Ah, Those Journalists

[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.

[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)?

[Don Corleone]

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.

Few are the days we agree old friend, but this would be one of them.


To the main topic... didn't we bomb the new Chinese embassy in that campaign? While granted, they were none too happy about it, I think they were willing to accept our hapless shrug & explanation that for all our wealth and resources, we can at times be woefully incompetent. Surely the bombing of the Serbian media building was more an indictment of America's ability to parse actionable intelligence than it is evidence of a secret war on Serbian journalism?

Else, old Hu Jintao better get on the stick with some payback...

[Sarmatian]

Yep, with 3 missiles, but that was (at least officially) a mistake. The embassy was mistaken for a building that had something to do with Serbian military. That explanation makes sense, why would NATO want to bomb Chinese embassy, that would serve no purpose except to make Chinese angry. China, although officially opposed to the bombing, was mostly indifferent. Giving them personal reason to be against it would be really an idiotic move. Even with all that, it involved a bit of apologizing and bottom-kissing. The TV station, on the other hand, was targeted deliberately. It was considered a legitimate target. And after that - nothing, no apologizes, no indictments, no compensation, no admitting mistake...

Part of the reason why only Serbia and Serbs are forced to take the blame is because NATO (especially USA) wants to wash its hands. By emphasizing atrocities committed by Serbs and minimizing theirs and those committed by other side, NATO is trying to show how all of that was justified because it was done for "greater good". TV is just one example...

[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?

[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.