UKC

... he talks a good talk, hard to fault this analysis:

"The problem with this government is that their shallow and immature rhetoric only highlights this tradition of bullying and hegemony."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21646091

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

really!

In reply to dale1968:

"To be frank, Britain has played a famously unconstructive role in our region on different issues for decades, some say for centuries.

Is that wrong?

Constantly murdering Middle-Easterners is an old British tradition which William "The lollipop"Hague is determined to uphold.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward: Did you read Fisk's most recent piece in the Indy basically castigating the the US and UK govt as cowards for not doing more on Syria? Looked rather like Mr. Fisk was trying to have his cake and eat it. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-west-babbles-on-and-assad-i...

In reply to GudrunEnsslin:

Hey Gudrun - saw this pic of a demo in Paris recently and thought of you: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9eCaD4b89zw/URJsXUG2QXI/AAAAAAAAQqQ/VlKGDZnNQMo/s... Did you attend?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I replied to Dale.

In reply to TobyA: It's certainly difficult to ascertain his point other than 'something should have been done...'

He's a bright bloke, Assad, and he has had significant exposure to how the rest of the world works. Perhaps if he was considered part of the solution, brokered by all interested parties (which means all of us), then there might be a way forward?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward: I think the 'opposition' are fairly categorically against that. The west would do well not to insist a brutal dictator is part of the solution. I liked your original point though.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

If he was bright he'd be on an island in the Indian Ocean with his wife and all her shoes - as it stands at the moment he's probably going to get dragged through the streets like Gaddafi.

E

In reply to Rob Exile Ward: 70,000 people have died in syria since the uprising began. the bloodshed needs to be stopped- it doesnt matter how. it reminds me of bosnia, when we all just sat and watched

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Well he worked as an optician on UK high street for a bit didn't he? He's clearly not a bumbling idiot but at the same time I'm not sure he has any great insights as the horror in Syria shows.

In reply to Enty: ... or not. Arguably, he's winning.

In reply to TobyA: Er, I think you'll find he is an ophthamologist, i.e. a physician who has specialised in eye conditions. You wouldn't have come across him in your local Specsavers.

In reply to TobyA:

So you listen to someone who's narrative begins and continues with -

" Our Western lords and masters – as untrustworthy today as they were when they sold Poland to Stalin at Yalta "

Baised garbage!

So the fulfilling of the percentages agreement in Poland was a fault by " Our Western lords and masters " but no mention of Greece being thrown to the fascists.Or indeed the great betrayal by Britain of Czechoslovakia,sacrificing it to the fascists.

Fisk is a warmongering idiot.

In reply to GudrunEnsslin:

Perhaps you would prefer - like I - that we left the rest of the world to sort its own shit out?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


It may well be that his problem has been that his generals and policemen would have murdered him if he's tried to give concessions to the protesters in the early days of the uprising but I fear that in their eyes the only option now is for him and his government to leave office, dead or alive. You do know how the Syrian Government treated it's own people before the uprising don't you?

Further one of the opposition leaders did announce that he would have talks with him a few weeks ago but I don't think that went down too well with his colleagues.

In reply to heidi123:

Eh no we ended up bombing the F out of Serbians who were the ones who tried to avoid war in the first place but hey they were socialist so we as capitalists just had to bomb them.
so ironic as this was the first use of the German Luftwaffe since WW2, absolutely disgusting especially after Germany's part in starting the war.

In reply to GudrunEnsslin: milosovec tried to avoid war? and thousands of people died before we did start bombing them. what went on out there was unthinkable and had to be stopped. sadly 4 years too late for many people

In reply to DNS:

Yeah or at least stopped taking sides against countries who have had a history of not doing what we say they should.

In reply to DNS: when hundreds of people, including women and children are being killed each week, noone with a molecule of compassion would say we should leave them to sort it out themselves

In reply to heidi123:

Yes the Yugoslav Communist Party tried to avoid the war.

Now ask yourself why did we only murder and attack Serbians when all sides were engaging in a civil war?
Why was Western media completely against the Serbs and not the German supported Ustash fascists or the Jihadi maniacs of Izetbeovic?
Now ask yourself why we armed the Turks with 80% of their military hardware to bomb villages and murder 10s of thousands of Kurdish civilians at the same time as we bombed Serbia?
Remember Turkey is good ol member of The North American Terrorist Organisation and Serbia is aligned with Russia.
Now ask yourself why did nothing when the Suharto maniacs who we instigated,supported and loved comitted genocide in East Timor at the same time?

In reply to GudrunEnsslin: did you see the atrocities out there? did you see pregnant women tied to hayracks and having their stomachs slit open by the serbs? did you see kids being thrown into a well and hand grenades being thrown in after them, by the serbs. did you see what happened at srenrenica? for 4 years we ignored what was going on out there. they had to be stopped. im not talking politics. im talking humanity

In reply to heidi123:

Did you see this rubbish that you are talking?

In reply to GudrunEnsslin: yes i fu****g well did. its not rubbish

In reply to heidi123:


No your regurgitating some of the garbage that was fed to Western media by the other sides.

In reply to heidi123:

What???

In reply to heidi123: But how do you 'sort it out'? Sorting it out when it comes to western intervention has usually meant helping one side kill the other more quickly.

In reply to GudrunEnsslin:


Sometimes you're quite amusing Shona, but sometimes you're either just a liar or very ignorant.

In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf: i dont know the answer. i just dont think we should sit and watch when innocent people are being slaughtered daily

In reply to TobyA:

Toby it's very easy to bandy about words like liar but perhaps you would have more credibility if you showed how someone is a liar or ignorant before resorting to your dreary and juvenile playground antics.

I am not a liar and i am not ignorant you prove me wrong pal,i know you cannot.

In reply to heidi123: If we followed this rule UK troops would be in a great many countries. The problem for the UK in the middle east is that it has followed such an explicitly politicised agenda for so many years, not many their see it as the ideal arbiter in humanitarian cases. You'll notice that while the rebels may be crying out for arms, they don't seem so keen on NATO ground troops.

In reply to GudrunEnsslin: You're a liar and now an apologist for ethnic cleansing, nice.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward: I doubt the West will actually get involved militarily.

Syria doesn't have enough oil!

In reply to GudrunEnsslin:
Syria Mary Doll....Syria! Now who ya gonna call, the Arab League?

In reply to heidi123:

I presume you thought the same when we were slaughtering innocent people daily in Iraq,Afghanistan or going back to our pals in Turkey and Indonesia.
What of the hundreds of thousands of children that died from traetable diseases in Iraq due to our terrible sanctions,even though we knew they were dying we kept it going.

In reply to GudrunEnsslin: While I think your points, free from NATO propaganda, and winners history are of great value, the evidence argument cuts both ways.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Eh wrong and eh ...wrong !

Not doing so well Chas, somethings never change eh?

In reply to GudrunEnsslin: yes i do actually. i hate suffering of any kind.we can send men to the moon, we can design sophisticated weapons to kill each other but we cant live in peace with each other. its sickening

In reply to GudrunEnsslin: The fact you're a liar certainly hasn't changed, shona, the apologism for ethnic cleansing is new but unsurprising.

In reply to Goucho:+1. absolutely right

In reply to dek:

Yeah like Libya dik sorry dek?

In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:

It's funny how these threads quickly revert to the same old lexicon of arguments. I guess folk haven't got much to say but feel it's a good opportunity for them to re state their world view.

I note someone has just mentioned oil...

In reply to heidi123:

Totally agree.

In reply to heidi123: I like your outrage, but you need to think if channeling it through NATO is really the wisest of strategies.

In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf: i never mentioned NATO. i dont think that would be wise. and im not outraged, im sad at the mess we are making of the world

In reply to GudrunEnsslin:

Ignorance at the highest level! Where did you get this info from then? Bet it wasn't first hand. Having actually been there to stop the atrocities and seen the utter contempt for human life, you clearly have no idea and to quote you:




You're doing exactly the same thing. Maybe not from the media, but from another mis informed source.

Constant struggle against your own "inner fascist"

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Will you stop trying your pathetic smearing tactics on me chas? or show how i am a liar.I can call you a liar as well, in fact you are a liar for calling me a liar.

But back to Syria i think.

In reply to Denni: Hows about some evidence one way or another?

In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:

I can only go on what I have actually seen, so my first hand evidence and made my own mind up.

In reply to GudrunEnsslin: I'll stop if you admit you're shona menzies, shona m, workingclasslass and naedanger, you liar.

In reply to Denni: hmmm. But what side do you see?

In reply to GudrunEnsslin:


Yeah 'What'?! It only takes you a couple of posts to Ad Hom, c'mon now what's your solution to the Syrian crisis?! Or are you just needy for the attention?

In reply to heidi123:

Do you think the answer is killing thousands of other people? I don't myself.

Also looking at one point in time without looking at all the events lead to it, one of the most methods of propagandists of all sorts, gives doesn't give a true image of what is going on. For Yugoslavia, did it fall or was it pushed? You can't answer questions later on in a valid way without answering this fundamental one first.

Destabilisation is the name of the game and the West is world champion at it - gold medal.

In reply to Denni:

Aw it's little diddums again!

Eh no.
Serbian accounts.

Do you think we do not commit atrocities and kill *CONSIDERABLY* more
people than all the people who died during that civil war?????


No from the Serbian side not Ustash and Jihadi fed rubbish supported by Western media.


You are a buffoon,members of my family were murdered by fascists.Your Ustash are the fascists.Jesus it's like explaining things to a child!

In reply to Bruce Hooker: when did i say we should kill thousands of other people?

In reply to Bruce Hooker: 'Destabilisation is the name of the game and the West is world champion at it - gold medal.'

I don't have as much time as you think I do for 'capitalism', whatever that may be, but I do know this: throughout history the one thing that the 'haves' have desired is stability, it's the 'have nots' that have the incentive to de-stabilise.

Which is why you constant banging on about Libya - which the West was making a good few dollars from while Gaddafy was in power, ta very much - made no sense. Never will, either.

In reply to Goucho:

It already is but not openly.

In reply to GudrunEnsslin:

Serbian accounts? You mean the same Serbians that attacked Srebrenica killing up to 8000 people and raping women?


Just how many "considerably more" people have we killed then?

"inner fascist" struggle. It is a play on words from your days in the RAF.

In reply to GudrunEnsslin: The Yugoslav Communist party was dissolved two years before the start of the war in Bosnia. The Serbian Communist party, which was its successor in Serbia, had been Milosovic's vehicle to rise to power from the late 80s but he did so by invoking nationalism not communism. His stitch-up with Tudjman led to the war in Bosnia. The Serbs took control of much of the JNA through 91 setting up what was in effect the Serbian army and also arming the militias of the Bosnian Serbs. IIRC even the opening artillery salvo of the war were fired across the Drina from Serbia into Bosnia.

In reply to GudrunEnsslin: serbian accounts? ah....that explains a lot

In reply to Denni:


It's both sad and a bit worrying that someone who uses the name of a murderer as their nickname wouldn't get that isn't it?!

In reply to TobyA:

I know mate! I tried a wee play on words a while back, straight over her head....

In reply to TobyA:

Ok now i will have to go and dig out the information that i have. I'll be back to you to prove how the Serbians tried to avoid the war in the first place but Genscher and the BND were out to sabotage it with their arming and suppport of Ustash elements.

In reply to GudrunEnsslin:


If the UK does, that doesn't change what the Serbs actually did though?

I often think the different strands of debates need to be kept seperate if possible, or things can become jumbled up.

Lets take it as a given that the UK has killed sh*t loads of people?

The above is ment impartially, of course.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


How would you fit empire into this, from the voyages of discovery to the scramble for Africa, to the CIA in Cuba there has been a hell of a lot of de-stabilisaion wrought by the haves. De-stabilisation is simply a state of flux, the haves use it to extend power, the have-not's seek it to redistribute power. Its a means for both though, not an end.

In reply to GudrunEnsslin: you seem to be as deluded as these idiots and maniacs in the hague

In reply to heidi123:

You didn't say we should, of course not, but that's what we did, and do, time and time again - the NATO bombing of Serbia for example - one particularly bloody incident was the destruction of a train carrying civilians by NATO jets - 100 or 200 killed in one go, then the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade - the NATO excuse was they were using an outdated road map of the town... and so on and on and on!

In reality NATO has become the armed wing of Western policy since the destruction of Yugoslavia, situations are created which then give the excuse of "humanitarian" actions, and in the name of humanity thousands and thousands of other humans are killed... After Yugoslavia there was Libya and now Syria, well meaning people are hoodwinked into calling for "something to be done"... and then they do it alright.

In reply to TobyA:


Why?
And she was a political revolutionary fighting against the US genocide in Indo-China among other things.

But knowing of your pathetic devotion to the US you would probably have been in support of their genocide.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: i have never said NATO should get involved. all i said is we shouldnt sit and watch people being slaughtered. dont you care that innocent people are getting killed? my personal idea is somewhere along the lines of sending the SAS to get rid of Assad to start with

In reply to heidi123:

See now you are doing the same thing of name calling when you don't know what you are talking about.

Now

Strain your little mind and try and answer the questions i fired at you before,remember?
You know the ones you didn't want to answer.

In reply to GudrunEnsslin:


True, but fire bombing a supermarket in your own country Isn't likely to stop the Vietnam war now is it?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


So you don't think that countries in power try to destabilise their enemies or rivals? The USA hasn't been trying to destabilise Cuba for decades? The Cold War wasn't a long term destabilisation of the USSR? Iran is not being destabilised at present by both political methods and assassination of it's scientists and so on?

An original point of view, I suppose... all those cultural and military attachés in embassies and spooks in the CIA, DST, MI6, and whatever has replaced the KGB are simply sitting around drinking beer, vodka or whatever waiting for orders to do things that never come? Sound like a cosy job for them all.

In reply to heidi123:

Why would that help? Killing more people, admittedly a particularly cruel person, but frankly to what end.

In reply to Timmd:


That is true but there were massacres and atrocities commited by all sides Tim but the Serbs were deliberately shown as the bad guys.

In reply to GudrunEnsslin:


Genscher is still loved in Croatia because he pushed for Croatian independence to be recognised, but the German position was one of support for self determination in the light of it's own reunification with additional catholic sympathy in Bavaria and the south for Croatia and Slovenia, in the same way the Serbs got sympathy from Greeks and Russians. I've googled BND and Utashe; it seems on various communist bulletin boards and websites the accusation is made but I haven't actually seen a citation for where the accusation comes from. (see for example: http://theredphoenixapl.org/tag/ustase/ )

Milosovic was using nationalism to take control of the Communist party of Serbia from the mid-80s onward. Tudjman might have been no better, but pretending that Milosovic was some noble internationalist socialist is just ridiculous. I refer you again to the picture I linked earlier http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9eCaD4b89zw/URJsXUG2QXI/AAAAAAAAQqQ/VlKGDZnNQMo/s... - who is the fellow on the poster on the left being carried by those "anti-imperialists"?

In reply to Denni:

I'm not going to hijack this thread by talking about the use of some Pseudonym or why i should know every little stupid detail about her.

In reply to GudrunEnsslin:

The problem is, maybe you should know a wee bit more about her, then you may understand why people would make an instant opinion about you.

In reply to heidi123:


But that is meaningless if we are the ones who started the slaughter. The method is well oiled now, we train and organise political protests in the country being aimed at, a few bombs, snipers and agent provocateurs get the wheel of hate moving - there's nothing like a group of policemen being slaughtered in a bloody way to get their mates hot under the collar. Provocation leads to provocation. People are called out to suicidal demonstrations and if the government forces don't react with sufficient violence a few "unprovoked acts" by "uncontrollable elements" soon triggers them off. It's so easy in a world which is already red hot with tension and anger.

Having reached a civil war situation, NATO is called in to provide "humanitarian protection of civilians", which soon morphs into bombing raids, missiles and all the rest. In Syria it hasn't worked because Russia and China refuse to be played for idiots yet again so the civil war is just being built up, the mercenaries are there, many shipped directly from Lybia straight to Syria, the arms are arriving the car bombs are killing civilians by the dozen, provocation following provocation... and now Obama and Cameron are talking about intervention, with Blair egging them on.

All they need is more of the public to gobble the propaganda, there seems to be some reticence, and then they will once more be free to "do something".... assassinating the legitimate President of Syria, as you suggest, perhaps. And yet you said you didn't like seeing people being slaughtered?

How about being a bit more consistent and saying to your government that we should stop interfering in countries throughout the world and whipping up all the violence in the first place? It must be a better solution than them doing this and then blasting the side they didn't like to stop the by now extensive slaughter!

In reply to TobyA:

Now show me where i said or implied that toby?
I said the Serbians tried to avoid the war and i will show you this.

Now your picture with Draza in it is of relevence to what exactley?

In reply to Denni:

Who said i didn't know a lot about her?

In reply to heidi123:

What do you suggest?

Supply Assad with weapons?
Supply the 'other side' with weapons?
Sit in the middle and get shot at by both sides?
Nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure?

No easy answers. Given our track record of expensive failures in hot sandy places in recent years, just doing 'something' doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.

it reminds me of bosnia, when we all just sat and watched

In reply to Ridge:

Until we started murdering one side.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

You mean it's a conspiracy?

In reply to Timmd:

Are you unfamiliar with history of destabilisation methods used by the CIA and assorted Western intelligence agencies?

In reply to GudrunEnsslin:

No, but I think it may be a mistake to always see that happening where there is unrest in countries in which Western countries subsequently become involved.

It shouldn't be the first thing one thinks of, I think, without looking into other possibilities as well.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Why does everyone keep comparing syria to bosnia/yugoslavia?

In reply to ice.solo: I think only Ridge actually compared them and then only as examples of western inaction. I was taking issue with Shona/Gudrun's statement of:


I wonder if she was a "Living Marxism" subscriber (or Revolutionary Communist Party Member) and still has the hump about the dear leaders being shown in court to have printed pro-Karadzic slander.

In reply to TobyA:

Blame my smartphone, the 'reminds me of bosnia' bit was from heidis post further up thread. Bosnia was far more complex. I hate to agree with Shona to a degree, but it wasn't all the fault of the Serbs. They had access to the JNA weaponry, were jolly good at the ethnic cleansing, (which was planned in advance), a certainly initiated the war. I know you don't subscribe to the 'ancient ethnic hatreds' line, but every man and his rabid dog, be they serb, croat or bosniac seemed pretty keen to jump on the atrocities bus.

As for Syria, whatever we try to do will probably bite us on the arse in years to come. My own simplistic view is that giving arms and military support to shouty blokes who like to bellow 'Allahu Akbar' at every opportunity is usually a very, very stupid idea. Assad may well be evil incarnate, but you enemy's enemy very rarely turns out to be your friend.

In reply to Ridge:

Of course not, and these things never, or are extremely rarely all-, the fault on any one side. But that's the thing I find so odd about Shona's position - making statements like "the Serbians..." (which Serbs? All Serbs? Serbian Serbs? Bosnian Serbs?) "...were socialists" (tell that's to Seselj's Radical Party supporters) and they "tried to avoid war" (I wonder who gave Arkan and his 'Tigers' their weapons then?).


The hatreds don't need to be that ancient if we look at WWII and its aftermath.


I think that's exactly why they're sending radios and first aid kits not guns; I also suspect it's at least a year too late to really do anything helpful - but it's damned if you do, damned if you don't in these cases - as British policy on Bosnia actually shows.


Again I agree, although I think the point is that Assad has enemies, not a single enemy, and those amongst his enemies now who are doing the best in terms of fighting are very clearly not going to run Syria in any more a humane way than the current government. I'm not sure if it is too late to find and help those amongst his enemies who might want to have a country that treats everyone better - quite possibly it is.

In reply to Timmd:

Not really, foreign policy usually. Sometimes it is the secret service which does things "without government knowledge", like the Bay of Pigs fiasco in Cuba - a fiasco that resulted in quite a few deaths nonetheless - or in Nicaragua, but there's no way of knowing if this was true or just the government fibbing to avoid blame. I don't know if you would call such things a "conspiracy".

These days the term seems to be used simply as a way of discrediting an opinion, whereas it does have a real meaning. The Cold War may have been a "conspiracy" but something so huge that lasted so many years goes beyond what most would use the term for IMO. What do you think?

In reply to Ridge:


Well put.

In reply to Ridge:

I think the idea is to give guns and stuff to the other folk who might be our friends. The West is a bit worried about the revolution getting hijacked by Islamists and I guess that they'd to ensure that when the shooting stops the guys with the most guns are the ones we can deal with.

In reply to ice.solo:

Lots of different factions, different ethnic and culturally diverse groups that until a couple of years ago seemed happy enough to play together, now mortal enemies. It's easy how you would make this comparison if you watched the news here.

D

In reply to DNS:

Not really an option.

In reply to PeterM:

And not a serious suggestion - I was interested in Shona's view on realpolitik.

However - there are a lot of countries between the UK and Syria with more skin in the game than us. About time they stepped up.

In reply to DNS:

You seem to forget that after the USA the UK and France are joint second in the running as far as humanitarian murder under NATO command goes. France is even going it alone in Mali at present, proving that a left government is every bit as keen as a right one, and Cameron is jumping up and down calling for open intervention in Syria, fully backed by Blair in his role as Special Middle East Peace Emissary (SMEPE). All three were very proud of how many people they blew up in Libya and ex-Yugoslavia - I'm sure you remember all those newsreels of "precision" guided bombs blowing houses up.

It's one domain where the old world can be proud of their continued prowess.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Bruce

Do you think the interventionist policies are a thing of the West i.e ,of capitalism, or is it more a case of "what powerful governments do"?

IMHO it's the latter, irrespective of the political divide and some thing governments of both the left and right have and continue to do, in various guises. .

It's an open apolitcal question btw

In reply to John Rushby:

It's what governments have done since they came into being but the UN is supposed to have put an end to that, isn't it?

Marx thought, or wrote at least, that war was a consequence of capitalism and would disappear with the socialism - not one of his brightest predictions IMO, although some would argue that we haven't had "true" socialism yet so we can't tell.

I do think that since the fall of the Soviet Union the lack of any counter power has allowed the winning side "our side" that is, to get a bit carried away - we seem to be going back to the days of gun boat diplomacy. Apart from it's immorality I can't help feeling that as every force has its opposite one day we'll feel the pendulum swinging back against "us".

I don't really feel part of this "us", hence the inverted commas, but I suppose I am objectively whether I like it of not so I'll feel the backlash all the same. I'd rather not.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Thanks Bruce.

I think your comment about the lack of a counter power is interesting, and would agree. Although, maybe what we are seeing is what happens as we move away from the client state scenario(on both sides) to something based upon money. That's why I think the UN is partyl toothless as the Chinese veto often undermines it's ability, and that's something driven by money.

Perhaps the pendulum has begun to swing, away from the power projections of the Neo-cons to something more subtle.

As for Syria, IMHO Libya is not a workable comparison - Syria is much mre riven by religous sectarianism. Add to that the actual geographical position of it in the geo-politcs of the area, throw in some tribal factionism and it's basically a clusterf*ck.

The regime of Assad senior was aligned to Nasser and in turn the USSR. The new regime seeing America as the unchallenged strongman on the world stage tried to play with the US and gain favour. Assad did this by using Lebanon as a puppet state to control the Palestinians and thought in doing so, and using the bogeyman of Islamic militants as the passport to doing what the hell they wanted. they got that wrong as the pendulum began to swing back the other way.

I don't see it being solvable anytime soon.

In reply to TobyA:


So it appears that you had a problem with this statement then i shall explain it to you (as if you didn't know already what i mean't).

The Croatians and Slovenes were the ones who demanded succession not the Serbs who wanted to maintain the State of Yugoslavia intact.Succession without negotiations as many independant observers stated would lead to war.

The Communist Party of Serbia merged with the Socialist Alliance of the Working People of Serbia to form the Socialist Party of Serbia in 1990.As i said in my original statement -

"they were socialist".


Yes they were Socialists and Communists from the CL,they formed a coalition with the emerging SRS in 1992 *after* the start of the Yugoslav war.

Remember *before *the war,that was what i said.


Avoiding war by avoiding the break up of FRY.

I did an extensive essay as course work for one of my 'A' Levels on the Yugoslav war which contributed toward an A. So contrary to your childish remarks Toby i am far from ignorant or lying about this period.I wrote about the German governments involvement from the 60's through support of disparite Croatian fascist groups in primarily Bavaria and the help of the BND.These groups used terrorist attacks on many Yugoslav interests and personnel.My essay also spoke of Genscher's crucial act that would start this war and the break up of Yugoslavia as well as the flood of anti-Serbian western news coverage(Which was incredible).
Incidentally this was all done with scouring many books and many newspaper stories since back then there was no internet for me,i can't remember everything in it and you forced me to go and refresh my memory.

In reply to GudrunEnsslin:

You took a while, Google slow at your end?

BTW your moniker makes me chuckle, reminds me of the time I was 'interviewed' for 4 hours at Bremen airport after they spotted the book on Baader Meinhof I was reading for my postgrad.

Good book BTW, written by Stefan aust

In reply to John Rushby: I had that book Hitler's children once, less interesting than I had hoped it would be.

Spoilt middle class kids blaming their inadequacy and sadism on the failings of their parents.

Hard to read the account of the death of the banker, or see the photos of him in captivity - however reprehensible a character he may have been - without wondering who would do such a thing.

Hi Gudrun, great name!

In reply to John Rushby:

By the way

£5 says you'll be posting as Leila Khaled next week

In reply to John Rushby: I've already referenced her in an earlier post, hot or what? Almost gave Palestinians an acceptable name.

In reply to John Rushby:

Its been a while since i delved into all that period and i never kept my course paper from the 90's so i had to trawl through the internet for about 2 bloody hours to get some of the stuff but hey i backed up what i said at the time even though i was getting a bit hot under der collar the other night,i don't like being called names..who does?


That must have been an interesting conversation.
Did it involve a torch?

In reply to GudrunEnsslin:

Ha no, no torch.

They were disbelieving it was a my thesis on economic terrorism, and why it could be more effective.

By the end they knew quite a bit, even had my service records......

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Yeah Rob no excuse but they were fighting a war.

There is no excuse that i can think of for the murder of millions of Indo-Chinese kids,women and men by Western fascist Imperialists either.

In reply to GudrunEnsslin:

Did I miss the poster on here calling himself William Calley?

In reply to Postmanpat:

No

In reply to GudrunEnsslin:


Again, this is not the case. When the governing groups in Serbia felt they maintain control of the federal Yugoslav institutions such as the JNA they were happy to keep using the name, but what is crucial is that it was the Serbian leadership, i.e. Milosovic, that had already started re-awakening nationalism within the Yugoslav context in the 80s (his "they will never beat you again" speech in Kosovo) and had been maneuvering within the federal system to gain power on nationalist grounds. Once it was apparent that the Croats and Slovenes were out, Milosovic was happy only too happy to carve up Bosnia between him and Tudjman, as has been since testified to by Serb and Croat witnesses in the Hague who had been at the meeting in 1991.

In reply to TobyA:


Which was a reaction to anti-Serb ethnic violence! You always have to turn history on its head, cause become effect and vice versa.

In reply to John Rushby: "Perhaps the pendulum has begun to swing..."

Indeed,The US is facing an 'Asia pivot' (Obama used this basket ball phrase to describe the shift). US troops withdrawn from Middle East, US becoming energy independent, what happens to their fleet base in ME/BAH? (there is a new large US base in Australia to focus on Pacific). Does China move into the ME vacuum?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


But he broke Tito's taboo on invoking ethnic nationalism, the first Yugoslav politician to do so. If I remember correctly it was actually against the law, or at least against the rules of the Yugoslav Communist party - that's why Stambolic called something like the day Yugoslavia died or something (and looked what happened to him!).

I can see why you might be a fan of Tito and of the Yugoslav model, but that makes it all the more bizarre that you end supporting Milosovic. Let's leave aside his war crimes of more recent times, but he was nationalist, which (when it comes to the SNP you say you loath) who betrayed Tito's legacy and began the break up of Yugoslavia.

I've just noticed on Wikipedia as well that when he took over the Serbian presidency he immediately introduced neo-liberal reforms under an IMF plan too!

Is it really enough that he fought the Americans to redeem all these other failings in your eyes? Are all enemies of your enemies your friends?

In reply to TobyA:

The real issue behind it all IMO was that Yugoslavia was a country which presented the world with an alternative economic and political model based on socialism and democracy, and a democracy that was much more fundamental than voting every few years, much more participative, works committees, elected bosses, very decentralised and so on. It didn't go down very well with either the Eastern or Western block, but for many reasons, including the role in WW2, Tito's personality, managed to survive on their "Third Road" and become something of a leader of un-aligned nations.

Once the capitalist block won the Cold War and the USSR and its E European "allies" collapsed the situation changed, it found itself rather alone and then the small minded desire of the West to destroy all opposition caused them to set their sights on this small, inoffensive country which presented little threat to either its neighbours or its own population. It had to go and the exact mechanism of it going is secondary now.

Going back over all the details now, so many years on, could not be done by memory (by me anyway). We'll have to beg to differ. Concerning Milosevic, I don't think it was black and white, not for a Serb in Kosovo at least when they were ethnically cleaned, and the way he was judged and died in prison stinks of victor's justice. Does saying that mean I am a supporter of Milosevic?

I'd say what followed proves me right though as the methods developed by NATO in Yugoslavia (ex- by then) for Kosovo were then applied very effectively for Libya - another one that had to go, and are now being applied in Syria, with Iran and Algeria (to a lesser extent) clearly in line.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: Seriously, you need to actually make a serious argument that it was the "small minded desire of the West to destroy all opposition" that broke up Yugoslavia! The rise of nationalist sentiments came with Tito's death. The tensions within the federation were internal, it was a settlement imposed on, not chosen by the peoples - we see exactly the same happening in Syria now. Without democracy and freedom for the populations confederated or multi-national states have a tendency to break up, be that the Soviet Union, Sudan, Czechslovakia, Pakistan, Indonesia (East Timor) etc. etc. Even in confederated states that are democracies and free there are tensions - Spain, Belgium, the UK, etc. - even rumbles of Texan separatism in the US!

There were major economic problems in Yugoslavia by the 80s, the Yugoslav people had enough freedom to see that people were richer in Western countries and that their system couldn't provide a similar standard of living. I can see why you respected the model whilst it lasted; but just like Chavez's Venezuela, it wasn't sustainable. States can ask a lot of (or put many limits on) their citizens - look at the Nordic social democracies for instance - but only if they can provide in return security in both the social- and national- senses of the word.

In reply to TobyA:

And the major economic problems were in no way subject to the world that Yugoslavia, a socialist state, survived in? What help was offered to them? Anything like as much to ex-nazi Germany, that so many Serbs, and other Yugoslavians, had died fighting?

You always base your conclusions on the results, not what went to getting there. A country like Greece, which has been run, largely in agreement with its people, in a most disastrous way is helped out up to the hilt - do you think that if they had not adopted (in fact had imposed on them) the capitalist model it would have been the same?

Obviously Yugoslavia had difficulties, and those it had have been well presented, those behind this sort of political destabilisation are not amateurs they've been doing it for centuries. Yugoslavia has had difficulties for a long time, it even gave a word to the English language - balkanization - but it had been together for quite a while under Tito, it could have survived without all the bloodshed that splitting it up led to, but it wasn't allowed to... the same for Syria today.

Historically one of the most ethnically complex areas of the Middle East but it was held together under the Ottomans and could have done so under the present government. It wasn't paradise for the people but at least they weren't dead. A complicated compromise had been found that held it together, just like Yugoslavia, it could have gone on much longer and with a little genuine help from those who chose to destroy them could have evolved into something better. But simply because they did not conform to what those who dominate the world wanted they have either died or are dying in a sea of blood.

You only have to read a few history book to see that these sorts of manipulations are nothing new... why do you steadfastly refuse to even consider the possibility that those who own and profit from the world may be doing all they can today to maintain this state of affairs as they did in the past?

In reply to Bruce Hooker: But you've just asserted again that West brought down Yugoslavia, you haven't explained to us how they did it. Do you even accept that the constituent ethnic groups of Yugoslavia had national ambitions? Were the Croatian Spring, the '86 Serbian Academy Memorandum, Izetbegovic's Islamic Declaration all just cunning plots somehow hatched by the IMF and NATO?

This is just like how you explain Syria - Syrians on all sides are being manipulated by outside powers, they have no agency of their own - they are just pawns in the games of others. Do you think your world view results from your Communism? I guess it fits with the determinism of Marxist theory.

In reply to TobyA:


“The situation in Kosovo will improve only if the Serbs, Montenegrins, Albanians and all the others who live and work in Kosovo strengthen their ranks and enhance brotherhood and unity. Any basis for action which excludes brotherhood and unity but proceeds from intra-national intolerance and hatred is not right and we shall do everything to prevent it.” - 20 April 1987


“We neither wish nor we can classify people into Serbs and Albanians, but we should distinguish among the honest and progressive people fighting for brotherhood and unity and national equality on the one hand and nationalists and counter-revolutionaries on the other hand. If we do not create and strengthen that front, Comrades, then there will be no Kosovo, no Serbia, and no Yugoslavia either.” - 25 April 1987

Every nation and nationality which isolates itself is behaving irresponsibly towards its own development. That is why it is we communists in the first place who must do everything to eliminate the consequences of a nationalist and separatist behaviour on the part of the counter-revolutionary forces in Kosovo and also elsewhere in the country.” - 25 April 1987

Any kind of flirting with nationalism or yielding to it, cannot contribute, but on the contrary can only halt, impede, slowdown and ruin a successful political development which the League of Communists has taken to be the goal. That is Tito’s brotherhood and unity which is the only basis that can secure Yugoslavia’s survival.” – 4 June 1987


“Serbian nationalism today is not only intolerance and hared of another nation or nations, but is itself a serpent deep in the bosom of the Serbian people… Serbian nationalists would do the greatest harm to the Serbian people today by which they offer as being allegedly the best thing, namely isolating the Serbian people… No one can label us Serbian nationalists because we want to, and really will, resolve the problem of Kosovo in the interests of all the people who live there.” – 24 September 1987


Guess who?

In reply to TobyA:


What on earth does that have to do with what we were talking about? nothing thats what.

In reply to TobyA:


See above.

It was as i originally stated the Slovenes and Croats who invoked nationalism .

In reply to GudrunEnsslin: I'm thinking, could it be best to judge people by thier actions, rather than what they say? There have been some awfull people who've said honourable sounding things, and the reverse as well.

What people actually do seems to be the best measure of people in my experience, while quotes can be used by people on either side of a debate to support thier point of view.

In reply to TobyA:

If you go back and look at the time-line there were things like the encouragement given by Germany to certain regional nationalist groups and so on - recognition went through very quickly, the intention to break up the country was manifest. But as I said all this is too far back to be a detailed debate from memory and each of us wading though wikipedia or expert analyst friends once more seems a little to much like hard work. I remember what I thought back then, I has always been interested in the Yugoslavian "autogestion" model of Socialism, but not on all the details. It would be futile to look it all up just to prove something that nothing could convince you of anyway.

You go your way and I'll go mine.


I don't think you know much about communism, judging by what you post, and even less about my ideas on the subject! It's not just a "dirty word" you know.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I'd find that very interesting.

In reply to Timmd:

Then just do it! Convincing Toby is beyond my strength and I think more and more that the only way to form an opinion is to do your own reading and have your own experiences. Everybody has to work things out for themselves at the end of it all.

In reply to TobyA:


Nationalism never left Croatia Toby as the spring and post seperation events testify only to well.

As i said way back and you out of your *ignorance* had to run away and google,the Croatian terrorists in Bavaria et al were doing all they could to break up Yugslavia.Even as early as the start of the 60's and using elements within the Croatia.Genscher and the BND as well as the Austrian one would bring this to a climax with "his war".Not my quote Toby but that of UN mediator Cyrus Vance who was so infuriated by him that he would call the war "Genscher's war".

Tito's 'Small Serbia better Yugoslavia' doctrine that led to the split in 74 contradicted his own doctrine.And was a mistake that led many Serbs who had seen 200,000 upward murdered and persecuted in the genocide that the utterly monsterous Croatian Ustash unleashed.Start to wonder what was going on and why they should see their country split in three when they were the ones ethnically cleansed.


I think you mean't to say "*With* democracy and freedom"

Do you think the populations of Czech Republic and Slovakia were asked by the traitors in charge if they wanted to seperate?


Did Chavez's model collapse?No so what are you on about?
The nationalism in certain places stoked,supported and used by the western allies promoted the *actual* break up of Yugoslavia

In reply to Timmd:

Ok Tim so Toby informs us that Milosevic said-


And i show that he said


“The situation in Kosovo will improve only if the Serbs, Montenegrins, Albanians and all the others who live and work in Kosovo strengthen their ranks and enhance brotherhood and unity. Any basis for action which excludes brotherhood and unity but proceeds from intra-national intolerance and hatred is not right and we shall do everything to prevent it.” - 20 April 1987


“We neither wish nor we can classify people into Serbs and Albanians, but we should distinguish among the honest and progressive people fighting for brotherhood and unity and national equality on the one hand and nationalists and counter-revolutionaries on the other hand. If we do not create and strengthen that front, Comrades, then there will be no Kosovo, no Serbia, and no Yugoslavia either.” - 25 April 1987

Every nation and nationality which isolates itself is behaving irresponsibly towards its own development. That is why it is we communists in the first place who must do everything to eliminate the consequences of a nationalist and separatist behaviour on the part of the counter-revolutionary forces in Kosovo and also elsewhere in the country.” - 25 April 1987

Any kind of flirting with nationalism or yielding to it, cannot contribute, but on the contrary can only halt, impede, slowdown and ruin a successful political development which the League of Communists has taken to be the goal. That is Tito’s brotherhood and unity which is the only basis that can secure Yugoslavia’s survival.” – 4 June 1987

“Serbian nationalism today is not only intolerance and hared of another nation or nations, but is itself a serpent deep in the bosom of the Serbian people… Serbian nationalists would do the greatest harm to the Serbian people today by which they offer as being allegedly the best thing, namely isolating the Serbian people… No one can label us Serbian nationalists because we want to, and really will, resolve the problem of Kosovo in the interests of all the people who live there.” – 24 September 1987

Both speeches or in one case 6 words.

In reply to GudrunEnsslin: Presumably its all Milosovic. What archive are you using - I guess there are other speeches or sections of speeches you are not choosing to cite - like the ones made to the Serbs in Kosovo about not running away from a fight?

In reply to Bruce Hooker: I could never be bothered to read much Lenin but I've read quite a lot of Marx, does that count for you?

In reply to GudrunEnsslin: Can you explain the context of the 25 April speech Shona rather than just pick some bit out from it?

In reply to TobyA:


You mean as opposed to six words Toby?

In reply to TobyA:


Give that boy a coconut! and that's no *lie*.

In reply to GudrunEnsslin: Well I did explain the relevance of his famous statement: it was his reawakening of Serbian grievance and his wolf whistle towards those who wanted to follow the ideas relating Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences memorandum which was the blueprint for revanchist serb nationalism.

Now could you tell us where he made the speech that you are quoting? For it to have been translated I guess it was at some major event?

In reply to GudrunEnsslin: are you calling havel and dubcek traitors???

In reply to heidi123:

Dubcek? no no no no no!

Havel? Of course.

In reply to heidi123:

Eh there does tend to be two sides to a story you know?

Or judging by your extreme bias ...there doesn't !

Brainwashed western you are not alone !

In reply to GudrunEnsslin: havel was one of the best guys ever. he didnt want the break up of czechoslovakia. you are a strange person gudrun

In reply to TobyA:

Count for what?

If you mean in understanding what marxism means today then just reading Marx is clearly insufficient, his ideas have been updated enormously, by Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Gramsci and many others. Years ago most European communist parties gave up the policy of dictatorship of the prolatariat, and many seem to have transformed so much they have dropped the term communist in their name.

This year the PCF dropped the hammer and sickle from the membership cards and three decades ago an Italian communist friend was telling me that they thought the PCF was really old fashioned in it's approach. What Marx wrote in the 19th century was based on observations of a very different form of capitalism than that of today, if he were alive today he wouldn't be writing the same things either.

Having said that I don't think it's really just reading that enables one to see what it's all about you need to get involved in political and trade union movements yourself. It's in day to day activities that you see how society really works, how the class system is in reality and not how it is presented in the media. A bit like the man who said that it was harder for a rich to pass through the eye of a needle than go to heaven. Experience confirms or infirms what you read, often discussion with comrades or opponents beats dry theory.

It can even lead you to changing your opinion but often the journey is more important than the destination.

In reply to TobyA:

You also "forgot" to give the context of this speech - just after serious anti-Serb violence. You are doing yourself what you accuse "Gudrun" of doing.

In reply to heidi123:

Havel was criticed enormously by many, you seem to be just seeing one side of the story... the Western side.

This happens a lot with Havel, like the Dalai Lama.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: my friend is from slovakia and the majority of czechoslovakians loved havel. yes he was criticized, as most leaders are, but he was a beleiver in freedom and hated communism

In reply to heidi123:


That's the bit that many critize

In reply to Bruce Hooker: are you a communist? which country are you from? are you a mountaineer/climber/fell walker?

In reply to heidi123:

If you click on the red question mark by his name you can read more about the legend that is Bruce Hooker

In reply to off-duty: flippin' 'eck!!!

In reply to Bruce Hooker: so comrade bruce! are you French or you just live there? have you ever lived under communist rule?

In reply to GudrunEnsslin: come on mate, tell us where all your Milosovic quotes came from.

In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:


Thousands of people in mass graves including children and babies.
Hundreds of people blown up by mines trying to escape their villages in winter
Hundred of women who couldnt walk because they had been raped so many times that their pelvis and legs were shattered
Men strung up and beheaded as a warning to others
Villages destroyed
Water sources poisoned
Hospitals with mines and booby traps in them
Religious artefacts stolen
What was left of makeshift concentration camps

The list is not exhaustive at all. I may come across as a bit hot headed sometimes but there is a reason. Most people on here read things, listen to the media and make a conclusion. I, as well as many others on here have actually been there and seen the total planned culling of a population and that's how I make my mind up, through an actual experience.

Don't get me wrong, both sides were sometimes as bad as others but with the Serbs, it was a systematic planned killing spree. With the Bosnian Muslims, it was revenge and defence and although people in their armchairs may think this was wrong, you try and live somewhere where entire villages were killed, women raped, your children killed and not do anything about it.

Gudrun, no point in quoting Milosevic, your quotes were well out of date and even if they were in date, anyone can say something when they know they are in the crap and trying to get themselves out of it.

You can argue all you want saying I have an a level in this, that and the other from reading books, I've been there, seen the utter devastation and disregard for human life akin to the Nazis so I have an actual experience away from my armchair, made my own mind up nothing will ever change that.

Ever seen a grave with 3-400 dead charred bodies of children in it? You wouldn't want to.

In reply to TobyA:

Anyone can cut and paste Toby:

http://yugoslavtruth.blogspot.co.uk/2006/02/wise-words-of-slobodan-milosevi...

In reply to Denni: well written Denni. the truest and most down to earth post on here.

In reply to heidi123:

If you'd looked at my profile you would know, but how many French people are called Bruce Hooker in your view? In practical terms I have a French wife (of Armenian origins but French nationality) and three children of dual nationality, one lives in London, the other two with us, resident in France but spread between France and Sussex... Euro-mobile, if you like, but not prone to flag-waving nationalism.

I was an active member of the French Communist Party, and I'm not ashamed of having done my bit to bring in the Union of the Left government in 1981. A couple of years later I left the party, both for political reasons - I didn't think our policy of the day was right for several reasons - and personal ones - babies being a little incompatible with active militancy.

At the time the PCF got about 1/4 of the vote and had a million members putting it a by far the biggest party in France, much as the Labour Party is in Britain although with different methods and policies. Ours was a revolutionary party organised in cells, local ones or in companies, and which although it had adopted a "democratic road to socialism" still saw this method as one which not only relied on elections but also on grass routes militantism at all levels, from within trade unions to tenants associations, women's groups and peace movements.

So I left the communist party and am, therefore, no longer a communist, and don't merit the honour of the word "comrade", as being a communist means militating for social change, a world which gives all levels of society a fair deal, unlike the present unjust one, not just believing in the idea in an intellectual way. On the other hand I have not gone over to being an anti-communist as many ex-communists do. In my time in the party I met the nicest, most generous and open minded people I had ever met in France, they helped me get over the sort of difficulties that a newcomer to country where he didn't speak the language often confronts, to fit in and feel at home.

This obviously affects the way I see history, how I deal with Stalinism and the conclusions I draw about the political struggles in Europe after WW2. You ask have I ever lived under communist rule, but for me the use of the word "under" in the question already shows the sort of answer you expect! Crimes have been committed in the name of communism, but they have in the name of democracy too, I think we need to look at these questions in a more rational way than most do and try and break out of our childhood conditioning and education.

Sorry to be so long, you shouldn't have asked the question!

In reply to Bruce Hooker: i find it incredulous when you say havel was criticised because he was not a communist. havel was a dissident who beleived in freedom. he invented a word for all these "isms"- he called it "absurdism"!!! good word. havel was a ggod guy, one of the best. if every country had a president like him the world would be a much better place. communism failed bruce

In reply to heidi123:


Stalinism failed but it had the benefit of a pretty enormous effort to make it do so. Havel did support one ism though, capitalism, which may have it's strong points in terms of increasing production and overall world wealth but many would argue it also has a few negative side effects.

In China it has succeeded in bringing the country out of a situation of a failed state, over-run by other countries and bloody war lords into what became the largest economy of the world last year. It is still poor but the progress has been enormous when compared to similar states like India or Pakistan. Compare Cuba to Haiti and Jamaica, not black and white but such social experiments have not been the failure you seem to be saying... and as for an example of the total failure of capitalism just look at Africa! Looking at this sad continent one could just as well conclude that capitalism has failed.

In a few centuries I don't think people will say communism failed, they will see the good things it brought, the way it created a balance of power for a very critical half century, forced capitalists in developed countries to accept giving workers a larger slice of the cake, have trade unions, social services, basically they had read Marx and didn't go down the road he had predicted from seeing how things were heading in Victorian England. It also provided the logistic and political back up which enabled many colonised countries to break their chains and achieve independence. Would the "wind of change" have blown round the planet without the existence of the Eastern block? I doubt it personally.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: Is it communism they have in China?

In reply to Sir Chasm: Yeah, I can see why someone who doesn't think democracy is the be all and end, like Bruce, would support China's rise. The Chinese Communist Party over the last 30 years has brought more people out of abject poverty than any other regime in history, BUT it seems unarguable that abject poverty was as bad if not worse (with famines of biblical proportions) under Maoist-communism and has lessened since Deng Xiaping brought in "socialism with Chinese characteristic", those characteristic being unbridled capitalism!

In reply to Sir Chasm:


It's still run by party that calls itself communist but as China is now a country with one of the largest numbers of billionaires in the world it's doubtful that it's the form of society that Marx was thinking of. Reality, history, traditions, wars and human disasters don't generally follow predictions of library dwelling middle class philosophers...

On the other hand it was the ideas of Marx which stimulated those revolutionaries who went through enormous hardships to destroy the regime(s) that had turned the richest, most sophisticated country in the world over the several thousands of years leading up to the 18th century into a total mess. It inspired those who turned things round and started the process of reconstruction too.

Whether it still inspires the leaders of China today I can't really say, but as you, like the majority of people in Europe, are a believer in capitalism I don't see why you would be worried by the direction being taken by China. They have now reached number one economically in total terms (last year) while remaining quite poor on an individual basis but as the latest decision of the CCP is, apparently, to turn towards a higher level of internal consumption instead of export, with "only" 7.5% economic growth per annum there is no reason to believe that the country will not continue advancing towards becoming both prosperous, stable and more free, but always in a way that only they will decide, not foreign powers.

Seems ok to me.

In reply to TobyA:


Would you have preferred for China to have remained in the mess it was in then? You don't seem to have much sympathy for the people of the most populous country in the world, do you? Still stuck in the the "better dead than red" mind set, are you?

In reply to Bruce Hooker: I'm not worried about the direction China is taking, I wondered if you considered the Chinese system to be communism, or, if not, when they stopped being communists.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

What type of communism did they have then? Must've been a good one to have been so successful for so long.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: i dont beleive in any sort of "ism". only freedom. its strange that you are a climber, because most climbers, by nature are free spirits. which is not part of the communist ideal, where you are expected to be a brain washed conformanist

In reply to heidi123: Careful now if Gudrun Shona reads that you're for it. As she's a totally liberal free spirit so long as your opinions that same as hers.

In reply to Frank4short: I'll be for the gulags will i?!

In reply to heidi123: I certainly don't believe in 'capitalism' - it's just a word to describe how most people behave by default. Because some people get too rich and powerful then we need politics to jerk them back into line.

If everyone was born equal tommorrow, (whatever that might mean!) then some people would get up earlier, work harder and smarter and be richer by the following day. (With apologies to Elizabeth Gaitskell whose description this is is very roughly borrowed from.)

In reply to Rob Exile Ward: you beleive in freedom though, yeah?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

"They" being the unelected leaders. As ever, it's anti-American elites you support, not the 'masses' of any country.

In reply to TobyA:

It does seem like it. India has it's problems, but at least people can have a voice in India, and the ways in which people are getting involved in democracy and having power over thier lives are growing.

Ai Wei Wei has commented that Beijing is a place of fear and darkness, in how one can be arrested and then anything can happen to you, that the people holding you can do anything to you and word will never get out about what has happened to you, and that this knowledge can begin to drive one mad.

I sometimes think that in China if the CCP was to lose control, it could become very unstable and chaotic as a country, which would have very bad consequences for the population there.

In reply to heidi123: 'you beleive in freedom though, yeah?' More than the likes of Bruce and Gudrun can possibly imagine.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I thought I'd answered that? Do you want a date or something? I don't think things work like that.

In reply to Steve John B:


It wasn't communism, they had emperors and what not. Plenty of books in your local library.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: So China isn't communist and never has been. Thanks for clearing that up.

In reply to heidi123:


On the contrary freedom is the basis of communism, but not just for the rich. Communism is a society with no "rich and poor", no classes, hence no state, no oppression, no brain washing, which a tool of class domination so with no classes there would be no need for brain washing. The level of brain washing today is a proof, if anyone doubted it, of the level of class antagonism, as Mao might have put it.

Communism has never existed yet, anywhere at any time, it's something which is still a long way off.

In reply to Timmd:


Which is how they've done such a good job in getting rid of the caste system and advancing womens' rights?

Keep dreaming

In reply to Bruce Hooker: At 10:22 you listed some of the good things communism has done, how did communism do those things if it has never existed?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

If that's the conclusion you think I have been making based on reading my posts on this thread then maybe we don't use words in the same way.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: Mao killed 80 million people...

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Communism is the word used to describe states which are usually run by Communist parties and are supposed to be on the road to communism. Such societies should really be referred to as socialist in Marxist terms as the still have class conflicts and a state system of class domination.

For a Marxist communism is the final Utopian condition when all people are part of the working class, and so in fact there is no longer a class system at all, no domination of one class by another and therefore no state. Total freedom but in a society where all are responsible and respect the freedom of others. Think of John Lennon's "Imagine".

It's hard for us to imagine as we have not developed enough to conceive such a reality... Marx was a dreamer of sorts too.

Communist parties call themselves communist because they are striving for this ideal, not because the country they work in today or in the past had reached this state. In fact there would be no communist party then either as there would be no need for one at all, it would "whither away" as the state would in Marxist theory.

In reply to heidi123:

Well done, you've doubled even TobyA's figure, IIRC. He must have had a pretty sore trigger finger.

Did you mention brain washing higher up the thread?

In reply to Bruce Hooker: so how many do you reckon he killed then?

In reply to Bruce Hooker: 'Think of John Lennon's "Imagine".' Yes let's; the old wife beating philandering misgynist who rented an entire floor in his appartment blcok just to store his and Yoko's fur coats. Imagine no possessions, indeed.

Excellent example, someone to aspire to.

Or instead of imagining what we would like in some mythic fairyland, (the religious call it paradise, you (ex) commies have different names but it's exactly the same fantasy), let's start with the reality of who we are, how we are built, how we have evolved, what baggage we have brought with us, and try and construct a society which is as fair, reasonable, equitable, and satisfying as can be given our biology and evolutionary past.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

But it's so much more rewarding learning from someone of wisdom and experience like what you is. What was it were you saying on the Chavez thread last week about pissing in people's mouths...?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Hmmn, I did post that India has it's problems. What is your point Bruce, or did you just want to tell me to keep dreaming?

Deep rooted problems in India aside, there is still the beginnings of democracy in India. I see this as a positive thing.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Can an artist also be expected to be an impeccable character? What about Mozart or Acker Bilk? Were they Mr Perfect? You say the queerest things from sometimes.

As the discussion was about communism, and about the meaning in the mind of people over the years it doesn't seem unreasonable to correct the sort of misunderstandings that frequently crop up about just what countries that we call communist really were in terms of the man who invented the word and the way it is often used. Is China communist? Was the USSR under Stalin communist and so on are frequently asked questions, I don't see any reason not to give an opinion on the subject, if that's alright with you, Your Lordship?


I don't see many people trying to do that, certainly not your idle, Obama, and when someone like Chavez does you all slag him off, as for China. A people throw off the yoke of foreign domination and go through a gigantic struggle to get back to the situation their ancestors had in the world for centuries and instead of being impressed people sneer.... I can't see any other reason than racism, the white man's inbuilt arrogance and sentiment of superiority.

In reply to Steve John B:


Not people's, just someone called Stroppygob who wanted to piss on Chavez's tomb. Got any problems with that?

In reply to Bruce Hooker: same thought crossed my mind about stalins tomb when i was in moscow

In reply to Timmd:


The caste system is organised racism on a massive scale except the people are the same race just of different class... for someone like you who is always pretty anti-racist I'm surprise you minimise it, the same for women's rights, you must have followed thde recent issue of the common attitude to collective rape which has been in the news a lot lately... apparently the situation had been getting worse and worse rather than the opposite.

So to present India as model to be followed seems odd to me, especially when compared to modern China. Don't you know that there is democracy in China too?

In reply to heidi123:

You are a sweety! Maybe you should get together with stroppygob?

PS. Don't piss on tombs or memorials in Britain, you could get sent to prison.

In reply to Timmd:

Errm, it's been independent for nearly 70 years and you are happy about the "beginnings" of democracy! Not exactly in a hurry, are they?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I think you managed to get timmmd riled.

I think that counts as well as pissing in everyone's gob on this thread.

Former Commies 1 Neo-Con drivel pigs 0.

Bruce Hooker. What a legend.

D

In reply to Dauphin:

Our posts crossed, he deleted his, so mine doen't make much sense

Nothing new.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I decided life is too short. It's only an internet discussion after all. It started to seem silly that I was getting riled over an internet thread.

So what if we have different opinions?

I do think India is more democratic than China is, but that's all pretty much.

Tim

In reply to Timmd: i would agree with you about india. and about getting cross coz of different opinions

In reply to heidi123:I've chilled and philosophical parents, on the whole, and kind of heard them in my head asking why I was being so daft.

Decided they were right, if you see what I mean. ()

In reply to Denni:


Agreed Denni, I was just wondering whether Shona was going to admit copying and pasting it from some pro-Milosovic blog. I actually found the original source of that text, which the blogger doesn't give and happened to read it all in context which again I suspect Shona didn't.

In reply to TobyA:

You do of course realise we shouldn't bother answering sometimes/most of the time :0)

In reply to TobyA:

You leave Slobadan alone! He has top banter.

In reply to heidi123:

Aw bless!
Now no chewing in class remember and i shall begin...

From Nov1992 until Jan 1993 Havel mysteriously stepped down from the position of President of Czechslovakia, which just happened to coincide with the
decision to break this country in two.If he had stayed President during this 2/3 month period the break up would have needed the president's signature to be ratified.But if there was no president then it could proceed without his signature.So he....are you looking out the window Heidi123 ? Pay attention !where was i ? oh yes..so he deliberately moved out of the way to allow the break up and let the Prime Ministers decide the future of Cz with absolutely no public consultation or referendum about their future.He did this to allow this completely *undemocratic* act of splitting up a country without asking what the people wanted.Now if he cared at all about freedom and democracy he wouldn't have stepped down and would have opposed the signing until a proper referendum had taken place, but like the coward he always...what? yeah coward that's c-o-w-a-r-d, he sneaked a way to break the country up.

And no need to resort to wee personal attacks there Heidi123 or next time i will give you 100 lines.

In reply to heidi123:

Sitting comfortably?

Point of reference- In 1989 75% of Czechoslovaks opposed the privatization of industry.
In 1989 83% of Czechoslovaks opposed the end of collective farms.

After a few years this lover of *democracy* would break this country in two undemocratically.

American and German led 'shock therapy' and mass privatizations of *all* industries and complete destruction of the collective farm systems.Shut down,privatized,sold off like the huge Skoda factory sold to the German's for 1Korona.Many many others that were owned by the people were sold for a pittance and then shut down by Western racketeers to kill any competition.

During Communism Czechoslovakia was in the top ten richest countries in the world with no national debt,in fact a huge surplus which under Havel would be massively reversed and they would end go from top 10 to 36th.

Under Havel a new phenomenon would emerge...unemployment,rapidly increasing as well as the crime rate and homelessness.People were now terrified they will get sick and end up homeless.With job losses and economic hardship chronic and i mean chronic drug abuse and prostitution would take holdas well as organised crime.

Havel conducted a disgusting apology to Germany for the expulsion of Sudetan Germans after the war.These Germans committed horrific crimes against the Czech people prior and during the occupation.This began a movement to reclaim homes in the Czech Rep by Germans which would break the Benes Decree.But of course Havel didn't care about breaking the Benes Decree, since he would do it again to acquire properties that were owned by his Nazi collaberating and supporting family.

He has even allowed the Sudetanlandsmanchaft to open an office in prague!
He has sold Czech Republic to the Germans who now more or less own it.The very country who hated the Czechs,Hitler called it "A dagger pointing at the heart of Germany"they tried to ban their language and used them as slaves fr 300 years of Hapsburg rule and then murdered 200,000 during nazi occupation.

Did the Germans ever apologize to the Czechs for cold blooded massacres of 200,000? like that traitor Havel did.

Did they ever pay reparations or get asked to by Havel?
He ensured this country would becme the 17th county of Germany which it is in all but name.The entire press are German owned except for a couple.

He would actively push for the bombing of Yugoslavia after Czechoslovakia had been a strong Slavic allie in fact he would later write an anti-Slavic book.

He signed the letter of Eight to send Czech troops to join Bush in his illegal invasion and slaughter in Iraq.

He would allow NATO missile systems to be installed that would face the very same true allie that sacrificed millions of people to free Czechoslovakia from the Nazi genocide.

So to conclude he was probably the most hated president that the people of Czech Republic ever had the misfortune to have experienced.


Ahem!

Class dismissed.

In reply to Denni:


Did you see all of this?first hand?


Serb population? Serb village?


Was there no planned killing by Kosovo and Bosnian Muslims as well as assorted Islamist Jihadis from Iran ,afghanistan etc ?

Was there no planned killing by Croatian Fascists and assorted German,French fascists ?


Really is that why they murdered and tortured thousands of Serbs in the villages surrounding Srebrenica?
Did you know the first strike of the Bosnian war was when two Bosnian Muslim gunmen and a Croat stalked a Serb wedding party before murdering the priest and grooms father?The murderers were well known but the Izetbegovic government would not prosecute them.

You speak of revenge against a people who have been persecuted by the other sides Croat and Muslim in ways that make the Yugoslav wars seem like a picnic.

10,000 Serb civilians were brutally tortured and murdered by Bosnian Muslim Nazis during the occupation as well as being slaughtered by the Albanian Muslim nazis.

Was it 300,000 or 500,000 or 700,000 Serbian civilians that were murdered by the Croatian Fascists in Yugoslavia?

Did the Serbians demand the expulsion of all Croat nationalist collaberators and Muslim nationalist collaberators from Yugoslavia?No they decided to live in peace with the people who sided with those who tried to wipe them off the earth and you speak of revenge!! my god the Serbs drove from Kosovo weren't even allowed to return to thier homes after WW2.The Serb population decreased by 20% in Kosovo *during* the SFRY,driven out by muslim violence and intimidation did they react ?In fact were they the only ones who tried desperately to keep Yugoslavia together and avoid the enevitable war that everyone predicted if it were to break up without negotiations?
you can screech all you want about your side but did you see the 20,000 children starved and tortured to death by the Croatian fascists? there is a picture of some of them here-http://serbianjournal.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/wiesenthal-croats-still-glor...


No they weren't


That makes no sense in this instance.


Sometimes you can find things out in books Denni that you don't see on the ground and i mentioned my work on the subject as a rebuttal of Toby's misinformed name calling.


Nothing indeed,you want to open your mind up a little Denni and you will find that the truth usually lies outwith Western corporate media.

http://www.michaelparenti.org/MediaAtrocities.html
http://serbianjournal.wordpress.com/2013/02/01/the-voice-of-russia-the-sreb...

In reply to GudrunEnsslin:
>

This would be unpleasantly condescending if it was based on real scholarship rather than pamphlets and newspaper articles.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

We all know you bought the neo-con/neo-lib Reaganite crypto-fascist doctrine over the workers party manifesto Rob but we have been over this before.

You system has many advantages but the endless wars,recessions,unemplyment,exploitation,chronic social divisions, and ghettoisation.Create a society that is violent,disjointed,unequal and self centred,where people must constantly struggle just to keep a roof over their heads and feed and cloth their families,with the constant worry of unemplyment,debt ,recessions,homelessness and violence.
I would love to live in a society without these horrible *freedoms* of yours and i can only imagine how amazing that would be.

In reply to Pekkie: In reply to Pekkie:


It is fact pekkie not from a pamphlet or newspapers.
But what would you know about that other than to talk rubbish as usual.

PS. "unpleasantly condescending"

You need to get out more.

In reply to GudrunEnsslin:

The best thing about the Gudrun Esslin atrocity top trumps is the winner isn't the person who stops the slaughter - the winner is the socialists!

So kids - kill away. In the Gudrun game we can go back far enough to justify ALL your atrocities.

And don't worry Denni - if you've actually seen the bodies - Atrocity top trumps cards are hand made by Gudrun from books, the internet and third hand accounts.

Atrocity top trumps "The Serbian Story" available from all good SWP outlets now - discounts for the unemployed.

In reply to GudrunEnsslin:

Your two sources quoted at the end of your post refer to a) Michael Parenti who is head of the 'International Committee to defend Slobadan Milosevic'. Case rested.
and b) Edward Herman, co-author with David Peterson of a book that caused huge controversy by trying to downplay the Rwanda and Srebenica massacres. Noam Chomsky (who is also notorious for attempting to make excuses for the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia) wrote a supportive foreword for the book, despite later admitting not to have read it. Check out George Monbiot, he of impeccable left wing credentials:

www.monbiot.com/2012/05/21/2181

In reply to Pekkie:

Or even www.monbiot.com/2012/05/21/2181/

In reply to off-duty:

So nae argument then or knowledge Offy just some nonsense that deals with nothing except to try and smear me as usual.I suppose it really is the mark of someone with nothing of any substance to contribute.

But then again we and you can always blame the one side and make excuses for the others.I have never denied there were atrocities on all sides but i do object to the demonization of a people who have consistently been the victims in recent history,especially by our media who omit the atrocities of our *chosen* sides but scream from high heaven about those of our *chosen* enemy.

And if you can see past your prejudice you will see that Serbian accounts are also from first hand experience,on the ground,well obviously.

In reply to Pekkie:

Why?

Don't know about the Rwandan part but trying to find the truth is not down playing.


No you are very much wrong again Pekkie since he did not make any excuses fr the Khamer Rouge he did state that the traditionally conservative Cambdians would never have let the Khamer Rouge take hold if it had not been for the backlash caused by US carpet bombing of their country,effectively bombing it into the stoneage.Was it 400,000 civilians murdered when they were not even at war with America.

If you think this is nothing or would have no effect or is an "excuse" then you are quite wrong.

In reply to GudrunEnsslin:


You're funny Gudrun, you really are, in slightly little-bit-of-vomit-in-the-mouth inducing sort of way.


Yep, you said you got an A-level. I studied the Yugoslav wars of dissolution as the central part of my MA. Do I win that round of qualification top trumps or could you just accept that people might have their opinion formed on these subjects and know something about it for all sorts of different reasons - studying it at college, just a general interest in history, or because they served their in the military?

You still never said where you got all your Milosovic was into multiculturalism quotes from. Did you actually go beyond the pro-Milosovic blog you copy pasted them from to see where that blogger had got them from?

In reply to GudrunEnsslin:

Are those the same sort Iranian Jihadis who are now supporting your man in Syria, Assad, or different ones?

In reply to GudrunEnsslin:

Perhaps if you were to start any of your interminable posts minimising the atrocities of whichever socialist massacres you are trying to justify by at least introducing it with words similar to :-

"Their actions were absolutely appalling, dreadful and disgusting and quite rightly at this time they should be treated as war criminals.
However - without wanting to minimize their offences but purely to add some historical context to what has occurred and perhaps explain how these almost inevitable tit-for-tat tragedies played out here is some history......"

Unfortunately you never do. You just launch into your apologia for their atrocities, usually accompanied by a primary school hectoring and patronising childish comments.
Then when you are pulled up for it you add defensively something like "I have never denied there were atrocities on all sides" when the reality is that you have never actually admitted that there were either.

Still so long as you continue - I'll keep flogging my top trumps. "The Serbian Story" set are the new pack to go along with the "Evil British Imperialists" original version.

In reply to TobyA:

Yeah i can see what you are trying to do but as usual it doesn't work Toby.

You said i was ignorant and a liar i proved you wrong...get over it.

In reply to off-duty:

See this to prove you wrong offy but smear away and make up your wee fantasies as per usual -

by - GudrunEnsslin on - 03 Mar 2013
In reply to Timmd:


That is true but there were massacres and atrocities commited by all sides Tim but the Serbs were deliberately shown as the bad guys.

Sweet dreams!

In reply to TobyA:

That'll be different ones there toby ,glad to help you with that one.

In reply to GudrunEnsslin:


You proved your point perfectly though, so thanks. The debate was over your statement that "the Serbs" (in which you centrally include Milosovic) were the ones desperate to avoid the war and stop the break up. To justify this you took, with out noting the source, big chunks of text attributed to Milosovic in 1987, when he was a Yugoslav apparatchik. This was meant to prove he didn't do what he did 3-4 years later!? Do you recall who said in 2000 that the US should be "humble" in its approach to the world? And would you describe his actions three years later as humble?

As you had just copy pasted those chunks from a now defunct pro-Milosovic blog I can kinda of see why you didn't note your source, but if you looked a bit further you would have found that the translation of the speech captured on TV came from transcripts of Milosovic's trial in the Hague for war crimes. Milosovic was entering this speech as evidence of his innocence. If you want to act as his defence attorney now, go for it. But maybe look a bit more at what he did in 1990-91 than at what he said in 87 if you want to build a credible case to excuse a war criminal.

Did you notice that 2 days ago it was the 10th anniversary of the assassination of Zoran Djindjic? That seems the legacy of Milosovic's Serbia.

In reply to Pekkie:

Or even, even (duh, what a muppet):

http:www.monbiot.com/2012/05/21/2181/

An interesting debate between Monbiot and Chomsky on the Srebenica issue

In reply to GudrunEnsslin:

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I have spent the last ten days thinking that this was about the band who had a hit single with "Don't Turn Around". Then I realised it said "Assad".

In reply to Pekkie:


I like Monbiot all the more for that. I really hope he rugby tackled Bolton who then fell in big pile of something disgusting that would of got stuck in his moustache.

In reply to TobyA:


And you would be more convincing if you didn't wallow in this sort of cold war vocabulary! How many people outside your fortunately small world of rabidly pro-Western propagandists, and fellow-travellers, of course, use words like "tanky" and so on? As Orwell explained the dominant classes try to actually change the language so that only "correct speak" is possible.

It's hard to believe that you really studied the break up of Yugoslavia as part of your MA reading your incredibly biased views expressed in this thread... was it in the University of Alabama?

In reply to Bruce Hooker: do you share gudruns views on the balkan war? i credited you with a lot more intelligence than her

In reply to GudrunEnsslin:

Shona,
Naedanger of us agreeing so I'll leave you to your post weekend binge dictator loving rants!
Lots of love, Denni

In reply to Denni: me too. i read a couple of lines and couldnt be bothered to read any more of her bol***ks. bruce i can read. i dont understand his views but i can read what he writes. Shona is just plain nasty to anyone who doesnt share her opinions

In reply to Rob Exile Ward: Bear in mind that Assad, whatever his crimes and horrors he has perpetrated against his people, is basically fighting the Muslim Brotherhood, who are arguably the nice face wing of Al Queda and a bunch of terrorists in their own right. The irony is that he and his party are muslim, this is actually just a fight between Sunni and Shi-ite Muslim groups for power, and my personal feeling (possibly incorrect) is that the Muslim Brotherhood will be far less tolerant of the other religious sects in Syria, Jews, Christians etc than Assad has been.

In reply to Al Evans: Nice sharp analysis there Al! Nice face of Al Qaeda, bit far dontchathink?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Apparatchik: "a Russian colloquial term for a full-time, professional functionary of the Communist Party or government; i.e., an agent of the governmental or party "apparat" (apparatus) that held any position of bureaucratic or political responsibility..." etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apparatchik

As Milosevic's rise to power was through various parts of the Serbian communist bureaucracy, what better word can you think of to describe him then?

In reply to heidi123:

You don't need much intelligence to read historical facts. You might not like her style or pseudo but a lot of/most of what she says is true. It just doesn't conform to what you have been led to believe. We live in a world of lies and half truths.

In reply to TobyA:


But you're not trying to describe him, you are just trying to denigrate him and all who supported him.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: yes and communists tell fibs as much as anyone. my polish friend told me when communism fell in poland he realised all the lies they had been told and that everything they believed in was not true. he said he will never believe antyhing antone tells him ever again

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I would have thought his war crimes do that perfectly well.


That's a rather separate issue.

You do seem to be rather of the "great men" school of history; I thought history had moved past that rather these days. Perhaps I'm too much of cynic? youtube.com/watch?v=MNMxY4qjsMI&

In reply to Bruce Hooker: he denigrated himself

In reply to TobyA:


Quite the opposite, you really don't know much about what Marx wrote, do you?

In fact if there has been a swing it's the other way, the Marxist school and it's derivatives were thought to have put too much importance on history driven by "inevitable" class conflict and economics and many considered that the importance of individuals in historical events needed rehabilitating a bit. I agree with the latter, although it can be countered by saying that the individuals were a product of factors too, it can go round in circles.

Once again you translate any attempt to look at facts and see both sides of a situation as equalling "supporting" some person or regime that in your one dimensional world has been designated as a baddy. You are not really interested in discussion, only propaganda, and a very unsophisticated black and white version to boot.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I think "sheeple" is the word you are grasping for. Don't be shy, go ahead and use it.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


I was saying you seem to think that way increasingly, not Marx. Your analysis doesn't strike me as very Marxist.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


By the way, this an interesting sub-discussion, because I would suggest without a willingness to make normative judgements of historical acts (designating goodies and baddies if you wish) you're left with the post-modernist desert of moral relativism. But of course actually you're willing to make normative statements against those you disagree with, so it's not hard to see your selective relativism as support.

In reply to TobyA:

I tried google translate but it kept flashing "gobbledygook", then stopped working altogether.

In reply to GudrunEnsslin:
My point:-

"You just launch into your apologia for their atrocities, usually accompanied by a primary school hectoring and patronising childish comments.
Then when you are pulled up for it you add defensively something like "I have never denied there were atrocities on all sides" when the reality is that you have never actually admitted that there were either."

Your response:-

That you made a post :- "That is true but there were massacres and atrocities commited by all sides Tim but the Serbs were deliberately shown as the bad guys."


If you had looked at your earlier 17 posts, variously castigating the West for atrocities, defending the actions of the Serbs and mentioning only the massacres carried out by Fascists and Muslims then you would have accepted that you have a knee-jerk reaction of defending and mitigating the atrocities of the side you support without making mention of any of their evils until you are pulled up. In this case by Timmd.


It is interesting that you can so selectively read your own posts - it gives little hope for us when you then start selectively quoting from your heros.
Still I'm sure that even the Socialist party must be a bit conflicted about lionising a man who presided over the use of rape in such a systematic and organised manner that they caused it to be classified as a war crime.

The frustrating thing is if you toned down the childish language and the knee-jerk anti-west ranting you might actually have a point - I've never seen any civil war where either party walks away with their hands unbloodied.

In reply to TobyA:

Actually I did understand this. The 3rd time I read it though!

It says:
To be credible, you either make or do not make moral judgements about history. But not both at the same time.

In reply to Al Evans:
the Muslim Brotherhood will be far less tolerant of the other religious sects in Syria, Jews, Christians etc than Assad has been.

The Assad regime is brutal to all except Alawites. And the Muslim Brotherhood (look at Egypt, what a mess!) is brutal to all except fundamental Sunnis.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

In reply to TobyA:


Ah!Classic TobyA !
ie.I counter one of your points,lets call it point 2 with answer 2,so much further up the thread you completely twist this around by stating i used answer 2 to counter your point 1.


This was the *real* reason i posted the anti-nationalist quotes from Slobodan not in support of the Serbian will to keep a unified Yugoslavia and avoid war.

Now don't get me wrong i'm not trying to label you a *liar* or *ignorant* as i don't like to bandy those words around as easily as some folk on here.

In reply to TobyA:

In reply to TobyA:


Was Slobodan found guilty of being a war criminal after all the Western mafias attempts TobyA ??????

No.

He was not a war criminal.

But you and your American friends like to call him that anyway even though they didn't have a leg to stand on.
But your ICTFY the one who tried to prosecute Slobodan, is paid for by NATO countries.And unbelievably pays the wages of its Chief judges.

A group of Canadian,UK and US international law-professionals filed a complaint to the ICTFY 2 weeks after the disgusting NATO bombing of Yugoslavia.In which they accused NATO leaders of war crimes and "grave violations of international humanitarian law"including"wilful killing,wilfully causing great suffering and serious injury to body and health,employment of poisonous weapons and other weapons to cause unnecessary suffering,wanton destruction of cities,towns and villages,unlawful attacks on civilian objects,devestation not necessitated by military objectives,attacks on undefended buildings and dwellings,destruction and wilful damage to institutions dedicated to religion,charity and education,the arts and sciences"

The NATO leaders accused of these war crimes were Clinton,Albright,Blair,Cohen,Wesley Clark and 63 other NATO staff.One of the ICTFY/NATO judges sycophantically said "I accept the assurances given by NATO leaders that they intend to conduct their operations in the FR of Yugoslavia in full compliance with international law"

Therefor NATO is completely trusted to do what it wants immune from any prosecution.
So this war crimes tribunal funded by NATO countries makes sure that *only* other people are accused and not themselves!!!
it's like the Mafia paying judges to keep them out of court.

But hey theres no need for any NATO courts or even any evidence because we have TobyA.

Your American pals have done an amazing stitch up of Slobodan and the good people of Serbia TobyA its quite incredible really,i mean you ask any ordinary person on the street about Srebrenica and they will immediately tell you the bad Serbs massacred 8,000 unarmed people in a UN safe haven.Which has *never* been proved in fact all the evidence states that it was only 2,500 and 1,500 were dead from combat and not a massacre.What is also ommited is that the Bosnian Muslim warlord with his army were operating from this safe haven to go out and torture and murder Bosnian Serb women,kids and civilians from 150 surrounding villages.Before disappearing back into the safety of this effin UN safe haven,protected from the Bosnian Serb fighters who wanted revenge for killing their people,but could not enter.Until that is they had enough of this slaughter after some 2,800 Bosnian Serbian people in surrounding villages had been massacred and decided to get the Muslim murderers.

Wasington journalist Sam Smith observed in 1999" It seems that the international war crimes tribunal has been taking selective enforcement lessons from the New Jersey State Police.The only war criminals it indicted this week were those with hard to spell foriegn names .No one with a simple Anglican name-say like Clinton or Blair -was charged."

Set up wars to destroy countries who are moderately Socialist,don't tow the line or have previous for defeating your Nazi pals then when this has happened indict them in your kangeroo courts. Brilliant.

God bless America and their German managers of europe

In reply to GudrunEnsslin:

Would you believe a Blair or Bush speech from late 2002 talking about bringing peace and democracy for the people of Iraq? You hadn't really struck me as the type who always believes what politicians say in their speeches before, but fair enough. Good for you for resisting the cynicism.

You cut and pasted from a pro-Milosovic blog (without saying it) some translations of a speech he made in 87 in Kosovo, but of course you didn't read the whole of the speech nor understand the context - I guess you just googled for some quotes that fitted your preconceived position. If you did a-level politics surely you learnt to critically engage with your sources? Although that speech was actually presented by Milosovic in his trial as evidence of his support for Yugoslav unity, ironically he was in Kosovo that day as a *Serbian* communist party leader militating for Kosovar Serbs and against the Kosovar authorities.

In reply to GudrunEnsslin:

Buckfast, blue wicked? Hope you had a lovely week Shona :0)

In reply to GudrunEnsslin:

It's interesting then that the ICMP had by 2012 identified 6,838 victims of Srebrenica by DNA, out of the 7,040 "unique profiles extracted from bone samples". http://www.ic-mp.org/press-releases/over-7000-srebrenica-victims-recovered/

Although I guess all that DNA is really just fake imperialist DNA or some such and all the graves at Potocari are empty?

In reply to TobyA:

On a simpler level, what do you think about Kosovo, was it right that a historical part of Serbia be split off by armed force? Do you think killing and driving out of it's Serbian inhabitants by another ethnic group was morally justified? Do you know what it has become since?

In reply to off-duty:


Firstly there is no problems with "Castigating the West"
Now as you have seen of late i know quite a lot about that period and i thought i should share it.
Now if you can show me where i defended and mitigated "the atrocities of the side i support" then i'll put my hands up,so show me!



No i thought you were originally stating that i had never admitted to any Serbian atrocities hence the reason for my last post to you.


re selectively quoting as cutting to the chase without relaying an entire speech and there are many more speeches of a similar nature i could reproduce evn from a pro Milosovic site it makes no difference the speeches are there all the same.


Sorry can you show me the proof of this allegation.


Now i will tone down my comments about the West's crimes when the West stop commiting them.

So...childish langauge Offy.
Up until your point about Timmd i was called a "liar"and"Ignorant","An apologist for ethnic cleansing" and a "Liar" again. Asked if i was at some Paris demo(photo provided).Then swore at.Then insulted by being called "Mary doll",then called a liar again. Then accused of "Ignorance of the highest level",Then asked if i was struggling with my "Inner-fascist".

Then called a liar again.

Now.

I am the one being childish here Offy?
Do you see how ridiculous you now look?

I have gone on to completely back up everything i said because it is all fact,showing that far from being a liar i am the one showing the truth, and Far from being ignorant i knew far more than most.

pS. Offy don't ever tell me how to write pal, i am not you and do things my way.Do you tell people how to write or what to write when OnDuty?

In reply to GudrunEnsslin:


You're using the name of an RAF terrorists FFS! I'm sure if you had called yourself "Larry Grayson" someone would have go "shut that door!" into a comment.

In reply to GudrunEnsslin:

No, you were not asked if you were struggling against your inner fascist.

It is a quote from a well documented psychological report about your name sake that I put down for reference, but i thought you would have known that?

Here, I have cleverly cut and pasted what I wrote but as usual, you mis-interpreted or couldn't understand what was written :0)

Constant struggle against your own "inner fascist"

I hope you're having a lovely evening. Blue nun?

In reply to TobyA:


Thats only one out of around 10 or so others.

And this new DNA evidence for the existance of actual bodies is interesting especially since they have no extra bodies to make up their number,i wonder how that works.

In reply to Denni:

Yeah yeah we know that now Denni.

Blue nun?

Never tried it or wreckthehoosejuice.

In reply to GudrunEnsslin:

Its quite nice chilled from the fridge :0)

In reply to GudrunEnsslin: It's not "new" evidence, it has been exhaustively collected for over a decade as various mass graves were opened up. They buried a further 520 now identified bodies last year http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/11/srebrenica-massacre-victims-lai... If you're a forensic expert of some sort and you think their methodology is wrong, I guess you should take that up with ICMP http://www.ic-mp.org/icmp-forensic-accreditation-and-quality-management/

The government of Serbia has admitted there was a massacre and apologised for not having done more to stop their Bosnian-Serb allies. Even the Bosnian-Serb government has admitted it happened even if they are sensitive about the world "genocide" for obvious reasons.

In reply to GudrunEnsslin:
You're David Irvine and I claim my £5

In reply to GudrunEnsslin:


What other names you use?! I only knew of naedanger and shona.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


It was Tito who gave the Kosovars autonomy, they loved him for it. But what does "a historical part of..." mean? Israeli nationalists will tell you Palestinians have no rights because Israel was "historically" a Jewish kingdom, but that just neatly skips over 2000 years. For Serbs, to claim it is "historically" Serbian, only skips over 700 years of history where it wasn't or at least was contested.


No, but equally I don't think the killing and driving out of Albanian Kosovars was justifiable either.


You mean what the country has become? Yes, I have some idea although I'm no expert. I've visited there once, have you - maybe early on one of your trans Asia trips?

Anyway, are you convinced by the "mainstream" evidence of Srebrenica - around 8,000 Bosniak men and boys killed Bosnian-Serb forces under Mladic, or are you with Gudrun and writers like Herman who deny it was anything like that?

In reply to TobyA:

I meant about becoming one of the biggest US military bases in the whole area, the level of unemployment 40 to 60% and the importance of criminal activities and drug smuggling in particular... I was just wondering if you had the cheek to say the NATO "liberation" of Kosovo and the ethnic cleaning could be considered a success?

When I travelled though Yugoslavia, as it was then, it was one of the more pleasant countries on the trip... the country hadn't been helped by the West yet. It seemed to be the proof that democratic socialism could work, that when workers were given power to run their own lives it could work quite well, even in a country as fragmented as Yugoslavia, and despite the horrors committed by some pro-nazi elements during WW2.

As for the historical thing, were the Serbs driven out a couple of thousand years ago or more like a couple of decades?

In reply to TobyA:

Right now i must hold my hands up here and say i was not aware of this evidence,and *if* this is true then Herman was wrong and consequently so am i.Although i see some sites that attack the impartaillity and accountability of the icmp,so i'll look into this a bit further
No one ever denied a massacre took place so no one is a "denier",Hermans evidence seemed convincing way back when i first seen it.Lets make this clear i would never deny an atrocity if it took place i never have and never would.

In reply to TobyA:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/misrepresentation-of-dna-evidence-about-srebre...

Interesting reply to icmp findings here,i must say i don't know who to believe.But there are not many mentions of the thousands of Serbian civilians that were massacred by the Bosnian Muslims in the surrounding villages before the retalliation.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: The Serbian mafia killed the Serbian prime minister in a power play and both the Montenegrin president and prime minister were both indicted in Italian cases IIRC for cigarette smuggling with Italian mafia - indeed at one point cigarette smuggling was the major part of the Montenegrin economy. I don't know much about Croatia or Macedonia but suspect organized crime is also integrated into the economy to high degree in those countries. Post conflict economies seem to be like that.

Did you ever go to Sweden during the "folkhemmet" time? I guess that was even more democratic socialism more than Yugoslavia under Tito.

In reply to GudrunEnsslin:

It's tough being you in this western imperialist dystopian nightmare. after all your posts above you must be awaiting the door to come in and 9 months in a re-education camp.

oh, hang on....

In reply to GudrunEnsslin:

I think the thing is is that there will always be two sides to a story. Maybe 75 percent believe one side and the other 25 percent believe the other. Not saying the majority are always right but I would say that 9 times out of 10 they probably are and thats not just based on media etc it is evidence based and you know sending in the troops is sometimes the only option if it stops mass murder whatever/wherever it may be.

I know you have obviously read a lot about it, maybe even studied it but my view point is from a evidence based stance against the serbs so I really don't have another opinion on it. Seeing literally hundres of dead bodies and utter devastation on a weekly basis over 2 8 month tours of the region isn't nice and it is something that I'll take to the grave.

Not saying everyone on every side is a saint but in this case, the factual evidence against the Serbs is overwhelming. One thing I actually haven't gleaned from this "conversation" is what you're trying to defend? Are you saying that there is bad on both sides or are you trying to defend Milosevic?

Not having a go, actually interested, and hopefully you realise that I'm simply stating what I think, whether you agree or not, it is actually based on things I have seen and not fed to me by the media. I take everything I read with a pinch of salt and prefer to make my own mind up through experience (although this and other wars I would have preferred not to but thats what happens when you join the mob!).

When I wanted to climb Mt Blanc, I didn't read about it, I went and climbed it.

In reply to TobyA:

I went to Stockholm but on a school trip when I was 12 IIRC so "folkhemmet" wouldn't have meant much! I was under the impression that Sweden was Social Democrat rather the self-governing model so I think there was quite a difference. I don't know who was running the country during WW2 when they supplied nazi Germany with it's iron ore.

In reply to John Rushby:

Nah it's not tough for me at all but i know many people i can not say that about though.

In reply to GudrunEnsslin: I had a feeling that I would know who had written the Global Research article before I clicked on it, and there we go - Mr Karganovic once again

http://tinyurl.com/atvc4hx
http://dobbs.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/06/29/the_wages_of_genocide_denia...

In reply to Denni:

Very good.
I'm a doer and not an observer myself.
I respect what you have done it must have been ..well i don't know because it must chill you to the bone but i respect what you say.


Hmm putting Srebrinica aside i don't see how i mean they wanted to avoid the war,seen large parts of their country broke up and taken from them,were bombed the hell out of(note no prosecution of alleged Western war criminals)were subjected to the largest ethnic cleansing operation of the lot in Krijina

Absolutely,they are all guilty of trying to out do one another but i know for a fact that we demonized the Serbs almost completely,on purpose.

Milosovic was aquitted of any war crimes so he was no war criminal.So yes i will defend him against US and Western lies and slander.It's pleasant to be talking in a civilized manner for a change BTW.

In reply to TobyA:

Whoever wrote this report, if what is said is verified, it does rather destroy the validity of the ICMP figures, at least as far as a court of law is concerned, don't you think? Maybe fragilities such as this explain why Milosevic was "allowed" to die in custody rather than the embarrassment of him being acquitted?

The International Court is pretty hard to take seriously, it more than smacks of "victors justice".

In reply to TobyA:

In the opinion of US political analyst George Pumphrey:

„It[The icmp] is a wing of the US State Department and publishes a ’nímport quoi’ to serve the propaganda interests of its masters. Many of their reports are so ambiguously worded that even if someone would attempt to verify their announcements, it would be impossible, because one is not sure if they are speaking of whole corpses or of pieces of corpses.“

ICMP’s independence is debatable. It was formed in 1996 at the G-7 Summit in Lyon, France, at the initiative of US President Bill Clinton. The list of its chairmen so far reads like a US establishment Who is who. Its first chairman was former secretary of state Cyrus Vance, 1996-1997, followed by Bob Dole, 1997-2001. ICMP’s current chairman, „philantropist“ James Kimsey, used to be the chairman of America Online. But is that meticulously nurtured humanitarian profile realistic, or is it but another Srebrenica illusion? The probability of the latter option is enhanced when one considers that the chairman of ICMP is appointed by none other than the Secretary of State of the United States. As we learn from State Department press release of May 11, 2001:

„Secretary Powell has appointed Jim Kinsey as the new US chairperson of the International Committee for Missing Persons (ICMP), the leading organisation involved in the identification of remains of people killed in recernt conflicts in the Balkans. Mr. Kinsey isd the Founding CEO and Chauirman Emeritus of America Online Inc.“

Though ICMP’s public image projects the impression of a classical NGO with purely humanitarian objectives, based on the mechanism whereby its management is appointed at least a conflict of interest issue could be raised. Not only that, but while fullfilling its mission it would seem that ICMP is not accountable to any scientific or juridical body. In the opinion of US political analyst George Pumphrey:

Lack of accountability and its corollary, unverifiability, are indeed the salient features of ICMP’s work. ICMP’s data have never been seen or tested by independent experts, even in court settings where they were officially presented in evidence, such as in the Popoviæ case. That took place in closed session and under severely restrictive conditions which did not allow the defence either the time or the resources for a comprehensive expert review of ICMP’s results.

f ICMP’s word is all that is required to show that, it may well be true. All requests for DNA profile matches and other pertinent data to be disclosed to be reviewed by independent experts are politely but firmly declined by ICMP. Its secretiveness is justified on the grounds that allowing public access to the data would be an insensitive act that would result in great indignity to the victims and compound the pain of the survivors. It claims that its hands in the matter are tied and that it can release the data only if the survivors would give their written permission. How likely is it in the Balkans that they ever would?


It seems that ICMP’s penchant for guarding the “privacy” of its data does go excessively far, even absurdly so. When Radovan Karadžiæ asked to be given access to their data for verification purposes, it came to light that in fact he was not precisely being discriminated against because the prosecution revealed that they, also, were denied proper access. Prosecutor Hildegard Uertz-Retzlaff made the astonishing statement that “ICMP did not share DNA data with us, either. So it is not correct that they gave it to us, but not to others.”[6]


Reliance on ICMP findings is, therefore, little better then faith-based jurisprudence. But even if protestations of privacy on behalf of family members who donated blood samples are to be accepted at face value, now that the 5,336 identified victim figure has been enshrined in the official judgment, it would seem simple and convenient to allay doubts by publishing at least the first and last names of all the 5,336 individuals involved. The publication of such a list is indispensable to verify, first of all, if the persons in question ever existed: if they did, whether they are really dead: and if they are dead, whether their deaths had anything to do with the execution of war prisoners in Srebrenica in July of 1995.

Excerpt from a site that is not Karganovic

In reply to TobyA:
Another site that throws your icmp into doubt.

http://arirusila.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/srebrenica-the-guide-for-the-p...

In reply to TobyA:

Some more-

http://www.srebrenica-project.com/

In reply to TobyA:

So the American icmp uses its DNA proof of an extra 6,000 bodies when traditional forensic methods can't find them.
Then since this is their *only* evidence they prevent the defence lawyers from independantly verifying this evidence because they won't hand any of it over,citing the need for permission from the relatives.They won't even show it to the judge,therefor we are supposed to trust this icmp completely which is ridiculous.

I mean imagine someone said you killed someone and you didn't and the prosecuters have no proof,then years later a shady outfit says it has the *only* proof that is needed but can't show it to anyone because it might upset the family. So you now must go to jail.

So we are now entering the world of faith,pure faith that this institution which is "International" but its head is actually appointed by the US State Department which is NOT international tells the truth,we are supposed to trust them...because they say it is so,i smell a rat.

I'm still in the process of reading all about this icmp but it is very interesting stuff Toby,very interesting.

In reply to TobyA:

This is the text of Prof. Edward Herman’s videotaped message to the Serbian public for the occasion of the Round Table conference organized by Srebrenica Historical Project [1] at the Russian Cultural Centre in Belgrade on 5 April 2012 and devoted to the study “Srebrenica Massacre: Context, evidence, politics”, which he edited. The Serbian translation of Prof. Herman’s remarks was read by film producer Boris Malagurski, author of the noted documentary “The Weight of Chains”.]
There are a number of oddities, even miracles, connected with the Srebrenica massacre that I would like to point out here. One is that a massacre was forecast in advance by Bosnian Muslim leaders, President Alija Izetbegovic and Foreign Minister Mohamed Sacirbey, who warned Western leaders of an imminent genocide several days before the Bosnian Serb entry into Srebrenica. There is also the oddity of the withdrawal of the Bosnian Muslim 28th Division from Srebrenica and failure to offer any resistance to the small Serb occupying forces. The flight of these soldiers, and many panicked civilians, through mine fields and encountering Bosnian Serb military forces en route, ensured many Bosnian Muslim deaths, and Bosnian Muslim General Enver Hadzihasanovic stated that 2,628 soldiers of the 28th Division were killed in this exit flight. Yet another oddity of the claims about a Srebrenica massacre is that neither the media nor Tribunal mention or give serious weight to these combat deaths in giving totals for Srebrenica killings. From the very beginning the alleged 8,000 deaths there were claimed to be the result of executions. The combat deaths were disappeared.
The Tribunal disappeared them by stating that it “cannot rule out the possibility that a percentage of the bodies in the gravesites examined could have been of men killed in combat.” It could equally have said that it couldn’t rule out that some of those men had been executed, and on this important question it could have required a fuller examination of the bodies allowing it to compute probable numbers in various categories. The ICTY also enlarged the executed numbers by assuming alleged unopened graves would yield similar numbers, arriving near the desired total.
Another oddity and miracle is the preservation of that 8,000 total. It was produced long before any serious evidence of many deaths was produced, but the number has been sustained up to today, with its supporters still struggling to provide supportive evidence. In most cases initial death totals from disasters are inflated, and gradually fall, as with 9/11, where the total went down from 6,900 to 2,700. But for Srebrenica, stability prevails. The autopsy reports produced by the ICTY between 1996 and 2002 yielded evidence for only 1,923 dead persons, many clearly combat victims. More recently, the International Commission for Missing Persons (ICMP) has claimed over 6,500 bodies whose DNA shows a link to members of the Srebrenica population. But this evidence has not been made available to the defense in legal cases, and DNA evidence cannot distinguish combat and execution deaths or establish time or place of death.
Of course there was also witness evidence. Most important was Drazen Erdemovic, who testified in all the major trials and was provided a safe haven by the Tribunal (and its NATO sponsors). He was a Croatian-born mercenary, whose small group of executioners was on vacation leave from the Bosnian Serb army and were paid off in gold when they did their work of killing an alleged 1,200 Bosnian Muslim prisoners. Erdemovic’s story was implausible, full of contradictions, was not supported by searches of the killing fields, and his claimed actions were contrary to the interests of the Bosnian Serb command. But he was prepared to implicate them, so NATO and the ICTY loved him. He had 6 co-killers, but the ICTY has never called for even one of them to testify on this matter, and only Milosevic cross-examined him at all critically. That his testimony was fraudulent and the ICTY colluding in false witness is compellingly demonstrated in Germinal Civikov’s “Srebrenica: The Star Witness”.[2] (It is also demonstrated in my own edited volume on “The Srebrenica Massacre: Evidence, Context, Politics”)[3]
The Western media have completely suppressed evidence from this book. They are part of a propaganda system that has made the “Srebrenica massacre” a protected area whose alleged truth serves Western interests as well as those of the non-Serb nations of the now dismantled Yugoslavia. The “massacre” has been a political triumph, for the Bosnian Muslims, the Croatians (then about to embark in one month on the ethnic cleansing of Krajina), and the United States, that could now justify directly attacking Serbia, building a gigantic military base in Kosovo, and embarking on other “saving missions” and “humanitarian intervention” over the entire globe.
[1] www.srebrenica-project.com

Yeah Toby this icmp outfit are so very well presented to the layman with there false front of being an independant NGO international organisation but they like the actual ICTY are paid by NATO countries and are just another part of the NATO nations determination to demonize the Bosnian Serbs as well as put them on trial.

As i originally stated.

But it was a good try toby,but not good enough.

PS. Any word yet about Clinton,Wesley-Clark,Albright,Blair and all the other alleged NATO war criminals being prosecuted by the people who they pay in the ICTY ?

No? Didn't think so.

In reply to GudrunEnsslin:

Hi mate,
hope your day is going good so far.

There have been several reports on the Srebrenica massacre with mostly eye witness, UN, soldiers reports etc that was originally how they came to the figure for the massacre.

I'll go against the grain here and agree with you about the ICMP. They have repeatedly denied access to their labs, particularly in Tuzla, because of some of the flawed techniques they have used (mainly because a lot of the DNA is from mass graves, but not from Bosnians, they are mass graves of Serb POW executed after the war. Like I said, no saints on both sides).

Being set up by the US was actually a good idea, irrelevant who it was set up by as it was an international idea and actually a good thing to try and piece together DNA for relatives and end speculation as to how many were killed.

Where this all falls down is that most of the staff employed to run the labs are Bosnian Muslims and the hierachy are former US ambassadors to B and H. It is a good idea, but badly implemented and at the moment, badly run.

In reply to MikeTS:


As Bruce said it is gobbledegook since post-modernism is itself selective in it's relativism.Moral relativism is not a post modern position, Toby is making his own normative statement to back his own selective relativism.The act of correcting the massive imbalance of facts(take note Denni)and truths due of course to almost complete cultural hegemony and show evn, impartially the full *balanced*picture does not imply moral selectivity.

In reply to Denni:

Hiya,

Yeah Denni and this ICMP is in no way shape or form proof of anything whatsoever.
Concerning the actual death toll figure they arrived at is typical for scenes of disaster.Which are always grossly overstated and then as the truth comes out are adjusted accordingly.I smell a big big rat.And you don't need magnaflux to detect the cracks in this arguement as you could drive a bus through them.

Wouldn't you agree?

In reply to heidi123:


Communism in the USSR and Eastern bloc did not fail.
did the wee lesson i gave you and your Slovak pal about the huge success of Communist Czechoslovakia sound like a country that had failed?

No.

Communism was wrecked from within by new liberal bourgeoisie in the central committee who seen themselves like bloody Western social democrats.

In reply to GudrunEnsslin:

Ha Ha!
Now about that Assad fella?

In reply to Pekkie:


Monbiot ?

To use your own terminology pekkie.

He works for the Guardian....enough said!

http://www.zcommunications.org/reply-to-george-monbiot-on-genocide-belittli...

In reply to dek:


who? oh yeah...

In reply to John Rushby:
>>>You're David Irvine and I claim my £5

Did your NATO court find Milosevic guilty?

Oh no they acquitted him of war crime charges didn't they so what i said would be right then.

Who needs evidence,courts and judicial systems though when we have You John to judge people for us.

I hope to god you are never a jurist John as the guy would get put away just for having a bad hairdo.

Note: Yes his hairdo was terrible but it is not a crime.

In reply to GudrunEnsslin:
, impartially the full *balanced*picture does not imply moral selectivity.


History is nothing but the activity of men in pursuit of their ends.


guess who said this?

In reply to GudrunEnsslin:

Could you guys start you own thread about the breakup of Yugoslavia?

And also post in correct and easier English?

In reply to MikeTS:



No idea,Lincoln at a guess?

In reply to GudrunEnsslin:


No they didn't. He died whilst still on trial. He was not "acquitted", death is no judgement of guilt or innocence.

In reply to TobyA:

"On 26 February 2007, the United Nations International Court of Justice (ICJ) found that there was no evidence linking Milošević and other Serbian leaders to genocide and war crimes committed in the Bosnian War."

Taken from the site called Wiki that i don't trust and never use but it saves me time in this instance.

In reply to TobyA:

GE,
Toby is right. Milosevic was cleared of criminal charges, not war crime charges.

In reply to Denni:

So is the above wrong?

In reply to GudrunEnsslin:

Yes the above is wrong. He was never acquitted of war crimes, just the criminal charges. There is bucketloads of speculation on the net saying he would have been acquitted but there is also bucketloads saying he wouldn't have been. We'll never know!

In reply to Denni:

Milosevic aside, there was so much more going on.

Chirac tried to negotiate a deal to protect Mladic so Mladic released 2 French fighter pilots then Mladic and Karadzic roamed free in French controlled Bosnia.

I'd say dirty snivelling Frogs, but I'm half French!

In reply to GudrunEnsslin:


Really Shona, I'm not sure if you just didn't read it, don't understand how quotation marks work or are being deliberately dishonest but about the first 5% of what you copy pasted is supposedly Pumphrey (although no source is given and google can't find one), the rest is all Karganovic! Why don't you actually link to your "sources"? http://www.balkanstudies.org/articles/dna-testing-and-srebrenica-lobby This is Karganovic's private institute from what I've seen.

By the way googling Pumphrey himself turns up very little besides two old Global Research articles and various people calling him anti-semite, maybe for some rambling pieces published on Israel Shamir's bizarre website.

In reply to Denni:

Well that's wiki lies for you then ...or not(i'm still looking cos i seen it somewhere else)

But guilty until proved innocent eh?
According to UkC Nato apologists....sorry completely unbiased ukc pundits.

Ahem!

In reply to GudrunEnsslin: Read the sources!

It was an entirely separate case, in a different court, that you are referring to! It was brought by the state of Bosnia against the state of Serbia for genocide, and Bosnia lost. I remember reading Solana for the EU welcoming the decision saying that the people of Serbia shouldn't have collective punishment on them for the crimes of their leaders.

In reply to GudrunEnsslin:


Just try reading the thing more carefully! Just a couple of lines above the Wiki article accurately states "...Milošević conducted his own defense in the five-year long trial, which ended without a verdict when he died on 11 March 2006 in his prison cell in The Hague".

Try reading the footnotes - the bit that seems to confuse you even sourced to the "World Socialist Web" and a rather partisan article of a flavour I'm sure you'd agree with (except the bits like where it accepts the Srebrenica massacre I guess).

In reply to TobyA:

Yes we all know he died before it ended Toby...but you said he was guilty of war crimes did you?

Or did you not say this?

In reply to GudrunEnsslin:

Who needs evidence,NATO courts and NATO judges and all that nonsense when we can call him a war criminal because the big bad empire want him to be cos he is a Socialist/Communista and therefor a mortal enemy.

In reply to TobyA:


Well if google can't or you can't find one then it must all be lies eh Toby?

Deconstruction of a Virtual Genocide: An Intelligent Person’s Guide to Srebrenica, which Mr. Karganovich has written and edited in collaboration with four other noted authors.George Pumphrey is one,its in here-

http://www.srebrenica-project.com/DOWNLOAD/books/Deconstruction_of_a_virtua...

In reply to GudrunEnsslin:

Of the rich.

In reply to GudrunEnsslin:
>How about letting UKCers make up their own minds? Read this and report back:

http:www.monbiot.com/2012/05/21/see-no-evil/

In reply to GudrunEnsslin: But all the copy pasting you did was still virtually all Karganovich wasn't it, despite you claiming it wasn't?

In reply to Pekkie:

Well i've read it Pekkie,and must say i was expecting a deeper analysis but all i got was some whinging so-called-lefty of the Nick Cohen school spouting unverified oaths and a cringeworthy acceptance of Nato/mafian rule.with no mention whatsoever about actual facts and events surrounding the revenge attack or for that matter the murder of thousands of Bosnian Serb villagers.

Verdict: Pathetic pandering to the US.
Conclusion:Keeping all channels open to a future career move to US media.

PS.You are aware that he supported the US invasion of Iraq?

In reply to TobyA:

Not strictly true i think i said it was not a Karganovich site or sumat.
Duno if there was a lot of Karganovich's stuff there Toby but there were certainly excerpts from "An intelligent persons guide to Srebrenica" from George Pumphrey.

In reply to GudrunEnsslin: Did you read Marko Attila Hoare's statement on Herman and Peterson, that Monbiot publishes? http://www.monbiot.com/2012/05/21/genocide-denial-expert-assessments/

"The extent of Herman’s and Peterson’s cynicism in their misuse of source material is simply breathtaking. Thus, they make much of the findings of Mirsad Tokaca’s Research and Documentation Centre (RDC)... Yet where the RDC’s findings contradict Herman’s and Peterson’s revisionist scribblings, they pass over them in silence.

The RDC’s figures show that 81.06% of all war deaths from the Podrinje region – where Srebrenica and the surrounding Serb villages are located -during the whole of the war were Muslims (a total of 16,940 civilians and 7,177 soldiers) while 18.73% were Serbs (870 civilians and 4,703) soldiers. The RDC’s figures show that 10,333 people from the Podrinje region were killed during 1995; that over 93% of these were Muslims..."

In reply to GudrunEnsslin:


You did say that and you were wrong, it is his site and indeed most of what you pasted were his words not Pumphrey's. Doesn't really matter that much anyway considering Pumphrey himself doesn't seem to have been published anywhere beyond Karganovich's and Israel Shamir's websites.

In reply to TobyA: have you seen
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/17/syria-can-we-do-nothing...

yet ? No doubt Shona/Gudrun/whatever will disagree with everything in it.

In reply to TobyA:


Just one question, is it correct to distinguish between these two categories of people? One term is a religion whereas Serb can be either a nationality of some kind of ethnic reference. Weren't many Serbs muslims? Weren't many of the muslims in Serbia and around it simply locals of the same ethnic and cultural origins who converted to islam under the Ottomans, either out of conviction, coercion or the advantages such a change gave within the Ottoman empire?

I remember seeing reports from Yugoslavia at the time when people interviewed in villages said before all this (the war) started we all lived happily together, we are the same people with different religions, and regretting how things had turned. I realise that in Kosovo things were different, the muslims there were both converted Serbs and Albania muslims who had moved there, but is the simple opposition muslim/Serb valid in much of ex-Yugoslavia?

In reply to Doug: I also think that Vulliamy is a hate figure on the "anti-imperialist left" for his role in bringing down Living Marxism magazine when they called his and ITN's reporting on the Bosnian camps lies, and were sued and lost as a result.

I think it's a fair article in terms of his moral argument, but he doesn't suggest what "we" should do because I don't think anyone knows. There are too many jihadis now on the anti-government side to think that some sort of democracy will result from an otherthrow, and there are too many on the govt. side from Assad down who are so implicated in crimes against the Syrian population they also have no way back.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Amongst Bosnian Serbs I don't think so, there are Muslims citizens of Serbia though.

Of course there were also Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Croats who remained loyal to the Bosnian government through the war (often married to Bosnian Muslims I think, but some who I guess just saw their "Bosnian" civic citizenship as being more important than their family background), I remember reading about a few who fought in the Bosnian army.

IIRC, that is why the term Bosniak has increasingly become used, as a civic designation. Wikipedia suggests that calling Bosnians "Muslims" as a nationality was a compromise from Tito's era Yugoslavia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslims_by_nationality

In reply to TobyA:

I'm thinking of when they became muslims. Assuming that before the Ottoman invasion of the Balkans - stopped at Vienna as we all learnt at school, hence the invention of the French breakfast "croissant" - they would surely have all been orthodox christians. Under the Ottoman empire christians and jews were allowed to keep their religion, and even had a special administrative arrangement for them, but were obliged to pay an extra tax that muslims didn't need to pay and were also excluded from certain jobs. The result was, as was planned, that many people converted to islam and I always thought that this was the origin of the muslims of the Balkan region. This is what the people I heard interviewed seemed to be saying when they said we are "all the same".

I assumed that it was this sell out to the occupier - a bit like Quislings in Norway and "collabos" in France during WW2 - that was behind some bad feelings towards them from those who remained loyal to those who resisted islam. If this is not the case is it that the muslims in the area actually moved there from Asia Minor and took over land from the locals?

In reply to Bruce Hooker: But that process began over 600 years ago, when words like "German", "Italian" and "British" were meaningless. Nationalism is 19th century phenomenon, to blame a social group now for something their ancestors did half a millenia ago strikes me as ridiculous.

In reply to TobyA:

Found it, here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosniaks

It seems they evolved from catholic to orthodox and then their own version, modified by the Ottoman invasion after which some became muslim and some didn't. So basically they are all much of an ethnic muchness.

Not 600 years ago, much more recent. Once again religion is the source of a lot of the antagonism, not any real ethnic rivalry.

In reply to Gudrun:

Can I urge any reader of the above (who is interested enough!)to check George Monbiot's web-site. He DID NOT support the US invasion of Iraq. There is article after article on the site demonstrating that he opposed it. Article after article opposing the US and international capitalism. In fact you wonder why the CIA haven't bumped him off.

In reply to Pekkie: This myth about what Chomsky has been doing the rounds for about 40 odd years or so.You've yet to produce any evidence concerning Chomskys opinions of the Khymer Rouge,yet you keep parroting this nonesense on these forums about every six months or so. Produce your evidence or shut up.

In reply to Gudrun:

I see the debate has moved on/disappeared into cyberspace - but since you asked a question I thought I should respond...


Only looking at the 17-odd posts prior to you being pulled up by Timmd -

Eh no we ended up bombing the F out of Serbians who were the ones who tried to avoid war in the first place but hey they were socialist so we as capitalists just had to bomb them. - the suggestion we are bombing becuase they are socialist - not because atrocities were being committed.

Now ask yourself why did we only murder and attack Serbians when all sides were engaging in a civil war?
Why was Western media completely against the Serbs and not the German supported Ustash fascists or the Jihadi maniacs of Izetbeovic?
- the suggestion that whilst Serbians were engaged in a nothing more than a civil war Bosnian fascists were "jihadist maniacs"

Did you see this rubbish that you are talking?

No your regurgitating some of the garbage that was fed to Western media by the other sides. in response to the suggestion that the atrocities committed included "pregnant women tied to hayracks and having their stomachs slit open by the serbs? did you see kids being thrown into a well and hand grenades being thrown in after them, by the serbs. did you see what happened at srenrenica? for 4 years we ignored what was going on out there"

I presume you thought the same when we were slaughtering innocent people daily in Iraq,Afghanistan or going back to our pals in Turkey and Indonesia.
What of the hundreds of thousands of children that died from traetable diseases in Iraq due to our terrible sanctions,even though we knew they were dying we kept it going.
in response to the suggestion that we shouldn't just sit back and watch peopel being slaughtered daily. The suggestion that because worse things happen elsewhere we shouldn't get involved here - the implication being that what the Serbians was doing was not on a par with what the West has done - and was therefore not important.

Do you think we do not commit atrocities and kill *CONSIDERABLY* more
people than all the people who died during that civil war?????
A similar response suggesting that what we were doing was a lot worse than any Serbian atrocity - or should that be "civil war".

No from the Serbian side not Ustash and Jihadi fed rubbish supported by Western media. The suggestion that allegations of Serbian atrocities are rubbish.


The rapes in Serbia causing rape to be classified as a war crime for the first time : -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/feb/23/warcrimes

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/08/nusreta-sivac-rape-war-crime_n_283...




Sometimes, yes. I find that when you are trying to present a decent argument for anything that you consider important - like send someone to prison for a substantial period, it makes sense to present reasoned arguments in a non-judgemental and rational manner. Ranting, raving and colloquialism tend to undermine any points you are trying to make.