Ah, Those Journalists

**Louis VI the Fat** · 07-12-2009, 05:53

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** · 07-12-2009, 08:46

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** · 07-12-2009, 12:17

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · 07-12-2009, 21:10

“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** · 07-13-2009, 20:40

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

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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** · 07-14-2009, 03:57

place-holder.

**Evil_Maniac From Mars** · 07-14-2009, 13:06

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Actually...

Sad, isn't it?

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 07-14-2009, 17:15

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

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** · 07-14-2009, 21:44

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…

**Louis VI the Fat** · 07-15-2009, 05:36

Originally Posted by Brenus

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:

*guesses Brenus real name is Patrick or Jacques

*

Link SERBIANNA.com

**Sarmatian** · 07-15-2009, 02:29

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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** · 07-15-2009, 04:05

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.

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

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.)