: Between 1975 and 1979 Pol Pot led a Genocide in Cambodia in which 2 million people were massacred, exterminating around 25 thousand Buddhist Bhikkhus and destroying around 3 thousand temples, which constituted one of the worst genocides of the 20th century, being profoundly anti-civilizatory as it sought to destroy all levels of Cambodia’s state, culture, technology and economy, violating human rights and forcing the population to leave the cities in order to live in slavery and concentration camps disguised as utopian communal farms. These extermination camps provoked the disappearance of hundreds of thousands of women, children, elderly and monks, both due to violence as well as famine and disease. However, Chomsky and Herman have asserted that the allegations that the Khmer Rouge carried out a Genocide are a seriously distorted version of the evidence for emphasizing alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities and ignoring the crucial role of the USA in the torments of Cambodia, thus according to these authors, the Cambodian Genocide indictment would be a campaign to reconstruct history and place the role of the USA under a more favorable light that spreads tales of communist atrocities and discredits the credibility of opponents of war. In this context, Chomsky and Herman stated that refugees’ testimonies must be approached with great care and caution because they naturally tend to report what foreign forces want to hear.[28] In order to support this denialist discourse, Chomsky and Herman criticized works by historians on the Cambodian Genocide,[29] characterizing them as anti-revolutionary propaganda, and stating that it is fair to consider the fact that much of the number of deaths attributed to the Khmer Rouge would be the responsibility of the USA. At the same time, Chomsky contacted historians of the Cambodian Genocide to assert that there were no massacres and that the Khmer Rouge tragedies were actually from the American bombings, even accusing historians of not being critical enough of the refugees’ testimonies,[30] to whom he regards as a non valid source for being rumors, exaggerations or fabrications designed by the Western press in a vast propaganda campaign against the Khmer Rouge government that includes a systematic distortion of the Truth.[31] While they attack the Genocide witnesses and accuses them of producing unverifiable material that has been found to be a lie,[32] which is something that the deniers do systematically, instead, Chomsky and Herman have decided to use as their historiographical documentation what was affirmed by the very Khmer Rouge government and its ally China.[33] In fact, as proof of his denialism, even Chomsky has denied the death toll from the Cambodian Genocide by claiming that it is much lower, even though it is already officially confirmed, stating that it would be about 1000 times less than the 2 million number of deaths, which means about 2 thousand deaths caused by the Khmer Rouge, thus implying an act of denial and propaganda on the part of Chomsky.[34] On another occasion, Chomsky claimed that 25 thousand people had died and not millions of people, that it was not a genocide and that the bloodbath has been exaggerated because the Khmer Rouge was a liberation movement that saved lives, so the allegations of Cambodian Genocide are to cleanse Western imperialism and to justify an intervention.[35] Chomsky has claimed that the Cambodian Genocide accusation is a Western dogma that accuses the Khmer Rouge of being the embodiment of evil without any redeemable qualities, a dogma that claims they were demonic creatures that systematically starved and slaughtered the population.[36] Obviously, pointing out that the Cambodian Genocide accusation is an anti-communist invention for the USA to invade the country represents an absolute falsehood since the military invasion never came from the USA but rather from the communist regime of Vietnam. In any case, Chomsky has remained firm that there is no evidence of mass killings in Cambodia, reason why he sent many letters and articles defending the Khmer Rouge to American newspapers,[37] deciding to ignore that Cambodia was on its way to ethnic extinction such as the facts showed.[38]  For half a century Chomsky has been very proud to admit any error in his judgments,[39] but he has also claimed that the Khmer Rouge atrocities were a direct and understandable response to the violence of the western imperial system,[40] which suggests an explicit justification for mass killings,[41] further stating that the deaths were not the result of a systematic slaughter and famine by the Cambodian government but were a direct consequence of the US war.[42] This positioning implied ignoring that the Khmer Rouge guerrilla had implemented the destruction and abandonment of small cities since 1972, forcibly displacing the populations towards the jungle, so when they took power in 1975 they did nothing more than expand this genocidal policy to all the country, demonstrating then that the expulsion of populations was not due to a famine caused by the USA bombings, as Chomsky believes, but rather was part of a systematic methodology of the Khmer Rouge.[43] However, Chomsky has also directly endorsed this genocidal forced displacement that confined people to concentration camps, even defending child slavery as vocational training.[44] Although Chomsky and Herman finally accepted that Pol Pot committed genocide,[45] they continued to assert that their previous denial appreciations were correct and that no one had found any errors in their writings, responding criticism through misinterpretations or even denying sometimes having said conclusions that appear in their own writings.[46]  Rwandan Genocide Denial: In 1994, a Hutu extremist military government was established, which carried out an extermination plan against around 1 million people in four months, brutally massacring both members of the Tutsi ethnic group as well as moderate Hutus. This Genocide was very violent and effective, involving both the military and civil society in the disembowelment of hundreds of thousands of people, and also in the carrying out of hundreds of thousands of sexual abuse of women and girls.[47] The USA, France and the UN Security Council were silent witnesses to the Genocide and refused to intervene and help hundreds of thousands of members of the Tutsi minority who were begging to be saved. Later the UN created an International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda where these crimes were tried as acts of genocide. However, scholar Herman again committed the same kind of Denialism that he had previously done with the Cambodian Genocide. Thus, Herman and Peterson –with the support of Noam Chomsky– denied the existence of the Rwandan Genocide, stating that the events that occurred are Western propaganda and that they are not credible because the Hutus could not have planned a genocide against the Tutsi, since according to these denialists the real victims were the Hutu perpetrators after the invasion of the Tutsi militia, which means that Herman and Peterson are accusing the Tutsi victims to be the true genociders,[48] using a technique that all genocide denialist routinely employ: attacking the victims and exonerating the perpetrators. Chomsky wrote the preface to this denial work, granting full support to these scholars, which obviously means complicity with Rwandan Genocide Denialism. In this sense, Herman and Peterson have been deeply criticized for their deplorable allegations that are an insult to the dead, and for ignoring the thousands of testimonies of the surviving victims and also ignoring the evidence of the Hutu genocidal planning corroborated by General Dallaire de the UN Peace Forces.[49] While Herman and Peterson have claimed that the Genocide was actually caused by the invasion of the Tutsi militia in 1994 and that the majority of the dead were Hutu,[50] there is actually hundreds of well-documented evidence that extremist Hutus had been planning extermination since 1992, in addition to the fact that these authors have used discriminatory and distorted demographic censuses by the extremist Hutu government to justify that there could not have been so many Tutsi deaths.[51]  In short, the Denialism of Herman, Peterson and Chomsky about the Rwandan Genocide is a misrepresentation of reality, a laughable fabrication that offers no evidence whatsoever and that decides to ignore all the human rights investigations and all the testimonies of survivors, and therefore it is slander against the defenseless civilian population, being a false description of the facts that was rather made with malice than with ignorance and incompetence.[52]  Denialism of the Srebrenica Genocide: In 1995 the military forces of the Republika Srpska commanded by General Mladic perpetrated Genocide in Srebrenica, carrying out ethnic cleansing and all kinds of crimes against humanity, such as the massacre of 8,000 Bosnian Muslims and the forced displacement of 30,000 Bosnian civilians.  This campaign of ethnic cleansing included destruction of private property and temples, illegal deportations, arbitrary arrests, concentration camps, inhuman treatment, torture, massive sexual abuse and extermination of Muslim Bosnians and Croatians. For this reason, the UN has created an International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia where these acts were investigated and judged, ruling that they were acts of Genocide carried out by the perpetrators with the intention of destroying these persecuted groups. At the same time, the International Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights have also ruled that what happened in Srebrenica was Genocide. In addition, the US Congress created resolutions recognizing said genocide, and German courts also judged these crimes as Genocide. However, there are intellectuals who believe that there was a Western conspiracy against Milosevic and the Serbian people with the aim of falsely accusing them of international crimes and thus producing the intervention of NATO. Among these Genocide denial academics are again Edward Herman, and David Peterson along with Diana Johnstone, all the three of them being publicly supported by Noam Chomsky despite the fact that they absolve the Serbs of all responsibility in carrying out Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity. In a similar way to what he did with respect to the Genocides in Cambodia and Rwanda, Herman has affirmed that there were not 8000 victims during these episodes but rather about 800, thus doubting the explanation that the international Courts have reached regarding the events.[53] This denial academic declared that the executed Muslim Bosnians were only adult soldiers,[54] which would have happened in response to a massacre of 2000 Serbian civilians carried out by these same Muslim Bosnian soldiers. [55] This theory is shared by Johnstone, stating then that there was an act of revenge with war crimes but that no evidence was ever found that there was a planned Genocide.[56] Obviously, these denialist authors supported by Chomsky have decided to ignore that the International Courts have already ruled that Genocide occurred in Srebrenica where women and children were killed, at the same time that they use the malignant resource of the genocide denialists: accusing the victims for the crimes committed by the perpetrators. For his part, claiming to defend freedom of expression, Chomsky has supported Diana Johnstone, the Srebrenica Genocide denial academic who claimed that the Srebrenica massacre was probably exaggerated and that it would not have been a genuine massacre since there is only evidence of the execution of 199 people. Chomsky has claimed that he supports Johnstone and considers what she said about Srebrenica as irrelevant. Obviously, this implies an absolute double standard by Chomsky, since he does not support the human rights to life of the thousands of genocide victims, but he instead prefers to defend Johnstone’s right to freedom of expression. Furthermore, when the Guardian newspaper published an article being critical of this position, Chomsky and his followers promoted the censorship on the newspaper and they even succeeded in having the critical article of their denial possition removed, thus demonstrating disdain for freedom of expression and for the Genocide victims, reason why all of this has been widely criticized by more than a dozen Srebrenica Genocide expert authors.[57] On the other hand, on another occasion Chomsky has directly supported Johnstone’s denial of the Srebrenica Genocide, stating that her book is an outstanding, serious and important work that shows that much of what has been said are pure fabrications, which obviously means that he agrees that Srebrenica Genocide did not exist.[58]  At the same time, Chomsky has also supported the Living Marxism magazine in its proclamation that the concentration camps carried out by Serbs during the Genocide were a lie. This caused Kemal Pervanic,[59] Omarska concentration camp survivor, to claim that it is an insult by Chomsky to say that the concentration camps were probably a lie.[60] The fact that Chomsky endorses the criticism on the 8,000 dead of the Srebrenica Genocide, which is a resource used by all denialists, demonstrates his malevolence more than his ignorance, since the International Commission of Missing Persons by means of DNA has already been able to identify the bodies of more than 6,500 out of a total of 8,000 Bosnians who disappeared after the Srebrenica siege.[61] As absolute proof of Noam Chomsky’s denial thought about the Rwanda and Srebrenica genocides, the episode that existed with George Monbiot is shared below. First, Chomsky confirmed that calling the Srebrenica massacre as “Genocide” is to reduce the word. Second, Chomsky responded aggressively and evasively to all the questions asked by the great journalist Monbiot, thus demonstrating intellectual dishonesty.[62] Third, Monbiot told Chomsky that writing a preface to Herman’s denial book provides an implicit endorsement of it, and thus also support for the genocidal oppressors defended by Herman, who has been accused as an evidence distorter and denialist by four experts in Genocide Studies (Martin Shaw, [63] Adam Jones, Linda Melvern and Marko Attila Hoare).[64] Finally, appealing to the defense of the victims of the Genocide, Monbiot requested Chomsky to make a statement distancing himself from the false denialist allegations of Herman’s book, to which Chomsky refused stating that it would be pure cowardice.[65] Conclusion: Genocide Denialism constitutes an attack against knowledge, against history, against Truth, against civilization, against values and against the cultural heritage of humanity. The justification of a supposed right to denial constitutes a total abuse of human rights and fundamental freedoms such as free expression or free investigation. It is a total disrespect for the victims the fact that intellectuals and academics use their reputations in order to support these crimes. In short, the denialists do nothing but remodeling history, rehabilitating genocidal perpetrators and demonizing their victims, all of which make mourning, memory, justice and reconciliation impossible. In this sense, it is concluded that Noam Chomsky is a Genocide denial thinker, and not a denialist of one genocide but four, demonstrating then that his fame as a progressive thinker is just an illusion hiding a total disregard for the sacredness of human life and for the suffering of millions of victims of the multiple genocides that he denies that have occurred.”

---

[1] BBC, Khmer Rouge: Cambodia’s years of brutality. 16 November 2018.

[2] Power, Samantha, Camboya: un gigante desvalido, en  Problema infernal. Estados Unidos en la época del los genocidios.

[3] Jean Luis Margolin, Comunismos de Asia: entre la «reeducación» y la matanza. Camboya: en el país del crimen desconcertante.

[4] Ben Kiernan, El regimen de Pol Pot. Raza, poder y genocidio en Camboya bajo el régimen de los Jemeres Rojos, 1975 – 1979.

[5] Ian Harris. Buddhism in a Dark Age: Cambodian Monks under Pol Pot.

[6] Ian Harris. Buddhism in a Dark Age: Cambodian Monks under Pol Pot.

[7] Ian Harris. Buddhism in a Dark Age: Cambodian Monks under Pol Pot.

[8] CHARLES P. WALLACE, Buddhism Rising Again From the Ashes of Cambodia: The Khmer Rouge used genocide to try to eradicate the religion. Its comeback is slow but steady.. JUNE 19, 199

[9] Buddhism and Khmer Rouge Cambodia. 19 Jan. 2015 http://verticaltimeyoga.com/Cambodia/buddhismandkhm.html

[10] Maha Ghosananda, Step by Step, 1992.

[11] CHARLES P. WALLACE, Buddhism Rising Again From the Ashes of Cambodia: The Khmer Rouge used genocide to try to eradicate the religion. Its comeback is slow but steady. JUNE 19, 199

[12] George Wright, Monk Tells of Persecution of Buddhists Under Khmer Rouge. Cambodia Daily. February 17, 2015

[13] B.Kiernan, 1982 Kampuchea Stumbles to Its Feet. In B. Kiernan and C. Boua, eds. Peasants and Politics in Kampuchea, 1942-1981. London: Zed Press; New York: M.E. Sharpe.

[14] Charles Keyes, BUDDHISM AND REVOLUTION IN CAMBODIA. September 1990.

[15] Hiebert, M.  1989 Look, We’re Buddhist. Far Eastern Economic Review. 3 August. pp. 36-37.

[16] Bonnie Duncan, Buddhism Survived the Khmer Rouge to Give Hope to Cambodia. December 9, 2011

[17] A.Kent (2006) Reconfiguring security: Buddhism and moral legitimacy in Cambodia.

[18] Inger Agger, Calming the mind: Healing after mass atrocity in Cambodia

[19] Keith Windschuttle, The hypocrisy of Noam Chomsky

[20] Werner Cohn, Partners in Hate: Noam Chomsky and the Holocaust Deniers.

[21] Wolfgang B. Sperlich, Noam Chomsky

[22] Robert Faurisson, The Problem of the Gas Chambers or the Rumor of Auschwitz.

[23] Robert Faurisson, Memoire en defense.

[24] Dr. Tzvi Fleischer, Fairfax’s Chomsky and Holocaust Denial whitewash.

[25] Adam Nossiter, Robert Faurisson: Holocaust Denier Prosecuted by French

[26][26] Paul Berman, The Grand Theorist of Holocaust Denial: Robert Faurisson.

[27] Paul Rassinier, Debunking the Genocide Myth: A Study of the Nazi Concentration Camps and the Alleged Extermination of European Jewry

[28] Noam Chomsky & Edward S. Herman, Distortions at Fourth Hand.

[29] Anthony Paul & John Barron, Murder of a Gentle Land.

[30] Francois Ponchaud, Cambodia: Year Zero.

[31] Noam Chomsky & Edward S. Herman, Distortions at Fourth Hand.

[32] Noam Chomsky & Edward Herman, After the Cataclysm: The Political Economy of Human Rights.

[33] George Hildebrand & Gareth Porter, Cambodia: Starvation and Revolution

[34] Bruce Sharp, Averaging Wrong Answers: Noam Chomsky and the Cambodian Controversy.

[35] Noam Chomsky & Edward Herman, After the Cataclysm: The Political Economy of Human Rights.

[36] Noam Chomsky & Edward Herman, After the Cataclysm: The Political Economy of Human Rights.

[37] Donald W. Beachler, Arguing about Cambodia: Genocide and Political Interest. en Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Vol. 23, No. 2

[38] Jean Lacoutre, Cambodians Survive!

[39] Matthew Blackwell, Devastation and Denial: Cambodia and the Academic Left.

[40] Noam Chomsky & Edward Herman, After the Cataclysm: The Political Economy of Human Rights.

[41] Paul Bogdanor, Chomsky Denies a Genocide.

[42] Noam Chomsky & Edward Herman, After the Cataclysm: The Political Economy of Human Rights

[43] Bruce Sharp, Averaging Wrong Answers: Noam Chomsky and the Cambodia Controversy

[44] Noam Chomsky & Edward Herman, After the Cataclysm: The Political Economy of Human Rights.

[45] Noam Chomsky & Edward Herman, Manufacturing Consent.

[46] Bruce Sharp, Averaging Wrong Answers: Noam Chomsky and the Cambodia Controversy

[47] Gérard Prunier, The Rwanda Crisis, 1954-94: History of a Genocide.

[48] Edward S. Herman & David Peterson, The Politics of Genocide.

[49] James Wizeye, To claim Tutsis caused Rwanda’s genocide is pure revisionism: All the facts point to a carefully targeted Hutu plan of extermination.

[50] Martin Shaw, The politics of genocide: Rwanda & DR Congo.

[51] Adam Jones, Denying Rwanda. A Response to Herman & Peterson.

[52] Adam Jones, Denying Rwanda. A Response to Herman & Peterson.

[53] Edward Herman, The Srebrenica Massacre.

[54] Edward S. Herman & David Peterson, The Politics of Genocide.

[55] Edward Herman & John Robles, The Srebrenica Massacre was a Gigantic Political Fraud.

[56] Diana Johnstone, Fools’ Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions.

[57] Protest to the Guardian Over ‘Correction’ to Noam Chomsky Interview. The “correction” to Emma Brockes’s interview is a concession to those who “minimise the Srebrenica massacre”. https://balkaninsight.com/2007/09/11/protest-to-the-guardian-over-correction-to-noam-

chomsky-interview/

[58] Marko Attila Hoare, Chomsky’s Genocide Denial.

[59] Kemal Pervanic, The Killing Days: My Journey Through the Bosnia War.

[60] Why Noam Chomsky, Tariq Ali, Arundhati Roy and their co-thinkers should apologise over Mladic and Srebrenica. https://www.workersliberty.org/story/2011/06/04/why-noam-chomsky-tariq-ali-arundhati-roy-and-their-co-thinkers-should-apologise-ove

[61] George Monbiot, Naming the Genocide Deniers.

[62] Ben Cohen, Noam Chomsky Embarrassed by George Monbiot.

[63] Martin Shaw, Once more on ‘left-wing’ genocide denial

[64] George Monbiot, See No Evil. How did genocide denial become a doctrine of the internationalist left?

[65] George Monbiot, Correspondence with Noam Chomsky.