'[Chomsky's] conclusions remain controversial: that practically every US president since the second world war has been guilty of war crimes; that in the overall context of Cambodian history, the Khmer Rouge weren't as bad as everyone makes out; that during the Bosnian war the "massacre" at Srebrenica was probably overstated. (Chomsky uses quotations marks to undermine things he disagrees with and, in print at least, it can come across less as academic than as witheringly teenage; like, Srebrenica was so not a massacre.)' - https://web.archive.org/web/20051106114729/http://books.guardian.co.uk:80/departments/politicsphilosophyandsociety/story/0,6000,1605276,00.html
All lies, misrepresentations and smears along with the opening Q&A formulation:
Q: Do you regret supporting those who say the Srebrenica massacre was exaggerated?
A: My only regret is that I didn't do it strongly enough
which in the interview turns out to be:
'Chomsky lent his name to a letter praising [Diane] Johnstone's "outstanding work". Does he regret signing it?
"No," he says indignantly. "It is outstanding. My only regret is that I didn't do it strongly enough. It may be wrong; but it is very careful and outstanding work." '
ML pick apart her dog's breakfast of an article here: https://www.medialens.org/2005/smearing-chomsky-the-guardian-in-the-gutter/
Was waiting for her to cry 'sexism' in this article, and sure enough there it is. The 'she did us a favour' part is an unexpected topper though, and just batsh1t. How do people get paid to write this kind of fake introspection, minimising crimes and making everything about relativised ID politics? An insidious farce...