^ I would like to see you provide evidence and Link these allegations Ajarn.

Chomsky was a vocal dissenter against the VN War. History seems to have proved him right, but it was this more than anything that caused him to be demonised as a firebrand radical (which he is not) in mainstream USA.

Then he went on to publicise, to a largely ignorant west, the abuses that were happening in Central America- Nicaragua, El Salvador & Guatamala in particular- and the US supporting role in these atrocities. History most definitely proved him right here- and the stamp of those years is quite apparent in the politics of todays Central America.

Ditto the extent of the 'Communist' massacres in Indonesia, and western involvement in this (such as the CIA producing extensive lists of Communist sympathisers- in reality Labour organisers- that were marked for liquidation). At least 500,000 were slaughtered.

To me this is his greatest importance- telling us stuff, with academic integrity and thoroughness, that our political establishment wanted(s) the public not to be aware of, facts they tried to suppress. The mainstream media dutifully acquiesced- Chomsky did not. If you add to this alone his books 'Understanding Power' and 'Manufacturing Consent' (amongst others) he is rightfully considered one of the most important, and honest, intellectuals in the world today.

He is always open to a public debate, and in his quiet, bookish style blows his 'Opponent' out of the water. Not even in the same league- because he will only debate that which he has researched thoroughly. Would any intelligent person seriously believe a politicians hyperbole over Chomskys primary research? A sad indictment of the state of modern politics.