Ukraine-in-a-thread

[HopAlongBunny]

This whole thing reminds me of various campaigns for freedom in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala; with all the attendant clarity of reporting and information.
Major Powers playing in what they consider their yard do a lot of nasty stuff.

[Brenus]

“There appears to significant amounts of controversy surrounding Diana Johnstone;” I know her reputation. But the matter is here she quoted various French Journalists, and just because she is who she is, you dismissed the journalists she quote.
By the way, systematic rape campaign charges were abandoned in The Hague. I quote:” The legal question was whether the acts of these soldiers were crimes against humanity or simply individual acts of depravity. In order to prove that the soldiers' acts were crimes against humanity, the prosecution in the Foca rape case argued three things:
The use of rape in attacks on civilians was widespread and systematic,
To support the allegation that rape was “widespread and systematic” the prosecution worked to show that the tactic was repeated and continuous (systematic) and that what had happened in Foca was a representative sample of Serbian methods of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia (widespread),
Rape was not simply an individual action but involved a chain of command. This did not mean that a commanding officer had ordered his men to rape, but that rape was occurring with his knowledge and he did not intervene to stop it.”

I cowardly refused to meet raped women in Tuzla during the war. Rapes did happen but do you remember the claim at that time: 80,000 women systematically rape and forced to keep the babies.

“Kosovan militants and NATO saw a common enemy in the government of Serbia. The militants saw the Serbian government as an enemy because they wanted independence. NATO saw it as an enemy, according to itself at least, because it viewed it as responsible for ethnic killings and repression in Kosovo.” Well, I do understand the Kosovar and admired them of how they succeed to gain their independence in using others countries’ soldiers, well, so they thought.
Now, you are telling me that a power decided that a country is an enemy and that is enough to bomb it. So what do you reproach to Putin's policy, exactly?

“The remains of Yugoslavia was a federation, and your quotes goes a long way towards expressing a desire to put Kosovo on an equal footing with Serbia and Montenegro within that federation. How exactly this status compares with the autonomy Kosovo used to have before Milošević cancelled it in 1989 I am not sure, but it's certainly not full independence. That would require Kosovo to have its own foreign policy.” Nope. Yugoslavia was made of 5 countries (Slovenia, Croatia, B&H, Macedonia, Montenegro and 2 autonomous counties (Kososvo & Vojvodina –where Sarmartian lives). You are right in the fact that NATO in order to forbid the Serbs to sign the agreement, just wanted to go back to the previous status (this plus the free access for NATO troops of all the Yugoslav territory which at the time included Montenegro). So the Kosovar had power to do want ever they wanted in Serbia, but Serbia couldn’t do anything in Kososvo…

And by the way, these are not the agreement, as the dictat was not signed by Serbia.

“Kosovo, Federal, and Republic authorities shall not interfere with the exercise of these additional rights.” So, The Federation won’t be able to interfere, so Kosovo is de Jure Independent (so would be Vojvoidine and perhaps in future Sandzak, finishing off Yugoslavia and making Serbs minorities everywhere, except in a Serbia of a stamp size).
“All authorities in Kosovo shall fully respect human rights, democracy, and the equality of citizens and national communities.” Note, not Yugoslavia, Kosovo is seen as out of it.
Chapter 4a, Article I-- "The economy of Kosovo, shall function in accordance with free market principles (End of Yugoslav Sovereignty de facto)
Chapter 5, Article V-- `The Chief of the Implementation Mission (CIM) shall be the final authority in theatre regarding interpretation of the civilian aspects of this Agreement, and the Parties agree to abide by his determinations as binding on all Parties and persons.
Chapter 7, Article XV-- "The KFOR [NATO] commander is the final authority in theatre regarding interpretation of this Chapter and his determinations are binding on all Parties and persons.
APPENDIX B
Important: Note that the text speaks of FRY, when previously it was Kosovo & FRY.
Section 6 B: NATO personnel, under all circumstances and at all times, shall be immune from the Parties, jurisdiction in respect of any civil, administrative, criminal or disciplinary offenses which may be committed by them in the FRY (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia)."
Section 7: "NATO personnel shall be immune from any form of arrest, investigation, or detention by the authorities in the FRY."
Section 8: "NATO personnel shall enjoy, together with their vehicles, vessels, aircraft, and equipment, free and unrestricted passage and unimpeded access throughout the FRY including associated airspace and territorial waters
Section 11: "NATO is granted the use of airports, roads, rails, and ports without payment of fees, duties, dues, tolls, or charges occasioned by mere use."
Section 15: "The Parties (Yugoslav government) shall, upon simple request, grant all telecommunications services, including broadcast services, and the right to use all of the electromagnetic spectrum for this purpose, free of cost." (didn't want to pay for a service, doesn't it go again "free market economy" they wanted to impose?
Section 22: "NATO may, in the conduct of the Operation, have need to make improvements or modifications to certain infrastructure in the FRY, such as roads, bridges, tunnels, buildings, and utility systems.

I am sure that now you will tell that is a balance, perfect and acceptable “peace” treaty.

“a journalist during the war in Bosnia” And this make him a specialist of what? I was in Bosnia during and after the war and I don’t pretend to be an expert on it. I couldn’t see on the other side of the hill, and no journalist could either. But I worked with/for the three sides’ refugees and IDP’s.

[Gilrandir]

MP Levchenko is kicked out of the Ukrainian parliament by force, apparently after opposing military action in the east.

He was not so much opposing the continuation of ATO as blaming the Ukrainian military in killing civilians in Donbas.

There is a piece of news that corroborates my opinion that a leakage of information led to shooting down the Ukrainian plane above Lugansk 40 days ago: a dispatcher of Dnipropetrovsk airport was arrested and charged with treason. So Brenus's picture of separatists sitting in the bush at night and waiting for a stray plane to fly by seems less and less likely.

Meanwhile, it seems that several smaller towns and cities (like Severodonetsk) have recently come under Ukrainian control. Looks like the momentum continues.

If you are interested in the progress, here is an updated ATO map.

[Viking]

First of all, what Biljana Plavsic has to do with Kosovo?

She has to do with Diana Johnstone.

Thirdly, Racak was almost certainly staged. Of the three autopsy teams, two reported that there was no evidence to support a massacre story while a third apparently said there may have been. The report was never made public. About 10 years after, the head of that third team admitted there was little evidence to support a massacre story and that the general narrative was based on what William Walker said before any investigation. She also mentioned she was under heavy pressure to use strong language to condemn the Serbian government at the time.

Berliner Zeitung in 2001 apparently managed to get a hold of that third report and there was nothing in it to support a massacre story, according to them.

It was most probably a fierce battle between government forces and KLA, in which KLA later moved the bodies to one place and called Walker who figured out there was the pretext they were waiting for.

10 years later? Let's see what was stated in 1999:

A final report by forensic experts into the killing of 40 Kosovo Albanians in the village of Racak has failed to rule on whether they were massacred by Serb police.
But the report does conclude the victims were unarmed civilians.

Kosovo Section Dr Helena Ranta, the forensic expert who led a team carrying out post mortems on the bodies, called the Racak deaths a "crime against humanity".

[...]

Dr Ranta said there were no signs that the victims were anything other than unarmed civilians and that they were most likely shot where they were found.

In 2008, Ranta said that she pressured into using strong language, but that she refused to do this:

According to Ranta, in the winter of 1999 William Walker, the head of the OSCE Kosovo monitoring mission, broke a pencil in two and threw the pieces at her when she was not willing to use sufficiently strong language about the Serbs.

So, as far as I can see, Ranta is still of the opinion that those killed in Račak were civilians.

But the matter is here she quoted various French Journalists, and just because she is who she is, you dismissed the journalists she quote.

I pointed out two twings:

1. the journalists were asking questions, not providing conclusions
2. the articles were assembled by a person with very particular views (fringe ones at that), meaning that they are most likely chosen because they are the best ones that argue her views rather than the most insightful ones on the topic. No attempt to refute the best arguments of the other side in that piece, nor 'conclusive' evidence for her own side.

Now, you are telling me that a power decided that a country is an enemy and that is enough to bomb it.

Nope.

So what do you reproach to Putin's policy, exactly?

Doing a land grab.

Yugoslavia was made of 5 countries (Slovenia, Croatia, B&H, Macedonia, Montenegro and 2 autonomous counties (Kososvo & Vojvodina –where Sarmartian lives).

At the time of the Kosovo War, Yugoslavia = Serbia + Montenegro.

You are right in the fact that NATO in order to forbid the Serbs to sign the agreement, just wanted to go back to the previous status

What do you mean by that? "Forbid the serbs"?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

“Kosovo, Federal, and Republic authorities shall not interfere with the exercise of these additional rights.” So, The Federation won’t be able to interfere, so Kosovo is de Jure Independent (so would be Vojvoidine and perhaps in future Sandzak, finishing off Yugoslavia and making Serbs minorities everywhere, except in a Serbia of a stamp size).
“All authorities in Kosovo shall fully respect human rights, democracy, and the equality of citizens and national communities.” Note, not Yugoslavia, Kosovo is seen as out of it.
Chapter 4a, Article I-- "The economy of Kosovo, shall function in accordance with free market principles (End of Yugoslav Sovereignty de facto)
Chapter 5, Article V-- `The Chief of the Implementation Mission (CIM) shall be the final authority in theatre regarding interpretation of the civilian aspects of this Agreement, and the Parties agree to abide by his determinations as binding on all Parties and persons.
Chapter 7, Article XV-- "The KFOR [NATO] commander is the final authority in theatre regarding interpretation of this Chapter and his determinations are binding on all Parties and persons.
APPENDIX B
Important: Note that the text speaks of FRY, when previously it was Kosovo & FRY.
Section 6 B: NATO personnel, under all circumstances and at all times, shall be immune from the Parties, jurisdiction in respect of any civil, administrative, criminal or disciplinary offenses which may be committed by them in the FRY (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia)."
Section 7: "NATO personnel shall be immune from any form of arrest, investigation, or detention by the authorities in the FRY."
Section 8: "NATO personnel shall enjoy, together with their vehicles, vessels, aircraft, and equipment, free and unrestricted passage and unimpeded access throughout the FRY including associated airspace and territorial waters
Section 11: "NATO is granted the use of airports, roads, rails, and ports without payment of fees, duties, dues, tolls, or charges occasioned by mere use."
Section 15: "The Parties (Yugoslav government) shall, upon simple request, grant all telecommunications services, including broadcast services, and the right to use all of the electromagnetic spectrum for this purpose, free of cost." (didn't want to pay for a service, doesn't it go again "free market economy" they wanted to impose?
Section 22: "NATO may, in the conduct of the Operation, have need to make improvements or modifications to certain infrastructure in the FRY, such as roads, bridges, tunnels, buildings, and utility systems.

This part really sums it up for me (from here):

3. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has competence in Kosovo over the following areas, except as specified elsewhere in this Agreement: (a) territorial integrity, (b) maintaining a common market within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which power shall be exercised in a manner that does not discriminate against Kosovo, (c) monetary policy, (d) defense, (e) foreign policy, (f) customs services, (g) federal taxation, (h) federal elections, and (i) other areas specified in this Agreement.

No independence.

I am sure that now you will tell that is a balance, perfect and acceptable “peace” treaty.

If NATO demanded to have permanent military access to FRY territory, then of course not. But that was not the demand.

“a journalist during the war in Bosnia” And this make him a specialist of what? I was in Bosnia during and after the war and I don’t pretend to be an expert on it. I couldn’t see on the other side of the hill, and no journalist could either. But I worked with/for the three sides’ refugees and IDP’s.

That's his background.

If you are interested in the progress, here is an updated ATO map.

Map updates seem to be posted regularly by this account: https://twitter.com/NSDC_ua

[Sarmatian]

10 years later? Let's see what was stated in 1999:



In 2008, Ranta said that she pressured into using strong language, but that she refused to do this:



So, as far as I can see, Ranta is still of the opinion that those killed in Račak were civilians.

So, how was it not a massacre if they were unarmed civilians? Can you explain that oxymoron?

To further elaborate, the 17th March report was not really a report but a personal opinion of Helena Ranta. The first part stressed that it was not the position of the team, but only her personal opinion.

At first she said that there "there was no evidence that the victims had been anything other than unarmed civilians and that they had probably been killed where they were later found by the international monitors".

Later her explanation was "...medicolegal investigations [such as scientific analysis of bodies] cannot give a conclusive answer to the question whether there was [in fact] a battle [between the police and insurgents]...", but she leaned towards the victims being non-combatants in part because (there was no ammunition in the pockets ".

There's a big difference between the two statements, so she was obviously lying about not giving in to the pressure. The first states with absolute certainty that it was a massacre, the second that there's no evidence to support either position.

The wording itself of the first statement is also very interesting - it doesn't say there was evidence that they were civilians. It says there was no evidence that they weren't, which is a very curious phrasing.

So, summing up:

1st team said there was evidence of a massacre
2nd team likewise
3rd team also, apart from the head of the team who later moderated her statement, and confirmed there was no evidence.

Add that crime scene was in fact in control of KLA for a long time before anyone arrived and you don't really need Einstein IQ to see something was fishy.

[Husar]

There is a logo that reads CIA on those pictures.

Meanwhile the CIA seems to plan the deployment of recon pigeons: https://twitter.com/CIA

[Viking]

So, how was it not a massacre if they were unarmed civilians? Can you explain that oxymoron?

A final report by forensic experts into the killing of 40 Kosovo Albanians in the village of Racak has failed to rule on whether they were massacred by Serb police.

I.e., wouldn't comment on who did it.

[Gilrandir]

Meanwhile the CIA seems to plan the deployment of recon pigeons: https://twitter.com/CIA

Let the monuments beware - the pigeons will poop on them and film the process.

[Viking]

Later her explanation was "...medicolegal investigations [such as scientific analysis of bodies] cannot give a conclusive answer to the question whether there was [in fact] a battle [between the police and insurgents]..."

I found this quote in this context:

But Dr Ranta threw out Serb claims that the dead were combatants and that their bodies had been tampered with, making Recak a 'set-up'.

but she leaned towards the victims being non-combatants in part because (there was no ammunition in the pockets ".

What's the source for this quotation?

[Sarmatian]

I found this quote in this context:

And in that article there's a quote from her report that says: 'Medico-legal investigations cannot give a conclusive answer to the question whether there was a battle or whether the victims died under some other circumstances.'

What's source for this quotation?

This. A report on the report, because the report was never released to the public in its entirety (Berliner Zeitung's claim aside), which makes one wonder why.

There are other issues. Of the 45 bodies, only a few very elderly and only one was a woman, which doesn't correspond to the natural male/female or young/elderly ratio.

The initial report of OSCE mentions 45 bodies. Only 40 bodies were delivered for pathological examination. KLA was in control of the crime scene. Access to scene was denied to Serbian forensic team. Not a single report offered conclusive evidence of a massacre. Position of the head of the Finnish team differed from the rest of her team. The full report was never released, even now, 15 years from the incident.

If you need more to see something's not right there, I'm not sure what I can do.

EDIT: Oh, and the English translation of the Berliner Zeitung article.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Bo Ada, Roland Heine and Claudius Technau

BERLIN, March 23. A small village played a crucial role just as the course was set for the Kosovo war: Racak. In this hamlet, inhabited by Albanians, Serb security forces allegedly executed unarmed civilians in cold blood on January 15, 1999. That was the claim of US president Bill Clinton, among many other Nato politicians. Was the public opinion in Nato countries fed with half-truths and unproven claims throughout the spring of 1999 to secure consent with a military intervention in the Kosovo conflict? The "Berliner Zeitung" was able to get access to secret documents which raise doubt about the widely spread version of events:

What happened in January 1999? Let's look at the war crimes tribunal for Yugoslavia in The Hague: "On or about 15 January 1999, in the early morning hours, the village of Racak (Stimlje/Shtime municipality) was attacked by forces of the FRY and Serbia. After shelling by the VJ units, the Serb police entered the village later in the morning and began conducting house-to-house searches. Villagers, who attempted to flee from the Serb police, were shot throughout the village. A group of approximately 25 men attempted to hide in a building, but were discovered by the Serb police. They were beaten and then were removed to a nearby hill, where the policemen shot and killed them. Altogether, the forces of the FRY and Serbia killed approximately 45 Kosovo Albanians in and around Racak. The Hague indictment calls it "murder of Kosovo-Albanian civilians."

This representation agrees with statements made by American William Walker, who led the OSCE in Kosovo at the time. He visits the village the day following the tragedy. His verdict was passed immediately: He claimed to have seen the corpses of more than 20 mostly elderly men, who "obviously were executed were they lay." According to Walker, the others were found later. A "special report" [English term used by B.Z.] by the OSCE mission prepared under Walker's auspices a day later summarizes: One has found proof of "arbitrary arrests, killings and mutilations of unarmed civilians." The report details a list with 23 adult males in a ravine above Racak, "many shot at point blank", furthermore four adult males who apparently were shot while escaping, as well as 18 corpses in the village proper. The latter include a woman and a young boy.

The pictures of the bodies trigger worldwide shock and dismay. US foreign minister Madeleine Albright calls it a "galvanizing incident". Three days later she demand the bombardment of Yugoslavia as "punishment". In a letter sent to Yugoslav president Milosevic on January 20, the German foreign minister Joschka Fischer writes that any excuses from Belgrade "in no way can justify the execution of 45 unarmed people, amongst them women and children, by the security forces." Later on, Fischer says: "Racak became the turning point for me."

Denial from Belgrade

The Yugoslav government vehemently dispute the condemnation. Belgrade talks of a police action against UCK terrorists. [According to Belgrade,] The bodies were collected by the UCK on the night of January 15 and presented as civilian victims.

On January 22, a forensic team from Finland begins with the autopsy of the corpses that have been brought to the capital of Kosovo. A week later, it has concluded its inquiry. The public waits for the conclusion. But for the time being, the team led by Dr. Helena Ranta takes its time to evaluate the findings.

Meanwhile, the Kosovo conflict becomes grows more intense by the day. In Rambouillet near Paris, the Western powers, Russia, Serbs and Kosovo-Albanians still negotiate a peaceful solution to the dispute. The Rambouillet talks have entered a decisive phase when the team leader Ranta hosts a confusing press conference in Pristina. Instead of issuing the inquiry results, she shares "comments" that reflect her "personal opinion." On this 17th of March 1999, nobody knows that political forces have urged Mrs. Ranta to go public. To this day, her reserach is neither finished, nor has it led to any clear conclusions.

In complicated sentences, prone to misunderstandings, Mrs. Ranta tries to extricate herself from the affair. She declines to speak of a "massacre"; instead, she calls the tragedy a "crime against humanity". She states that no ammunition and no uniforms were found on the bodies, but that some of them were clothed in several thick sweaters. She elaborates on the fact that no gunpowder traces were found, but doesn't clearly state where one has looked for them. She criticizes that the OSCE has neither secured the corpses or any evidence and points to the long time that has passed between the deaths and the forensic inquiry. Both would make a non-ambigious statement difficult.

Nevertheless, most observers took Helena Rantas' statements as a confirmation that an execution had taken place. Important politicians allow no more leeway for doubt. US president Clinton says that "innocent men, women and children" have been driven from their homes, forced to "kneel in the dirt and were moved down." Anonymous Western government representatives tell the "International Herald Tribune" that the most horrendous details from the Finnish report have not yet been made public. A week later, the war begins, and the reports remain secret.

Inquiries with Mrs. Ranta

The Berliner Zeitung has now been able to access copies of the autopsy documents. Of all these reports, none contain any evidence of an execution scenario. The Finnish forensic experts and their Yugoslav and Belorussian colleagues found traces that point to a gunshot fired "relatively close" on only one of the victims. In the other cases, the findings were negative.

Neither is the alleged absence of gunpowder residue [on the victims'] hands documented. As a consequence, there is no evidence that the victims were civilians. We asked Mrs. Ranta about the reason for this. After a brief consideration, she solved the puzzle: The Finnish team never looked for such traces. Rather, the tests mentioned at the press conference on March 17, 1999, were carried out to look for traces of executions or point blank shootings. These were the tests that proved negative. "It was somewhat easy to misunderstand that at the press conference," Mrs. Ranta admits today.

That is a fact. But this "misunderstanding" is crucial to the Racak case. Were the dead actually unarmed, peaceful villagers? Or were at least some of them Albanian UCK fighters? Was it an execution or a battle? In all official statements by the OSCE, the Hague tribunal, and the EU the second possibility is not mentioned.

Against better knowledge. As early as the morning of January 16 1999, the UCK issues the first communique stating that eight of its fighters had been killed in combat in Racak. The names of these dead do not appear on the Hague tribunal's list. Another strange thing: Also on January 16, the UCK mentions 22 execution victims in Racak by name. But only eleven of them are recorded on the tribunal's victim list. Only the figure 22 approximately correlates with the number of dead found on the hill behind Racak. How many dead were there really?

"The truth is," says French journalist Renaud Girard, "that Racak was a fortified village with a lot of [gunfighter] trenches." There isn't a single word to be found about that in OSCE's "special report." [English term used by B.Z.] On January 16 1999, Girard had hurried to the scene of the tragedy, and he saw OSCE chief of mission in action. "In terms of massacres, Walker is a professional," says Girard. "Any professional knows what to do. He blocks off access to the crime scene to secure the evidence. Walker did no such thing. He trampled around there himself and let the journalists fiddle around with the corpses, collect souvenirs and wipe out evidence. Initially, Girard filed a massacre story like all his colleagues with his paper "Le Figaro." But then he started pondering. "I felt that something was wrong."

Doubts among Journalists

A colleague with "Le Monde" contributed to his doubts. Christophe Chatelet had been in Racak the day before - the day of the alleged massacre. Together with OSCE representatives, he entered the village in the late afternoon, when the Serbs had left. The foreigners found four wounded and were told about one dead. Chatelet returned to Pristina at dusk. He told a colleague that nothing particular had happened at Racak. The day after, when Walker went to racak with a large press entourage, Chatelet declined and stayed at the hotel. Chatelet cannot explain why the OSCE only recorded one dead on the afternoon of January 15, while the OSCE the morning after suddenly found at least 13, possibly as many as 18, corpses in the streets and farmhouses: "I can't solve that mystery."

Certainly, the 45 dead are the Serbs' victims. But if there was a mass execution: why did the Serb units withdraw without any attempt to cover up the incident and make as many corpses as possible disappear? The UCK is in the best position to bring light to the case. Recently, its commander in chief Hashim Thaci said to the BBC: "We had a key unit in the region. It was a fierce battle. We regrettably had many victims. But so did the Serbs.

[Brenus]

“But that was not the demand.” Did you read the Appendix? Yes, of course, but you don’t acknowledge what goes against your opinion…

“No independence.” Full independence as FRY won’t have any control on law enforcement, and the 2 bolt points are dealt by NATO: “The KFOR [NATO] commander is the final authority in theatre regarding interpretation of this Chapter and his determinations are binding on all Parties and persons”= No independence from NATO.

“At the time of the Kosovo War, Yugoslavia = Serbia + Montenegro.” And NATO wanted to reinstall a Constitution made by a Dictator when Yugoslavia was made of 5 full countries. Did you notice that the West LOVED old communist dictators drawing of borders?

“a dispatcher of Dnipropetrovsk airport was arrested and charged with treason.” And convicted apparently… I like the judiciary process in Ukraine… A little bit little the social media intelligence, I suppose, or the shelling of towns against the Ukrainian Power will, etc…

“Doing a land grab.” Yeah, but I wonder why, as you fully agree when NATO is doing it. Sorry, you have the right to support NATO aggressive wars and expansion. I find it a little bit hypocritical to cry on some victims and to ignore others; but again, you are entitled to do so.

“What do you mean by that? "Forbid the serbs"?” In making the agreement impossible to agree with, from the Serbian point of view.

[Gilrandir]

“a dispatcher of Dnipropetrovsk airport was arrested and charged with treason.” And convicted apparently…

Not yet. The investigation is under way.

I like the judiciary process in Ukraine… A little bit little the social media intelligence, I suppose, or the shelling of towns against the Ukrainian Power will, etc…

You don't swerve from your usual line: "apparently", "suppose" show that you don't know for certain, yet you condemn what you don't know. We witness your usual unfathomable logics: on the one hand you want Ukrainian authorities to investigate sometning (for example, sniper shooting on Maidan) and come up with palpable results, on the other hand you mistrust and think biased whatever results there may be.

As for Russia direct military involvement into fighting in Donbas:
http://gordonua.com/news/separatism/...ine-33074.html
A Russain soldier called Vadim Grigoriev from Samara regularly posted in his VKontakte account updates on his deatchment's doings. He claims that it is deployed near the Ukrainian border. The post of July 23 said that they had been shelling Ukraine all night through. Later he deleted all the photos and even his account in the social media.

[Brenus]

“Later he deleted all the photos and even his account in the social media.” Sure he did, just giving time for the Ukrainian Intelligence Service and news to see them…. Tsk tsk tsk, what a continuous bad luck for the Ukrainian Intelligence Service and news agencies…

“on the other hand you mistrust and think biased whatever results there may be.” Well, due to the results they’ve got…

[Viking]

And in that article there's a quote from her report that says: 'Medico-legal investigations cannot give a conclusive answer to the question whether there was a battle or whether the victims died under some other circumstances.'




This. A report on the report, because the report was never released to the public in its entirety (Berliner Zeitung's claim aside), which makes one wonder why.

There are other issues. Of the 45 bodies, only a few very elderly and only one was a woman, which doesn't correspond to the natural male/female or young/elderly ratio.

The initial report of OSCE mentions 45 bodies. Only 40 bodies were delivered for pathological examination. KLA was in control of the crime scene. Access to scene was denied to Serbian forensic team. Not a single report offered conclusive evidence of a massacre. Position of the head of the Finnish team differed from the rest of her team. The full report was never released, even now, 15 years from the incident.

If you need more to see something's not right there, I'm not sure what I can do.

EDIT: Oh, and the English translation of the Berliner Zeitung article.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Bo Ada, Roland Heine and Claudius Technau

BERLIN, March 23. A small village played a crucial role just as the course was set for the Kosovo war: Racak. In this hamlet, inhabited by Albanians, Serb security forces allegedly executed unarmed civilians in cold blood on January 15, 1999. That was the claim of US president Bill Clinton, among many other Nato politicians. Was the public opinion in Nato countries fed with half-truths and unproven claims throughout the spring of 1999 to secure consent with a military intervention in the Kosovo conflict? The "Berliner Zeitung" was able to get access to secret documents which raise doubt about the widely spread version of events:

What happened in January 1999? Let's look at the war crimes tribunal for Yugoslavia in The Hague: "On or about 15 January 1999, in the early morning hours, the village of Racak (Stimlje/Shtime municipality) was attacked by forces of the FRY and Serbia. After shelling by the VJ units, the Serb police entered the village later in the morning and began conducting house-to-house searches. Villagers, who attempted to flee from the Serb police, were shot throughout the village. A group of approximately 25 men attempted to hide in a building, but were discovered by the Serb police. They were beaten and then were removed to a nearby hill, where the policemen shot and killed them. Altogether, the forces of the FRY and Serbia killed approximately 45 Kosovo Albanians in and around Racak. The Hague indictment calls it "murder of Kosovo-Albanian civilians."

This representation agrees with statements made by American William Walker, who led the OSCE in Kosovo at the time. He visits the village the day following the tragedy. His verdict was passed immediately: He claimed to have seen the corpses of more than 20 mostly elderly men, who "obviously were executed were they lay." According to Walker, the others were found later. A "special report" [English term used by B.Z.] by the OSCE mission prepared under Walker's auspices a day later summarizes: One has found proof of "arbitrary arrests, killings and mutilations of unarmed civilians." The report details a list with 23 adult males in a ravine above Racak, "many shot at point blank", furthermore four adult males who apparently were shot while escaping, as well as 18 corpses in the village proper. The latter include a woman and a young boy.

The pictures of the bodies trigger worldwide shock and dismay. US foreign minister Madeleine Albright calls it a "galvanizing incident". Three days later she demand the bombardment of Yugoslavia as "punishment". In a letter sent to Yugoslav president Milosevic on January 20, the German foreign minister Joschka Fischer writes that any excuses from Belgrade "in no way can justify the execution of 45 unarmed people, amongst them women and children, by the security forces." Later on, Fischer says: "Racak became the turning point for me."

Denial from Belgrade

The Yugoslav government vehemently dispute the condemnation. Belgrade talks of a police action against UCK terrorists. [According to Belgrade,] The bodies were collected by the UCK on the night of January 15 and presented as civilian victims.

On January 22, a forensic team from Finland begins with the autopsy of the corpses that have been brought to the capital of Kosovo. A week later, it has concluded its inquiry. The public waits for the conclusion. But for the time being, the team led by Dr. Helena Ranta takes its time to evaluate the findings.

Meanwhile, the Kosovo conflict becomes grows more intense by the day. In Rambouillet near Paris, the Western powers, Russia, Serbs and Kosovo-Albanians still negotiate a peaceful solution to the dispute. The Rambouillet talks have entered a decisive phase when the team leader Ranta hosts a confusing press conference in Pristina. Instead of issuing the inquiry results, she shares "comments" that reflect her "personal opinion." On this 17th of March 1999, nobody knows that political forces have urged Mrs. Ranta to go public. To this day, her reserach is neither finished, nor has it led to any clear conclusions.

In complicated sentences, prone to misunderstandings, Mrs. Ranta tries to extricate herself from the affair. She declines to speak of a "massacre"; instead, she calls the tragedy a "crime against humanity". She states that no ammunition and no uniforms were found on the bodies, but that some of them were clothed in several thick sweaters. She elaborates on the fact that no gunpowder traces were found, but doesn't clearly state where one has looked for them. She criticizes that the OSCE has neither secured the corpses or any evidence and points to the long time that has passed between the deaths and the forensic inquiry. Both would make a non-ambigious statement difficult.

Nevertheless, most observers took Helena Rantas' statements as a confirmation that an execution had taken place. Important politicians allow no more leeway for doubt. US president Clinton says that "innocent men, women and children" have been driven from their homes, forced to "kneel in the dirt and were moved down." Anonymous Western government representatives tell the "International Herald Tribune" that the most horrendous details from the Finnish report have not yet been made public. A week later, the war begins, and the reports remain secret.

Inquiries with Mrs. Ranta

The Berliner Zeitung has now been able to access copies of the autopsy documents. Of all these reports, none contain any evidence of an execution scenario. The Finnish forensic experts and their Yugoslav and Belorussian colleagues found traces that point to a gunshot fired "relatively close" on only one of the victims. In the other cases, the findings were negative.

Neither is the alleged absence of gunpowder residue [on the victims'] hands documented. As a consequence, there is no evidence that the victims were civilians. We asked Mrs. Ranta about the reason for this. After a brief consideration, she solved the puzzle: The Finnish team never looked for such traces. Rather, the tests mentioned at the press conference on March 17, 1999, were carried out to look for traces of executions or point blank shootings. These were the tests that proved negative. "It was somewhat easy to misunderstand that at the press conference," Mrs. Ranta admits today.

That is a fact. But this "misunderstanding" is crucial to the Racak case. Were the dead actually unarmed, peaceful villagers? Or were at least some of them Albanian UCK fighters? Was it an execution or a battle? In all official statements by the OSCE, the Hague tribunal, and the EU the second possibility is not mentioned.

Against better knowledge. As early as the morning of January 16 1999, the UCK issues the first communique stating that eight of its fighters had been killed in combat in Racak. The names of these dead do not appear on the Hague tribunal's list. Another strange thing: Also on January 16, the UCK mentions 22 execution victims in Racak by name. But only eleven of them are recorded on the tribunal's victim list. Only the figure 22 approximately correlates with the number of dead found on the hill behind Racak. How many dead were there really?

"The truth is," says French journalist Renaud Girard, "that Racak was a fortified village with a lot of [gunfighter] trenches." There isn't a single word to be found about that in OSCE's "special report." [English term used by B.Z.] On January 16 1999, Girard had hurried to the scene of the tragedy, and he saw OSCE chief of mission in action. "In terms of massacres, Walker is a professional," says Girard. "Any professional knows what to do. He blocks off access to the crime scene to secure the evidence. Walker did no such thing. He trampled around there himself and let the journalists fiddle around with the corpses, collect souvenirs and wipe out evidence. Initially, Girard filed a massacre story like all his colleagues with his paper "Le Figaro." But then he started pondering. "I felt that something was wrong."

Doubts among Journalists

A colleague with "Le Monde" contributed to his doubts. Christophe Chatelet had been in Racak the day before - the day of the alleged massacre. Together with OSCE representatives, he entered the village in the late afternoon, when the Serbs had left. The foreigners found four wounded and were told about one dead. Chatelet returned to Pristina at dusk. He told a colleague that nothing particular had happened at Racak. The day after, when Walker went to racak with a large press entourage, Chatelet declined and stayed at the hotel. Chatelet cannot explain why the OSCE only recorded one dead on the afternoon of January 15, while the OSCE the morning after suddenly found at least 13, possibly as many as 18, corpses in the streets and farmhouses: "I can't solve that mystery."

Certainly, the 45 dead are the Serbs' victims. But if there was a mass execution: why did the Serb units withdraw without any attempt to cover up the incident and make as many corpses as possible disappear? The UCK is in the best position to bring light to the case. Recently, its commander in chief Hashim Thaci said to the BBC: "We had a key unit in the region. It was a fierce battle. We regrettably had many victims. But so did the Serbs.

So, no conclusive evidence points in either direction.

“But that was not the demand.” Did you read the Appendix? Yes, of course, but you don’t acknowledge what goes against your opinion…

It's hard for me to tell from this vantage point to say what would be necessary and unnecessary demands for military access for the NATO troops in the area. It is clear, though, that having military access to all of FRY means that federal units can't do a hit-and-run in Kosovo and then retreat back to rest of FRY territory without NATO units immediately being able to chase them or search for them.

“No independence.” Full independence as FRY won’t have any control on law enforcement, and the 2 bolt points are dealt by NATO: “The KFOR [NATO] commander is the final authority in theatre regarding interpretation of this Chapter and his determinations are binding on all Parties and persons”= No independence from NATO.

So when KFOR withdraws, Kosovo is back with the FRY federation.

“At the time of the Kosovo War, Yugoslavia = Serbia + Montenegro.” And NATO wanted to reinstall a Constitution made by a Dictator when Yugoslavia was made of 5 full countries. Did you notice that the West LOVED old communist dictators drawing of borders?

Point being?

“Doing a land grab.” Yeah, but I wonder why, as you fully agree when NATO is doing it. Sorry, you have the right to support NATO aggressive wars and expansion. I find it a little bit hypocritical to cry on some victims and to ignore others; but again, you are entitled to do so.

If you want to do a land grab, it's not adequate to install a friendly regime - democratically or not. Once own troops are gone and friendly regimes are a distant memory, so is the land. The Russian army will never leave Crimea as long as Russia consider it as its own territory. It's as permanent as a land grab gets.

In making the agreement impossible to agree with, from the Serbian point of view.

What should the Kosovars agree to, in your opinion?

[Brenus]

“What should the Kosovars agree to, in your opinion?” No choice. They were defeated by the Yugoslav Army, so NATO was the only way to turn the situation, as what followed proved it. It was a good old blackmail from NATO: Sign here, here and here, or negotiate with the Serbs who were not in mood to do so…

“If you want to do a land grab, it's not adequate to install a friendly regime” No, you also install a strong military fort named Bondsteel
http:http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...steel_2000.jpg

“Point being?” Why do you hate freedom?

“It is clear, though, that having military access to all of FRY means that federal units can't do a hit-and-run in Kosovo and then retreat back to rest of FRY territory without NATO units immediately being able to chase them or search for them.” when did NATO ever followed international rules, first, second, it would be a right of pursuit (reason why, now, the US claim that the shells on Ukraine are coming from the Russia side). That the WORST answer ever given to justify an occupation.

“So, no conclusive evidence points in either direction.” So the verdict is not guilty as the Prosecution was not able to provide evidences. That is the law in UK and in most of the world. If you can’t find the body, you can’t say it was a murder, in fact, you can’t even say that a murder happened. You can pretend as the West did, that it is because the murderers were so good that they hind the bodies, but unfortunately Walkers said he saw the bodies;

“So when KFOR withdraws, Kosovo is back with the FRY federation.” Yeah, but US Army still there, so long independence, which somehow is good, as the Albanians would finish of the last Serbs, Gypsies and other Askenalees who didn’t flee during the wave(s) of Ethnic cleansing launched by the NATO’s allies.
And as you well know, Kosovo is now independent. So your justification of the land grabbing by NATO is a little bit out of date as reality is hard to dismiss. So, after an baseless and illegal war, NATO carved a territory from a country that was not a threat of the Alliance (defensive one), imposed its conditions to the vanquish, covered-up an ethnic cleansing, organised a “referendum”, free of course, and give the lands to the war lords she favoured. Ah, I was near to forget, and dictated the Constitution, recognising minority right to the minorities that were expelled without one movement (or even a whisper) to stop the crime.

[Gilrandir]

“Later he deleted all the photos and even his account in the social media.” Sure he did, just giving time for the Ukrainian Intelligence Service and news to see them…. Tsk tsk tsk, what a continuous bad luck for the Ukrainian Intelligence Service and news agencies…

Why is it bad luck? Social media users spotted it and posted it further so that everyone interested (or, in your case, skeptical) could see it and make conclusions. The same happened with the Gukovo video. Yet both are evidence that the Russian army overtly hepls separatists.

[Brenus]

"Yet both are evidence that the Russian army overtly hepls separatists." Except of course they are no evidence at all, as they can be fabricated by the Ukrainian Intelligence.
And by the way, I have no doubt that Russia helps the separatists as it was from the start my hypothesis of Putin's policy. I am just annoyed by the pure propaganda coming from the Ukrainian Government and the systematic dehumanisation of their opponents... I just wait for the moment when, on social media, the Ukrainian Intelligence will have proof that Separatists eat babies, but of course, all pictures have been withdraw and the account doesn't exist any more, how convenient...

[Gilrandir]

"Yet both are evidence that the Russian army overtly hepls separatists." Except of course they are no evidence at all, as they can be fabricated by the Ukrainian Intelligence. And by the way, I have no doubt that Russia helps the separatists as it was from the start my hypothesis of Putin's policy.

This help looks more and more like open shelling the Ukrainian army positions. The information on it has been trickling in for a couple of weeks from the Ukrainian border guards and now it was involunarily corroborated by Russians themselves in the evidence I offered.
Another turncoat, this time a conscript of the Russian armed forces, admitted that Russia has been sending military specialists, weapons and military equipment to Ukraine:
http://rus.newsru.ua/ukraine/24jul20...balabanov.html

I am just annoyed by the pure propaganda coming from the Ukrainian Government and the systematic dehumanisation of their opponents... I just wait for the moment when, on social media, the Ukrainian Intelligence will have proof that Separatists eat babies, but of course, all pictures have been withdraw and the account doesn't exist any more, how convenient...

Let me quote yourself: they demonize themselves. It has been done by torturing the prisoners, shooting civilians in passing-by cars, blowing up infrastructure objects, setting fire to the ice hockey arena, burglarizing banks and supermarkets, and, finally, bringing down a passenger plane (albeit by mistake). These are the very actions that estranged from the separatists the locals who had been looking favorably upon them.

[Viking]

“What should the Kosovars agree to, in your opinion?” No choice. They were defeated by the Yugoslav Army, so NATO was the only way to turn the situation, as what followed proved it. It was a good old blackmail from NATO: Sign here, here and here, or negotiate with the Serbs who were not in mood to do so…

I mean, should the Kosovars be happy with being an ethnic minority when they could be an ethnic majority? Should they be happy without autonomous rule?

“If you want to do a land grab, it's not adequate to install a friendly regime” No, you also install a strong military fort named Bondsteel
http:http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...steel_2000.jpg

And for how long do you recon it'll stay there as a US base? More than 50 years? How much control over the territory do you think such a base will provide compared to a real annexation?

“It is clear, though, that having military access to all of FRY means that federal units can't do a hit-and-run in Kosovo and then retreat back to rest of FRY territory without NATO units immediately being able to chase them or search for them.” when did NATO ever followed international rules, first, second, it would be a right of pursuit (reason why, now, the US claim that the shells on Ukraine are coming from the Russia side). That the WORST answer ever given to justify an occupation.

They could claim a right to pursue, but then FRY could claim that no such event took place and that NATO are invading their territory. Can't invade a territory you have military access to.

“So, no conclusive evidence points in either direction.” So the verdict is not guilty as the Prosecution was not able to provide evidences. That is the law in UK and in most of the world. If you can’t find the body, you can’t say it was a murder, in fact, you can’t even say that a murder happened. You can pretend as the West did, that it is because the murderers were so good that they hind the bodies, but unfortunately Walkers said he saw the bodies;

There were more events than just this one. Is your opinion that all alleged atrocities carried out against [Albanian] Kosovars did not happen or lack credible evidence?

“So when KFOR withdraws, Kosovo is back with the FRY federation.” Yeah, but US Army still there, so long independence, which somehow good, as the Albanians would finish of the last Serbs, Gypsies and other Askenalees who didn’t flee during the wave(s) of Ethnic cleansing launched by the NATO’s allies.
And as you well know, Kosovo is now independent. So your justification of the land grabbing by NATO is a little bit out of date as reality is hard to dismiss. So, after an baseless and illegal war, NATO carved a territory from a country that was not a threat of the Alliance (defensive one), imposed its conditions to the vanquish, covered-up an ethnic cleansing, organised a “referendum”, free of course, and give the lands to the war lords she favoured. Ah, I was near to forget, and dictated the Constitution, recognising minority right to the minorities that were expelled without one movement (or even a whisper) to stop the crime.

Could they effectively have stopped it? Some say that they couldn't:

KFOR cannot stop the ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Kosovo, nor can it prevent the KLA surrogates from attacking Serbs in southeastern Kosovo. The Kosovars are now the domestic power in Kosovo; the UNMIK does not have enoguh personnel to govern or to police the province.

What's the evidence for your stance?

[Brenus]

“I mean, should the Kosovars be happy with being an ethnic minority when they could be an ethnic majority? Should they be happy without autonomous rule?” Kosovar or KLA? The KLA wanted independence, Albanian Territories of Macedonia, and part of Albanian populated region still in Serbia. Some wanted to join Albania, but Albanian Government was not really keen on this as it would have changed its own power balance (Gheg & Tosk, roughly). So were they happy, not really? Did had they a choice: Not.

“And for how long do you recon it'll stay there as a US base? More than 50 years? How much control over the territory do you think such a base will provide compared to a real annexation?” Don’t know. How long now for Guantanamo base in Cuba? And it is not like in Cuba, Kosovar leaders need USA badly for protection, or a real political resolution with Serbia and human reconciliation with the Serbs.

“Can't invade a territory you have military access to.” True, you can’t invade a territory you invaded before and occupy, you logic is implacable…

“Is your opinion that all alleged atrocities carried out against [Albanian] Kosovars did not happen or lack credible evidence?” Ah, the good old tactics, one can always rely on them. So, I cast doubt on one event so I became a killers’ friend.
I do not have a shred of doubt than atrocities happened; I have been witness of the result(s) of some. I spoke with victims of atrocities; I gave them food, medicaments and shelter during the war, rebuilt houses, implemented social programmes with psychiatrist and psychologist, social workers and lawyers to help them. I followed their sorrow, and pain, and their tears. Do you have ever smell a refugee? Did you have ever seen a looted house, with all the stupid but how much precious pictures as “you and your partner on the beach” spread on the floor… Don’t give me *****. I know what it is. I saw graves opened or recovered, I saw kids with military boots 10 times too big for them, I saw destruction and killing fields. Did you see a man drinking himself to death because a sniper missed him and just destroyed his face? Did you refused to have sex with a 15 years old girl who lost every possible compass when a sniper shot her at the age of 13? Don’t even try to tell me that I agree with killers and assassins, butchers and torturers.
When some rejoice of troops "mopping-up", I know, saw, and smelt what it is. It is the smell of burned houses, misery and blood, columns of refugees, rapes and slaughters.
You are supporting annexation and invasion, not me, so deal with the consequences of your choice.

“Could they effectively have stopped it? Some say that they couldn't:” BS. With a proper plan, it could have been easily prevented, just a gradual withdrawal would have been enough.

“What's the evidence for your stance?” Of what stance? That NATO let the Albanians doing it: The result speaks by itself no? How many Serbs, Ashkenali, Croats and others before, how many after? Find by yourself, be curious.
As to stop the ethnic cleansing, they would have just had to tell them off… They didn’t, not a word.

[Viking]

“I mean, should the Kosovars be happy with being an ethnic minority when they could be an ethnic majority? Should they be happy without autonomous rule?” Kosovar or KLA? The KLA wanted independence, Albanian Territories of Macedonia, and part of Albanian populated region still in Serbia. Some wanted to join Albania, but Albanian Government was not really keen on this as it would have changed its own power balance (Gheg & Tosk, roughly). So were they happy, not really? Did had they a choice: Not.

Kosovars. There are always choices, but only a few has the power to make them.

You are supporting [...] invasion, not me, so deal with the consequences of your choice.

I have neither said that I do nor that I do not. A battlefield defeat of the KLA does not mean that the movement would become dead or that no new movements would spring up and restart the war. It's easy to blame NATO and say that its choice of going to war has led to needless deaths, but the alternative could easily have led to many more deaths and a region that would still be unstable.

“What's the evidence for your stance?” Of what stance? That NATO let the Albanians doing it: The result speaks by itself no? How many Serbs, Ashkenali, Croats and others before, how many after? Find by yourself, be curious.
As to stop the ethnic cleansing, they would have just had to tell them off… They didn’t, not a word.

Numbers alone do not tell much. Can't tell the reason why each individual left: Forceful eviction? Because of specific threats or events personally witnessed? Because of general fear and hearsay?

[Gilrandir]

Not only Ukraine claims that Russia attacks its territory:
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/65412...#axzz38ZylDKe9

[Husar]

They don't if I do not pay to read it.

[Fisherking]

The unfortunate fact is that Ukrainian defense ministry reports and US government reports are not as believable as the reports of individual Ukrainian solders reports or international media reports, if there were war correspondents in the area.

If access to the front is strictly controlled it is more prone to propaganda than actual news reporting.

The BBC version of the story just say “paraphrased” that US intelligence sources say the Russians are firing from across the border but because of security they won’t say how they know that.

[Husar]

And some experts say the Ukrainian army is using Grad fire from its own positions:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opi...616255695.html

In these circumstances it can be challenging to establish who was responsible for a particular attack that killed civilians, particularly since both sides deny responsibility. But, in four attacks against populated areas that Human Rights Watch investigated in Donetsk, the evidence strongly indicates that Ukrainian government forces were responsible.

All the hits were in areas controlled by insurgent forces, but close to the front lines. And by examining the impact craters we were able to establish the rockets' flight direction, which indicated they had been launched from government-controlled areas. These four attacks killed at least 16 civilians and injured many more.

[...]

Because they are imprecise and cannot be relied upon to accurately target legitimate military objectives, the use of Grads in populated areas is a violation of the laws of war, and repeated attacks like those we documented could amount to war crimes. Commanders on both sides should recognise that they might one day be held legally accountable for their actions.

So much for the nice government forces fighting the good fight. They're not the first or the only modern army trying to get insurgents out of cities so where the separatists are hiding is hardly an excuse.

[Brenus]

“Can't tell the reason why each individual left: Forceful eviction? Because of specific threats or events personally witnessed? Because of general fear and hearsay?” A bit of all of this, but when it was the Kosovars doing this, that was called a Ethnic-Cleansing.

“There are always choices, but only a few has the power to make them.” Yeah, there is the bad choice and the bad choice in this case.

“A battlefield defeat of the KLA does not mean that the movement would become dead or that no new movements would spring up and restart the war.” Could be, no one knows. What we know is the creation of an artificial state which satisfy really no one (I mean the local populations) but serves well the Western Interests. The real fact is the Nationalists won. The real things is the Karadzic, Mladic, Izetbegovic, Tudjman, Milosevic and others Thaci won. We divided Yugoslavia between “ethnicities”, but because we had to keep good conscience, we keep some little bit of everything everywhere.

[Gilrandir]

So much for the nice government forces fighting the good fight. They're not the first or the only modern army trying to get insurgents out of cities so where the separatists are hiding is hardly an excuse.

A fight is always a fight so it can't be good by default. And episodes like this will happen. But there is a great difference between collateral damage that may take place while the enemy's positions are attacked and casualties caused by deliberate shelling residential quarters in the cities they hold where they know no enemies are hiding, as the separatists do.
I wonder would such discussions be held during WWII when a country was evicting an enemy from its territory. Did anyone think then of collateral damage? Or, without a need to go that far back, - the current ATO by Israel. They are going all the way to put and end to those they brand as terrorists.

[Husar]

A fight is always a fight so it can't be good by default. And episodes like this will happen. But there is a great difference between collateral damage that may take place while the enemy's positions are attacked and casualties caused by deliberate shelling residential quarters in the cities they hold where they know no enemies are hiding, as the separatists do.
I wonder would such discussions be held during WWII when a country was evicting an enemy from its territory. Did anyone think then of collateral damage? Or, without a need to go that far back, - the current ATO by Israel. They are going all the way to put and end to those they brand as terrorists.

So throwing a nuclear weapon at a city where the enemy hides would be okay as the civilians are just unfortunate collateral damage then?
WW2 was full of war crimes on all sides, that's really a good one to bring up.
And yeah, noone really criticized Israel for killing hundreds of civilians, my fault.

[Gilrandir]

So throwing a nuclear weapon at a city where the enemy hides would be okay as the civilians are just unfortunate collateral damage then?

When we see it done we will discuss it. Until then it is one of might have beens. If I made the same surmise about Putin I would be laughed at and branded propaganda-monger and demonizer of Russia.

WW2 was full of war crimes on all sides, that's really a good one to bring up.

And that is why it should have been better to let nazis own 3/4 of Europe and not conquer back the lost territories to prevent further casualties.

And yeah, noone really criticized Israel for killing hundreds of civilians, my fault.

And yet, Israel sees it essential to pursue its activity so that later its citizens could have peace and reasonable security.

[Husar]

When we see it done we will discuss it. Until then it is one of might have beens. If I made the same surmise about Putin I would be laughed at and branded propaganda-monger and demonizer of Russia.

I'm pretty sure there were some soldiers in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

And that is why it should have been better to let nazis own 3/4 of Europe and not conquer back the lost territories to prevent further casualties.

But yes, because...

And yet, Israel sees it essential to pursue its activity so that later its citizens could have peace and reasonable security.

...the Nazis were also convinced that if they just conquer enough enemies and people they disagree with, the future citizens could live in peace and reasonable security. It's definitely a solution that works, for one side.