Ah, Those Journalists

[Sarmatian]

In the "Iranian Elections" thread it was mentioned that Iran is locking up journalists. I've pointed out how nato doesn't have too good record with journalist with this.

From the link:

Ten years on, no-one has been held to account for the NATO attack on the Serbian state radio and television building that left 16 civilians dead. Sixteen civilians were also injured during the air attack on 23 April 1999 on the headquarters and studios of Radio Televizija Srbije (RTS) in central Belgrade.

Those killed included a make-up artist, a cameraman, an editor, a programme director, three security guards and other media support staff. An estimated 200 staff are thought to have been working in the building at the time.

To that my good friend Louis said...

I'd say that this 'something in you' are the lingering whisperings of Serbian state propaganda about victimization and warmongering, one source of which was targeted in this attack.

Sorry for the dead, they didn't deserve to die. Serbian warmongering, however, did.

... which led me to deduce that some people think that apparently there are instances when blowing up TV stations and killing journalists is appropriate. Two sides involved in an armed conflict, one side decided that the other is using teh evil propaganda and starts killing journalists and bombing buildings.

So, instead of going OT in the Iranian thread, I'd thought this would a nice topic for a new one. When is it okay to kill journalists, is it okay to kill journalists from oppressive regimes, who has the authority to decide it etc, etc...

Fire away...

[Pannonian]

In the "Iranian Elections" thread it was mentioned that Iran is locking up journalists. I've pointed out how nato doesn't have too good record with journalist with this.

From the link:


To that my good friend Louis said...


... which led me to deduce that some people think that apparently there are instances when blowing up TV stations and killing journalists is appropriate. Two sides involved in an armed conflict, one side decided that the other is using teh evil propaganda and starts killing journalists and bombing buildings.

So, instead of going OT in the Iranian thread, I'd thought this would a nice topic for a new one. When is it okay to kill journalists, is it okay to kill journalists from oppressive regimes, who has the authority to decide it etc, etc...

Fire away...

It's tempting sometimes.

[rory_20_uk]

Simple rule: as the winner everything was justified, proportionate and fair. The looser started it, committed all the big crimes and it was their actions / inaction that led to any that superficially looked like being caused by the other side.

Our regime is never oppressive, theirs almost always is.

In that conflict we were told daily how the Serbs were lying, everything was propaganda and only we know the Truth. At the end of the war more Serbian tanks left than intelligence stated were there at the start, and it turned out that loads of smart missiles and bombs were blowing up mock-ups of tanks.

In war anything goes. Rules are made up by people who've never been anywhere near a battlefield who think you can watch half your squad die and calmly take them prisoner when they surrender. As an ex-girlfriend's father said (who was ex-SAS) "if you need to use your gun, make sure they're dead. Then there's only one version of what happened".

We bomb civilians, mine roads, block food, destroy water and electricity supplies. Morals are the thin veneer we add to the narrative after the stench of cooked meat and rotting corpses has cleared.

It's OK to kill journalists when doing so helps beat the other side. If killing some is causing an outcry, the kill the rest.

[Fragony]

Was uncalled for. War-crime, yeah.

[Louis VI the Fat]

It all boils down to the question:

Were the Serbian State and its organs the victims of foreign aggression? (As some, more nationalistically inclined, parties like to continue to portray it?)
Or was the Serbian State governed by aggressive nationalists, who used state power as a tool for genocide and war crimes, the likes of which Europe hadn't seen in fifty years?

Some debunking of Serbian nationalistic myths:
Serbia is never alone held responsible.
Nor was this the case in the 1990s - this simplification never existed.
It is not 'The West' vs Serbia. The West is a mere sideshow to internal Serbian politics.

Meh, why type myself when so many reporters and truth committee's within former Yugoslavia spend so much time reporting to the world, or, in this case, to the human rights tribune in Geneva:

30 June 09 - Serbia’s war crimes prosecutor plans to investigate the role of media in fomenting ethnic hatred and encouraging war crimes during the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s. But for many observers it is too little, too late

IWPR/Iva Martinovic in Belgrade, Goran Vezic in Split, Dzenana Karabegovic in Sarajevo and Biljana Jovicevic in Podgorica - The investigation announced earlier in June opens the possibility of prosecuting journalists for biased reports published at the bidding of nationalist regimes across former Yugoslavia.

The investigation grew out of testimony heard during Belgrade trials on the massacre of 200 Croats at the Ovcara farm near Vukovar in 1991 and the murder of 25 Bosniaks in Zvornik in 1992, when some of the accused said that certain reports from electronic media incited them to commit the crimes.

The prosecution will not limit itself to the Ovcara and Zvornik cases, but “a comprehensive analysis is being conducted in which journalist and media experts, domestic and foreign, are involved”, he added. The investigation will not cover only Serbian media, but those in Bosnia, Montenegro and Croatia as well. “We want to be completely clear that we as prosecutors want to find elements of possible crime, which would be consequently taken to another level – a criminal proceeding,” Vekaric said.

The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, ICTY, has not indicted any journalists for war crimes nor passed any such cases down to local courts. In contrast, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Tanzania has found three Rwandan journalists guilty of stoking ethnic hatred during the 1994 genocide. Two were jailed for life and a third was sentenced to 35 years.
The most notorious journalist to ever face trial was Nazi propagandist Julius Streicher, founder and publisher of Der Stuermer newspaper, a central cog in the Nazi propaganda machine, who was sentenced to death at Nuremberg.
No one has yet been named in the Serbian probe, but speculation abounds that it will focus on the more blatant war-mongering by loyalists of the late autocrat Slobodan Milosevic.

But whereas the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia has not indicted journalists, Serbia's own war crime prosecuters might. Including this state television that was bombed.

“It’s late because so much time has passed, many have died or have been forgotten, and it’s early, because many of those who were then orchestrating media are still in power, in politics, and are still indirectly influencing media through the political parties they are in,” said Filip David, former editor of drama programmes at Serbian state TV.

Lazar Lalic, who produced the series Pictures and Words of Hatred, dealing with the role of state TV in the wars, said the prosecution would have little trouble finding material for its investigation.
“Documentation exists. It all comes down to instigating propaganda, which was horrible and which managed to make thousands in Serbia volunteer to fight,” said Lalic. “In general, I am a sceptic regarding those trials. It seems to me that things are going in reverse direction. Those people should have first been forbidden from working in media.”

All quotes from this
IWPR article about war crimes prosecution of media within, and by, states in former Yugoslavia.


Serbia as the poor victim of foreign agression? No. Genocidal it was, and truth is what is needed, not victimization. This, I am sorry to say, I think an affront to the massacred.

[econ21]

Morality in war is complicated - this kind of case even more complicated, because nowadays nearly all conflict is not described as a war (but Operation Iraqi Freedom or whatever).

I think there is slippery slope - some black and some white, lots of grey.

For me, white would be bombing the Rwandan radio station that was broadcasting to Hutus and telling them to kill their Tutsi neighbours. Hell, yeck, absolutely, bomb those *****

Almost equally white: bombing Goebbels and Nazi radio stations. In a total war, if they are stiffening enemy resistance, then yes, they are legitimate targets. Taking them out is like taking out power stations and bridges. Civilians will die, but the capacity of the enemy to fight will be hindered.

For me, black is the (was it "accidental"?) bombing of Al-Jazeera in Iraq - IIRC, it happened twice. Absolutely outrageous - worse than if George Bush personally pulled out a pistol and shot the chap who threw his shoe at him. Al-Jazeera is a reasonably neutral station, which just happened to be reporting civilian casualties.

With Serbia, the case seems rather grey to me. I want to be evasive and say that bombing them was probably counter-productive and hence wrong. It creates a sense of grievance and hostility that is particularly important in a case of limited war (or even no war). It's the same point as can be made about bombing civilians in Afghanistan or Pakistan. But in the latter cases, at least you are targeting terrorists, rather than journalists.

[Fragony]

edit: come to think of it, this whole post was a bad idea.

[Vladimir]

... which led me to deduce that some people think that apparently there are instances when blowing up TV stations and killing journalists is appropriate. Two sides involved in an armed conflict, one side decided that the other is using teh evil propaganda and starts killing journalists and bombing buildings.

Correct.

[KukriKhan]

...blowing up TV stations and killing journalists is appropriate...

In my opinion, that is true ONLY in time of a formally declared war. Otherwise, it's criminal. I know it's old-fashioned, and regarded as irrelevant, and not flexible enough to suit today's modern international terrorism environment, but:

Formally declaring war on another country puts them on notice that henceforth everything and everybody within its borders is gonna be considered a valid target.

[Sarmatian]

Correct.

I've pretty much taken that as a given, the issue I wanted to discuss is when, why and who decides... Feel free to broaden it, the TV station bombing is just an example...

It all boils down to the question:

Were the Serbian State and its organs the victims of foreign aggression? (As some, more nationalistically inclined, parties like to continue to portray it?)
Or was the Serbian State governed by aggressive nationalists, who used state power as a tool for genocide and war crimes, the likes of which Europe hadn't seen in fifty years?

I wouldn't say it was so black-or-white either way as you try to portray it here but discussing it further would take us off topic too much.

Some debunking of Serbian nationalistic myths:
Serbia is never alone held responsible.
Nor was this the case in the 1990s - this simplification never existed.
It is not 'The West' vs Serbia. The West is a mere sideshow to internal Serbian politics.

This is again very complex issue to present it in such simple way. What do you mean "Serbia alone was never held responsible"? It is correct in some ways - yes there were politicians and various media outlets that didn't agree with the official story, but overwhelming majority supported that Serbia is, in fact, responsible. Fact that all repressive/punitive actions were taken against Serbia and other sides involved in the conflict were given assistance and support. Few days before "Oluja", NATO planes bombed Serbian radar stations and artillery positions.

Meh, why type myself when so many reporters and truth committee's within former Yugoslavia spend so much time reporting to the world, or, in this case, to the human rights tribune in Geneva:

But whereas the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia has not indicted journalists, Serbia's own war crime prosecuters might. Including this state television that was bombed.

All quotes from this
IWPR article about war crimes prosecution of media within, and by, states in former Yugoslavia.

Serbia as the poor victim of foreign agression? No. Genocidal it was, and truth is what is needed, not victimization. This, I am sorry to say, I think an affront to the massacred.

Interesting points, but still many issues need to be addressed.

Firstly, all that refers to the wars in Croatia and Bosnia and not to the 1999 bombing. There's half a decade between that. There's no doubt that regime used media (tv especially) as its tool, but news coverage was in 1999 was much more objective than from 1990-1995.

Secondly, there were biased and selective reporting in western media of earlier conflicts in Bosnia and Croatia. Many stories were exaggerated or simply false outright. That one sided coverage in turn incited population in NATO countries to support direct actions against Serbia and Serbs in other parts of Yugoslavia. In a sense, it also incited to violence and murder. Does that make CNN, BBC or whatever station and their reporters legitimate targets. Let's not forget that media was used a tool of propaganda since its inception and that there always were falsehood and bias in the media, and there always will be. Your position simply approves violent actions against the journalists and the media whenever one side thinks they're not giving objective reports.

"They say we have weapons of mass destruction? But we don't! Ok, let's kill/imprison them all"

Thirdly, let's say you're completely right, and that national television was nothing more than a tool used by the regime to further its own goals. Do you really think that killing three security guards, programme director, make-up artist, a cameraman and various other support staff with minor roles will change that?

Finally, let's not forget that NATO official justification for the bombing of TV station was because it was supposedly used for military stuff. Bollox in its own right, but it shows that even NATO was aware that the reason "it was used for propaganda" sounded really pathetic.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Formally declaring war on another country puts them on notice that henceforth everything and everybody within its borders is gonna be considered a valid target.

I know the Geneva Conventions are feeling a bit tattered these days, but no it doesn't.

[Adrian II]

I know the Geneva Conventions are feeling a bit tattered these days, but no it doesn't.

Aye.

Those who think there is no such thing as an innocent civilian shouldn't complain about 9/11 and the logic behind it.

I suppose eight years of Bushism have taken their toll on some of the better backroom minds.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Military targets should be the only valid targets in any conflict. I woudln't be surprised if the people running the propaganda are as much a victim of it as anyone else, I would imagine they would be reflecting the more deeply-rooted attitudes of the populace, rather than inventing their ideas and influencing the people with them from the top-down.

Is there any regime in history where the propaganda used to fuel genocidal campaigns has not already had strong roots in the people targeted by the propaganda (and most likely those producing it as well)?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

In my opinion, that is true ONLY in time of a formally declared war. Otherwise, it's criminal. I know it's old-fashioned, and regarded as irrelevant, and not flexible enough to suit today's modern international terrorism environment, but:

Formally declaring war on another country puts them on notice that henceforth everything and everybody within its borders is gonna be considered a valid target.

That could only be true if the targeted civilian structure were of relevance to the war effort, arms factories, smelting works, radio relay stations, communications. Studios do not count, nor do other passive civilian structures.

There's a reason Bomber Harris doesn't have a statue.

[Vuk]

In my opinion, that is true ONLY in time of a formally declared war. Otherwise, it's criminal. I know it's old-fashioned, and regarded as irrelevant, and not flexible enough to suit today's modern international terrorism environment, but:

Formally declaring war on another country puts them on notice that henceforth everything and everybody within its borders is gonna be considered a valid target.

Yup, hang people for blaspheming the name of allmighty Michael Jackson, but who gives a drrn about innocent civilians. I seem to recall you denouncing the civilian deaths in Iraq a while back on a different thread though. I guess you can murder innocents only if it is politically correct, huh?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Frag, Kukri, Banquo, Adrian, others - yes, you have got your heart in the right place and you show a willingness for self-criticism. Great.

However, you give the right answer to another question. This thread isn't about journalists. It is about Serbian mythification and victimization.

Here's the debate in a nutshell, transposed to a more familiar setting, where the subtext may be more obvious:
North Ireland Protestant: 'An innocent woman walking the streets of Belfast was killed by Paddy o'Donnel. Question: Is the killing of innocents by Catholics a war crime?'
Luigi: 'This is the echoed whisperings of Protestant agitation about victimization and warmongering.'
Reasonable poster: 'Yes, the killing of innocents is a war crime'
Luigi: 'This propaganda is part of a narrative of revenge that has led to mindless bloodshed, which Norn Iron could well do without'
Reasonable poster: 'Come on. Surely you have to agree that the killing of innocents is a crime?'


See what I mean?
There are two threads in one here. One: 'killing of journalists - yes or no'. Two: 'Serbia is the victim of foreign aggression!'
The second topic, the subtext, is the real topic of this thread. The question is not a question (the answer, though shrouded in shades of grey, is mostly a given). The question serves to impose a narrative. It is subtle propaganda. Not by Sarmatian, but indirectly. Indirectly because Sarmatian is merely faintly echoing the propaganda that fills Serbian television night after night.

The year 1999 added another layer of sediment. Once again, the nation confronted the chance to express readiness for suffering, martyrdom and victimization and thus to substantiate the sense of narcissistic ethical superiority. Even the aggressors are portrayed in the same manner of "othering." Images of the armies of the Ottoman Empire, Fascists, Nazis and NATO as epitomes of pure evil, with evidently underlined similarities in iconography, context, comparisons, aims, attitudes and overall qualifications served as the bias for the very primitive propaganda broadcasted by some TV stations.

The nationalist films talk about the senseless destruction in Kosovo, Novi Sad, Aleksinac they talk about collateral damage, as elegantly phrased by Jamie Shea. On one hand, they comment on the brutality of the bombing--injustice in extremis. On the other hand, they automatically wholeheartedly argue with the accepted image of isolated, heroic, rebellious Serbia under bombs, proclaiming victory under any conditions and at any price.

Link.

Serbia is second only to North Korea in the extent, aggression and singular autism of its nationalistic discourse/propaganda. Today's propaganda/nationalist discourse about the NATO bombings is a direct continuation of the imagery of victimization of Serbia that led to the genocides and etnic cleansing in the 1990's. This, incidentally, is why I shot from the hip in the Iran thread.
It is an insult to the countless victims of Serbian nationalist aggression.


Might as well borrow Brenus' sig (Where are you, mon pote? If you're not responding to a Serbia thread, then you are not lurking either):
'Those who can make you believe absurdities will make you commit atrocities' (A famous quote from Buddha)

[Fragony]

Serbia is second only to North Korea in the extent, aggression and singular autism of its nationalistic discourse/propaganda. Today's propaganda/nationalist discourse about the NATO bombings is a direct continuation of the imagery of victimization of Serbia that led to the genocides and etnic cleansing in the 1990's. This, incidentally, is why I shot from the hip in the Iran thread.
It is an insult to the countless victims of Serbian nationalist aggression.

It aren't a few images that led to the genocide, the place has a rather complex history. They did what was done to them.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Frag, Kukri, Banquo, Adrian, others - yes, you have got your heart in the right place and you show a willingness for self-criticism. Great.

However, you give the right answer to another question. This thread isn't about journalists. It is about Serbian mythification and victimization.

Here's the debate in a nutshell, transposed to a more familiar setting, where the subtext may be more obvious:
North Ireland Protestant: 'An innocent woman walking the streets of Belfast was killed by Paddy o'Donnel. Question: Is the killing of innocents by Catholics a war crime?'
Luigi: 'This is the echoed whisperings of Protestant agitation about victimization and warmongering.'
Reasonable poster: 'Yes, the killing of innocents is a war crime'
Luigi: 'This propaganda is part of a narrative of revenge that has led to mindless bloodshed, which Norn Iron could well do without'
Reasonable poster: 'Come on. Surely you have to agree that the killing of innocents is a crime?'


See what I mean?
There are two threads in one here. One: 'killing of journalists - yes or no'. Two: 'Serbia is the victim of foreign aggression!'
The second topic, the subtext, is the real topic of this thread. The question is not a question (the answer, though shrouded in shades of grey, is mostly a given). The question serves to impose a narrative. It is subtle propaganda. Not by Sarmatian, but indirectly. Indirectly because Sarmatian is merely faintly echoing the propaganda that fills Serbian television night after night.



Link.

Serbia is second only to North Korea in the extent, aggression and singular autism of its nationalistic discourse/propaganda. Today's propaganda/nationalist discourse about the NATO bombings is a direct continuation of the imagery of victimization of Serbia that led to the genocides and etnic cleansing in the 1990's. This, incidentally, is why I shot from the hip in the Iran thread.
It is an insult to the countless victims of Serbian nationalist aggression.


Might as well borrow Brenus' sig (Where are you, mon pote? If you're not responding to a Serbia thread, then you are not lurking either):
'Those who can make you believe absurdities will make you commit atrocities' (A famous quote from Buddha)

All this sidesteps the fact that civilians were bombed. Either someone screwed his sights, or it was deliberate.

Even allowing for the Balkan tendancy to victimise oneself, feeding it is not in any way helpful.

So perhaps the real question is why it was done.

[Brenus]

“Where are you, mon pote?” Coming, coming…
“There are two threads in one here. One: 'killing of journalists - yes or no'. Two: 'Serbia is the victim of foreign aggression!'” Agree.

Killing of journalists: I have nothing against in principle. I myself was tempted few times to do so…
If the use of false information as propaganda is a valid reasons to attack TV stations that makes all TV channels valid targets
Manipulation and disinformation were the corner stones of all our media campaign for Yugoslavia.
I even don’t speak of the special filter about military operations. Only the Serbs had snipers, mortars and tanks. 90 % of the attacks on UN forces (according UN reports) were done by the Muslims/Bosnian forces (which by the way would explained why the Dutch battalion was not really keen to protect the innocents population in Srebrenica)…
Or the use of manipulated pictures to blame the Serbs for crimes they didn’t commit: Slaughter of Muslim in Vitez (the Croats did it) or pictures wrongly attributed to Serbs even when a clear Sehovnica (Croatian Coat of Arm) can’t be misinterpreted.
Louis according your definition of steering hate against others, what about the “systematic” campaign of rapes, the horseshoe tactic and other blatant lie used by our media? So, the Serbs would have been right to attack TF1, BBC and CNN, and all the others because they in fact served the NATO propaganda machine…
And here I speak only of lies, even not mentioning manipulation and disinformation…

So, Louis your point is the Serbs being the aggressors and the one starting the war got their due…
The fact is the Serbs were living from ever in Croatia, Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo should end the claim of aggression and expansion… They were living in their farms, their lands in their houses.
You can blame the Serbs to want to live in one state but NOT of an aggression on somebody else territory.

I red the link: Err, what does he means by the Serbian Colonialism/imperialism? Again, the Serb population were indigenous in all the parts of Former Yugoslavia.

[Sarmatian]

Sorry, accidentally I managed to get my hands on the two free EXIT festival tickets, or I would have replied sooner.

Frag, Kukri, Banquo, Adrian, others - yes, you have got your heart in the right place and you show a willingness for self-criticism. Great.

However, you give the right answer to another question. This thread isn't about journalists. It is about Serbian mythification and victimization.

See what I mean?
There are two threads in one here. One: 'killing of journalists - yes or no'. Two: 'Serbia is the victim of foreign aggression!'
The second topic, the subtext, is the real topic of this thread. The question is not a question (the answer, though shrouded in shades of grey, is mostly a given). The question serves to impose a narrative. It is subtle propaganda. Not by Sarmatian, but indirectly. Indirectly because Sarmatian is merely faintly echoing the propaganda that fills Serbian television night after night.


Serbia is second only to North Korea in the extent, aggression and singular autism of its nationalistic discourse/propaganda. Today's propaganda/nationalist discourse about the NATO bombings is a direct continuation of the imagery of victimization of Serbia that led to the genocides and etnic cleansing in the 1990's. This, incidentally, is why I shot from the hip in the Iran thread.
It is an insult to the countless victims of Serbian nationalist aggression.

Like in the marbles thread, you again missed the point. It wasn't my intention to start another "Serbia thread". Maybe in a way, there are two threads here, the first one being the obvious. The second is: Is there hypocrisy among western, nato, democratic however-you-want-to-call-them politicians and media?

Bombing the TV station is really just an example. Whenever something like that happens, politicians and judiciary systems simply ignore it, media is disinterested in and various "experts" on and off the net won't mention it.

On the other hand, if a single journalists from some western media house is just imprisoned, all hell would break loose.

There are millions of examples. Racak, we now know, was a hoax. Is someone going to answer for that? Will someone even start an investigation? Even if it is only about William Walker. Report of Dr. Helena Ranta that "it might have been a massacre" made all the headlines and was often quoted by the politicians and the media. Her admission that she made that report because she was under immense pressure was ignored. You could have found it on the net if you knew exactly what were you looking for. Just typing Helena Ranta will give you thousands of links which lead to her original report.

We now know that there were no WMD in Iraq - is someone going to answer for that mistake? Saying that "Saddam was a bad guy anyway" isn't enough, or at least, it shouldn't be enough. Not to the thousands of Iraqi civilians. Or hundreds of thousands? Do we even know? Did someone bother to make a comprehensive report of civilian casualties in Iraq? Were those politicians who sent soldiers in Iraq talking about thousands of civilian casualties? Did some media house even bother to check? Is there a single legal action taken against someone because of that? Have anyone even lost his job because of that?

We know about the death of Neda, Neda is by now a household name, probably most spoken name in the world after Michael Jackson. Neda Agha-Soltan. Just typing "Neda" into google will give you hundreds of links - wikipedia, news reports, support groups and whatever. And yet, the only reason we know about it is because she died during protests against the current regime in Iran. How many Nedas there have been in Iraq, in Kosovo, in Afghanistan? We may choose to ignore it, but there was a lot.

Milica Rakic, three year old girl killed on her potty by a bomb.


Try typing just "Milica" in google, you'll get links to beauty salons and spas. Even typing her full name will yield only slightly better results.

I'm not even going to mention the blunders in Afghanistan. Again, no responsibility, even individual.

Now, you may choose to ignore it all. You may cover your ears and go: "La-la-la Iraq had WMD, those journalists deserved it la-la-la!!!" It won't make it any different. We will just sink deeper into it. And yes I use the word "we". Even though it looks different today, in 10-15 years Serbia will recognize Kosovo and become a full, upstanding NATO member, whether I or you like it or not.

That could only be true if the targeted civilian structure were of relevance to the war effort, arms factories, smelting works, radio relay stations, communications. Studios do not count, nor do other passive civilian structures.

There's a reason Bomber Harris doesn't have a statue.

Actually...



Or is there another Bomber Harris I'm not aware of?

[KukriKhan]

place-holder.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Actually...

Sad, isn't it?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Actually...



Or is there another Bomber Harris I'm not aware of?

Ah, I stand corrected, it did take until 1992, though. That more or less proves my point. Whether or not he should have a statue is an entirely different question.

As to whether anyone will answer for the WMD, I would point out that the Republicans are out of the White House and Labour is soon to be obliterated from the House of Commons. Louis point is, I think, that you fail to recognise the Serbian bias and the narrative of victimisation that bias creates.

[Brenus]

No, Sarmatian asked a question about journalists and the fact that during the NATO attack, the leaders of the Alliance did decide that Radio and TV station were fair game as regarded as Propaganda tools so legitimate target, as bridge, railways and others components in a modern war.

“Louis point is, I think, that you fail to recognise the Serbian bias and the narrative of victimisation that bias creates.” That is of subject.
Louis, I think fail to recognise he was brain washed during this period of time. Even if today, Kouchner and Simone Veil recognised in various books and interview that they didn’t tell the truth, even if nowadays nobody dear to speak of the systematic campaign of rapes, the horse shoes tactic, Racak and Merkale as Serbian atrocities, Louis is still under the feeling he had in watching the French news…
In few days it will be the 15 anniversary of Srebrenica: And the number of victims still will be between 7000 and 8000. No change. Even if the number of bodies recovered till today for the entire war is around 3600, this including the Serbian victims (by the way, can somebody tell me where is the native Serbian population of Srebrenica?).
I don’t want to go too much in detail, but the bias in this case in the NATO side.

A part of the Serbian population was indeed nationalist, but less than the Croats. If you go in both countries you won’t notice until somebody tell you (me): In Croatia, flags everywhere… In Serbian only where it has to…
About the aggression, interesting enough, in the main cases, it wasn’t the Serbs who started… Not in Sarajevo, not in Vukovar. Not in Slovenia were a JNA helicoptere was shot down…
It was one of the points in the opening of Milosevic’s trial and to see the face of Carla del Ponte when Milocevic was able to refute this was quite a good moment of TV reality show.
Not I have any sympathy for Milocevic, the man having too much blood on his hand, as much as his accomplices Tudjman and Izetbegovic, for the main…

[Sarmatian]

Ah, I stand corrected, it did take until 1992, though. That more or less proves my point. Whether or not he should have a statue is an entirely different question.

Well, the fact that Brits welcomed the unveiling of the statues with boos and jeers and that the statue has to be guarded 24/7 proves your point even better. Even though some politician decided erecting the statue was a good idea, many Brits didn't and still don't agree. And this gives a great deal of credit in my book to the British, if I may add.

As to whether anyone will answer for the WMD, I would point out that the Republicans are out of the White House and Labour is soon to be obliterated from the House of Commons.

Suffering a political defeat and facing responsibility is not the same. They'll be back in 5 or 10 years.

Louis point is, I think, that you fail to recognise the Serbian bias and the narrative of victimisation that bias creates.

I understood his point but I think he's barking up the wrong tree. Once again Louis wants to be a shrink of an entire nation. Serbs certainly aren't the biggest of nations, but twelve millions, give or take, is still to much, even for Louis, but that's a minor point. The major point is, even if Louis is right, that it doesn't change the anything. I agree with him to a point. There was rampant nationalism (it exists even today, on a much lesser scale, but still too much for my liking) and there is a narrative of victimisation, but not even close to what he was saying. I say not even close for two reason - because it's not nearly on that scale and because parts of it are justified. That doesn't, or shouldn't excuse, the other sides. It shouldn't be an excuse for their mistakes, blunders and crimes just like crimes against Serbs can't be an excuse for crimes committed by Serbs.

Since we mentioned Bomber Harris - his strategy of pursuing terror bombing was done in a total war. It was literally us or them. It doesn't justify it in my book, but at least it gives some more food for thoughts.
In case of NATO vs Serbia... Serbia's entire GDP comes to what... few percents of NATO combined military spending. Technologically, Serbia was decades behind. It wasn't a total war, heck it wasn't a war at all. It was an action against "Serbian mechanisms of repression", or something like that, I'm not sure how exactly Clinton phrased it. It makes the rules even more strict.

I'm sorry that I'm always returning to Serbia, it wasn't my intention when I started this thread, it's just that I'm naturally more familiar about that than about Iraq or Afghanistan or other events. The point still remains that anything not fitting the accepted image was ignored by the media and the politicians. Reports on the internet are scarce, too. Unless you know exactly what you're looking for, you won't find it. I'm sure we could find many similar examples about Afghanistan or Iraq, and more importantly, I'm sure that there are many more that we couldn't find, which is kinda a point of this thread...

EDIT: Exceptional documentary that covers what I'm trying to say. Made in Netherlands, I believe. Among other things it deals with the infamous "concentration camps" photographs made in 1992 that very most influential in turning the public opinion in the western countries against Serbia. I strongly encourage watching because it's exactly about what we're talking here...

[Louis VI the Fat]

I am happy that Dresden has been brought up. I wanted to use it as an example, but feared the 'Godwin' of it.

There are two ways to discuss 'Dresden':
- As part of an objective, at least, honest, debate about atrocities, Allied self-criticism, needless suffering, strategical value, rightful avengement. Let's call it Truth and Reconcilliation.
- As part of a revisionist narrative. Where the argument is: 'Dresden was a war crime!! The Allies are just as bad as Hitler. Dresden = Auschwitz. The suffering of the German people proves Hitler was right when he stood up for persecuted Germany'. 'Dresden' here is not a debate, but an instrument of political propaganda.

These two 'debates' (one is, another isn't) are unfortunately often hopelessly intertwined. Much to the delight of professional Nazi revisionists. They will argue the second, and when confronted with criticism, claim they are merely debating the first. Slippery weasels.

I accuse the arguments of Sarmatian (and Brenus ) of belonging to a discourse belonging to debate two. Not out of any deliberate act, but unwittingly so.

Perhaps, Sarmatian, you really just wanted to discuss killing of journalists in war as a genereal subject. In which case I am sorry for turning this thread into 'Serbia'. I can not read your mind. However, the origin of this thread lies in the accusation of NATO hypocracy. So this tangent I pursued.

Once again Louis wants to be a shrink of an entire nation. Serbs certainly aren't the biggest of nations, but twelve millions, give or take, is still too much, even for Louis, but that's a minor point.

Louis wants truth to be known and justice to be done. So I support democracy and human rights groups in Serbia. And I have a distinct dislike of nationalist discourse.

These three are pretty much the considerations behind what I write and why I write it in any 'Serbia' thread. Other than that, I have no special feeling for or against Serbia. I wish Serbians all the best.



Edit: I am sooo tempted to deconstruct your statement 'Serbia has only twelve million people, but even that is too much'. It fits in perfectly with what I've argued about Serbian national discourse.

Serbian nationalist discourse describes the wars as a 'a foreign plot to diminish Serbia. The world fears the might of Serbia. And therefore wants to bring Serbia down'. This ethnic narcissim is combined with victimization: 'evil world, Turks, the West, NATO. All forever keeping Serbia down'

Am I incorrect in presuming this line of thought to be behind the statement in question?

In fact, I seem to remember you arguing in a previous Serbia thread that the US was behind the break-up of Yugoslavia: it feared an intact Yugoslavia as a competitor for global domination.
(A faint echo of what Russian nationalism claims about the break-up of the Soviet Union. I am not sure whether Serbian nationalism took its cue from Russia here.)

[Louis VI the Fat]

The nature of Serbian nationalist discourse and how it permeates Sarmatian and Brenus' posts, I must leave for another post. I shall adress three issues that have come up:

The NATO bombings.
My opinion in brief: Certainly ill-conceived and poorly executed. But neither undeserved nor, in fact, all that ineffective. For one thing, the wars in Yugoslavia pretty much ended after the bombings. Which seems to support the case both for the bombings and for the claim Serbian agitiation was a main driving force behind the wars of the 1990's.
Whether an independent Kosovo is desireable, I think maybe not. However, that was not the sole reason for the war. The war was a concluding act of the decade before, not an independent event.

'Killing journalists yes or no'.
I am tempted to be a goody two-shoes and say never. But I won't.
There are two kinds of journalists: mere mortals, and Adrian. No wait. A more useful distinction is: journalists who report; and secondly, reporters, writers, documentary makers, filmmakers who make propaganda. Alas, the second will always pose as the first. The first are not always (postmodern: never) able to distinguish themselves from the latter.
So I would say, never shoot the first, the second are fair game. If only the distinction could be made. And even if it could, I am not sure it isn't a pandora's box of tragedies.
(A similar discussion could be had about medics. Medicine is not neutral, and can be an effective instrument of war. The conventional wisdom, as with journalists, to never consider them a legitimate war target, is slippery)
(If only military targets are legitimate, then nobody fighting on a losing side will ever be a soldier distinguishable as such again. Which would make for an even bigger mess than the already blurred and uncomfortable wisdom of only targetting military targets. The wars in Yugoslavia serve as an excellent case in point.)

The attack on the Serbian state television.
Shade of grey. The wars in Yugoslavia were not one of conventional, large armies. Paramilitaries mostly. The wars had such bizarre sub-plots as Al-Qaida groups fighting against (football club) Red Star Belgrade hooligans.
The Serbian state, however, aided and abetted paramilitiaries and etnic cleansing. So while no army could be bombed back to Serbia, the Serbian state and its organs could be the target. The state television as much as the state. For one thing, as argued in a previous post, the Serbian television was not as innocent or civilian as it might appear. It was a state-run instrument of propaganda and incitement of hatred.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Yes, Serbia should not be singled out as perpetrator.
Yes, innocent Serbs died, who didn't deserve this fate.
Yes, other countries have not come to terms with dark episodes from their past.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1675992.stm)

Having said that, here's a short article about Serbian dealings with the wars:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

In South Africa, Nelson Mandela established a Truth and Reconciliation Commission that offered amnesty to individuals in return for their public disclosure of the truth. It took new generations to come to terms with much of Nazi Germany's behavior. The U.S. civil rights movement forced the crimes of segregation into the arena of public scrutiny and shaming.

Serbs have not begun that process. They have played down the Srebrenica massacre and other atrocities from the 1990s wars they instigated. Former prime minister Zoran Djindjic, under international pressure and under cover of night, did send Slobodan Milosevic to trial in The Hague, Netherlands. Djindjic was assassinated in 2003. His successors have been more timid.

Serb nationalism

Before the wars, in the 1980s, the Serb capital Belgrade was the cosmopolitan Paris of Eastern Europe. It is now a dreary backwater, left behind as neighbors sprout modern shopping malls, McDonald's and skyscrapers and join Western clubs from NATO to the European Union. The Serb mafiosos and gangsters remain a nationalistic, intimidating force. Despite the efforts of some human rights campaigners and hard-hitting media outlets, nationalist sentiment still runs high. In a Serb opinion poll in May, more than half denied the Srebrenica massacre even took place.

Last month, however, Serbs got a chance to break out of the denial. Serb TV broadcast a video of part of the massacre. In it, Serb paramilitaries — the "Scorpions" — pull six battered, emaciated men from a truck, hands tied behind their backs. At least three are shot at close range. A Serb Orthodox priest blesses their actions against the "infidels." It was the Serbs' first incontrovertible evidence that they, not just rogue Bosnian Serb "cousins," were complicit: The Scorpions, as other paramilitary groups, were under the direct command of the Serb police.

The fact that it took a full 10 years for the video to emerge is already testimony to the resistance. The film was first played at The Hague tribunal, where it was sent by Serb human rights campaigner Natasha Kandic, who has long been subject to death threats. The Hague has, until now, largely enabled Serbs' denial. Milosevic's trial is being carried out far away, by foreigners, encouraging many to feel they, too, are being victimized. But the videotaped evidence cannot be so easily dismissed.

There are signs it might provide the needed psychological jolt out of the surreal world that Milosevic — much as Hitler — constructed. His nationalist propaganda denied inconvenient realities — though the truth was known.

Serbian men, as the Scorpions, were drafted to fight in the wars, often going with gusto. They knew what was happening, bringing information back to families and friends. When I visited Serb homes near Srebrenica months after the massacre, people shrugged about what might have happened to the "disappeared." But their exchanged glances told a different story. Police cars pulled up at the houses after I left, suggesting an official effort to suppress any breaking of the collective coverup.

A chance to come clean

Serbia is at a crossroads. It has a choice: Face up to the past, fully cooperate with The Hague tribunal, find a way — even if it's a South Africa-style commission — to come to terms with the past. The European Union has told Serbia that any future in its fold is conditional on that kind of cooperation; in recent weeks, in apparent response, several suspected war criminals have been handed over. Or continue on its present slide with an economy in shambles and no happy future.

That might seem like a no-contest choice. But it isn't. Serbia has had it for a decade now.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...ica-edit_x.htm

[Louis VI the Fat]

Kouchner and Simone Veil recognised in various books and interview that they didn’t tell the truth…

But let's not get carried away:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

French PM demonized Serbia, author
Mar 26, 2009

French author Pier Pean has written a book in which he documents that the current Foreign Minister of France, Bernard Kouchner, was an servant of American internationalism and was engaged in a 20 year long campaign to remake borders in the Balkans which primarily includes dismemberment of Serbia and ethnic cleansing of Serbs across the Balkans.

“Bernard Kouchner is a man who wears a military coat under his doctor’s mantle,” said Pean during his book presentation at the Belgrade University.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Bernard Kouchner

During the presentation, Pean told that Kouchner took part in satanization of Serbs by repeatedly claiming falsehoods of alleged Serbian atrocities.

Pean cites Kouchner’s claim, while he served in Doctors Without Borders, that Serbs have murdered 11,000 “Kosovars” a code word for ethnic Albanians to whom internationalists wanted to assign a state that they planned to carve out off Serbia.

Pean said that Kouchner was the chief of the Kosovo UN mission, the UNMIK, when the former chief war crimes Prosecutor at the Hague, Carla del Ponte approached for help in gathering evidence that Kosovo Albanians ran an extensive international network in which they kidnapped Kosovo Serbs, took out their organs to sell them then killed the kidnapped.

Pean says that del Ponte never received an answer from Kouchner.

Pean said that investigation in wars in the Balkans will continue which will include possible hiding of evidence of war crimes.

Former French military officers, Patrick Bario and Jacques Ogar were also present at Pean’s book promotion in Belgrade who said that they are not proud of their involvement in attacks on Serbia.

“We visited the monuments of Gratitude to France on Kalemegdan and I would like to tell you that a monument is being built in France on which it will say: ‘We love Serbia, as it loved us once’, but, regrettably, that moment has not come yet,” said Pean.

Because of his claims about Kouchner, Pean has numerous legal difficulties in France.

March 26, 2009

*guesses Brenus real name is Patrick or Jacques *

Link SERBIANNA.com

[Brenus]

“Louis wants truth to be known and justice to be done.” So do I.
“ So I support democracy and human rights groups in Serbia.” I did.
“And I have a distinct dislike of nationalist discourse.” So do I.

And all theses reasons we will argue.

The Truth is Ethnic Cleansing was first use by the Serbs (some academy of Arts in think) to describe what happened in the Autonomous Territory of Kosovo and Metohjia against the Serbian Minority under TITO!!!!

“The Serbian state, however, aided and abetted paramilitiaries and ethnic cleansing.” So did Croatia with the HVO and Bosnia (the Mudjahidin were under direct command of Alija Izetbegovic…).

In 1993 the WFP estimation was 160,516 Serbian Refugees in Krajina 2, Northern Bosnia and the town of Brcko: 30.10 % from Croatia, 2.40 % from Slovenia, 67.50 % from Bosnia (so technically IDP, Internal Displaced Person).

The rise of nationalism didn’t start in Serbia but in Slovenia and Croatia…
“Yes, Serbia should not be singled out as perpetrator.” But it is.

Justice will be achieved in other place than in The Hague where each time Serbs are guilty of Mass Genocide (at least in the intention) and killing Serbian Civilians is unfortunate but collateral.
The Muslims, Croats and Kosovar were ethnically cleanse where as the Serbian just voluntarily leaved on their will…