Milosevic, like both of his parents, will end up a
suicide probably in a ruined Belgrade.

THIS WAR IS TOTALLY HYPOCRITICAL!!!!!

This is a message for everyone here, but it goes especially to all the BLINDLY PATRIOTIC IDIOTS who believe that the current bombing of Yugoslavia is justified.

---

Imagine THIS fictional situation:

After Rodney King was nearly beaten to death by white police officers in Los Angeles, a white jury acquitted the police of all the most serious charges. This sets off huge riots in Los Angeles and many other places in the USA, and creates all kinds of animosity between racial groups in the country.

(now for the fictional part)
After the videotape of the beating is repeatedly shown throughout the world, many foreign leaders publically condemn the USA and accuse the USA of "genocide" against African-Americans and other minorities. The accusations are also backed up by truthful statistics in many areas, including differences in incarceration rates, median incomes, and life expectancies among the different races. Other evidence of "genocide" includes media publicity of numerous other episodes of police brutality in many US cities (i.e. the alleged brutal sexual assault of a Haitian immigrant by police officers in New York) and numerous episodes of "hate crimes" (i.e. the murder of a gay college student in Wyoming). People in many other countries are totally dismayed and outraged by numerous gruesome pictures, including those of Rodney King's disfigured face and those of the murdered gay college student in Wyoming helplessly dying in agony while strung up like a scarecrow.

Leaders of many foreign nations then try to coerce the US government to accept an agreement that allows a large, heavily-armed, multi-national "peacekeeping force" to be stationed on US soil to stop the "genocide" and assure that minorities are fairly treated in the US at all times. The US government (naturally) rejects this agreement. The foreign nations then proceed to bomb the USA and to continue doing so until the US government accepts that agreement.

After the bombing begins, the KKK and other "hate organizations" begin to step up their attacks against members of minority groups in the US, driving them out of their homes, killing the men and raping the women. These "hate groups" attract incredible amounts of new support from numerous enraged "previously-mainstream" Americans (including many police officers and "paramilitary groups") who blame minorities for the bombing. The immensity of the attacks soon escalates to the degree that hundreds of thousands of minority members are driven out of the USA and into "refugee camps" in Canada and Mexico, where they then live in extremely "deplorable conditions."

The leaders of the foreign nations then proceed to use these "deplorable conditions" as an excuse to continue the bombing, which they claim to be part of a "humanitarian" mission. In response to anyone who criticizes the bombing "operation," the foreign leaders and media repeatedly televise pictures of American minority "refugee children" and ramble on about how any person with a "heart" should support the bombing after seeing these children's faces. The foreign leaders also ramble on about how the American "genocide" must be stopped before this leads to another worldwide "holocaust" and World War III. The foreign leaders also claim that what's happening in "refugee camps" would have happened even without the bombing; the reasoning being that "atrocities" by the "hate groups" (including the KKK) and by American law enforcement (i.e. police brutality) had been widespread in the USA long before the bombing began.

In desperation, American leaders repeatedly try to negotiate with the foreign governments. The foreign leaders, however, remain firm about the original agreement and vow to continue bombing until the USA agrees to having the armed "peacekeeping force" on its soil. The American government then tries to bargain by releasing 3 foreign soldiers that it had captured. In response to this, the foreign leaders state that the bombing will continue and will "intensify."

---

This kind of scenario is EXACTLY what is now going on in Yugoslavia. The TRUTH is that no matter how you slice it, EVERY country and EVERY society has its problems with "human rights." Who people decide to be the "bad guy" depends ENTIRELY on how politicians and the media manage to sway people's hearts through SELECTIVE reporting. Using the "humanitarian" excuse for bombing a sovereign nation (that did NOT invade any other nation) is TOTALLY HYPOCRITICAL!!!

To For Fun and Fairness

-The TRUTH is that no matter how you slice it, EVERY country and EVERY society has its problems with "human rights-

Totally agree with you on that one.

I also think for a great part you are right about the media example. People get carried away to easy, and speak like the politicians, before giving themselves the chance to really find out what they themselves think.

There is in my view, however one big difference. Milosevic is a true dictator. He CONTROLS what Serbian people get to see and hear.

My sister and I are corresponding (whenever possible) with a group of students and NGO members inside Serbia, and they confirm that. They have to go through great lengths to obtain other info that that coming from Milosevic and his party. They risk their lives for trying to get other info!

And what strikes me too is that in expressing their opinions, even the anti bombing and anti American ones, they are a lot more civilised about it than the Majas, Danielas and Nicks have ever been on this board, WHO LIVE FAR OUTSIDE SERBIA.

(I only take a hard stand against them, because whatever you try they don't want to listen to any argument. They choose to contradict it with extrmist, even Nazi like statements). For the people inside Serbia, who still, in the face of dictatorship and bombs, have the guts to persist in forming their own opinions, basing it on various sources, I have the greatest respect.

I agree with you that American Media isn't everything either, but there and in a lot of European countries, you don't get prosecuted for, for instance, protesting against the bombings.

It is vital to any democracy, and any population that wants to get rid of a dictator, that they keep their good sense at all costs, and not let themselves be carried away, like you discribe in your example. This also counts for America as well as Serbia. There are always two sides on a coin. (and even more, as a coin has a side part as well!)

Zoja

Zpka, if you are against the war, why are your postings in favour of it .

So , still faking compassion ?

>>'Everything you know is wrong'

Zoja

ps. What a shame, these jurist articles. Pearls before swine.... " <<<

---

I'll put the article before you again, so, to give you a chance to recognize the 'pearls':

---

"A skewed New World Order

By MICHAEL HARRIS

Ottawa Bureau

OTTAWA --
As one who is sick of NATO's half-truths, lies and bloody murder in the
Balkans, some thoughts on the New World Order.
Not Bill Clinton's airborne Hell's Angels, Vadar-esque heirs to the turf evacuated by the Evil Empire.
I offer the iconoclast's version, based on what Woodrow Wilson said back in 1915: "No nation is fit to sit in judgment on any other
nation."

In my New World Order, Bill Clinton makes porno flicks in Hollywood, not foreign policy.
How can this decadent hypocrite, this masher of women, ooze paternal sympathy over high-school shootings in America, while blowing
away children in Yugoslavia?

One of my readers, Dan Le Drew of Hamilton, said it better: "Bill Clinton is nothing more or less than a premature ejaculating mommy's boy
... He's raging inside because, like any spoiled brat, he couldn't get his own way. So he's taking it out on the Balkans."

Pre-empt the bimbo news at all costs, wag that dog.
In my New World Order, Jean Chretien becomes a loanshark specializing in hotel financing in Shawinigan. He doesn't look all that good in
dog-tags and an American army helmet anyway. The PM's new career would allow us to get away from the pepper-spray mentality writ
large.
In my New World Order, Canada makes peace, not corpses. That means that under no circumstances should we involve ourselves in a
land invasion of Yugoslavia, the bloody enterprise that the Choir Boy/Butcher Boy who
currently runs Britain is so anxious to pursue. Tony Blair may think that this is a job for the Bengal Lancers. The rest of the world is
waking up to the fact that it's a job for the International Tribunal of Justice at the Hague.
Personally, I am not so sure.
Despite her recent musings on the subject in Fredericton, Judge Louise Arbour is not the person for the job. I don't think she is about to
investigate the Little Bomber from Shawinigan. After all, he may shortly be putting her on the Supreme Court of Canada. Her preliminary
assessment of NATO's part in this atrocity is manifestly underwhelming.

Why am I so hard on the pin-up girl of the flabby Left? I guess it was something about her comment about it being "wildly premature" and
"pure political polemic" to suggest that NATO leaders be held accountable for the open-air death dispensary they are operating over
Yugoslavia.
Funny, that the War Crimes Tribunal doesn't mind engaging in wild speculation and pure political polemic when it comes to the alleged
crimes of the Serbs. All those rapes, all those mass graves, backed up by hearsay and fake photographs.

Besides, the Nuremburg Trials didn't shy away from holding the civilian and military leadership of Germany responsible for their atrocities.
Arbour is well aware that this war is flatly illegal, under both the UN charter and NATO's constitution.

Judge Arbour thinks that NATO "may" have violated the esoteric "principle of proportionality." Think of that as using a low-yield nuclear
weapon to stop a barroom brawl. Only a lawyer could reach that conclusion with such a straight face and such crooked logic. No one
should be surprised. In law, the truth is always academic. Behind every judge there is as much political patronage as scholarship.

In the real world of lives violently taken, the truth is a funeral with someone crying real tears. What we have here is crimes against
humanity, plain and simple. What else do you call an outlaw military adventure that blows up hospital patients, journalists, refugees,
diplomats and just plain folks and then says it's sorry as it drops a new load of bombs?

In my New World Order, all the war criminals would face justice, not just the ones on the losing side. Which is to say, not just the ones
who bomb Coventry, but the ones who level Dresden or vapourize Nagasaki as well.

Milosevic, by all means. But Clinton and his bumboys too. No one associated with NATO's civilian leadership, including Louise Arbour,
should have any part of the justice process. I think that a tribunal of uninvolved countries, led by Russian and Chinese jurists, should
conduct the search for impartial justice.
I can hear Gen. Wesley Clark swallowing his chewing tobacco at such a notion, but so what? Does anyone really believe that NATO will
be brought to justice by a judge hailing from a member-country of the alliance, who also happens to be angling for the highest judicial
posting in her own land?
In my New World Order, NATO would play no part in policing the peace it has so egregiously shattered in Yugoslavia. There is only one
reason that NATO has insisted on overseeing the graveyard it has created; so that it
can produce the post-game show. That way, NATO will be in charge of filtering the information in the next stage of this monumental
propaganda exercise.

That's the phase where face and ass will be saved simultaneously, where NATO spokesman Jamie Shea will make all his announcements
on Larry King, which is just Jerry Springer without the fist fights these days. CNN will be cranking out the documentaries, and the
misinformation, until every Serb has horns and a long tail, and every NATO killer gets a medal. Evidence of NATO's atrocities would be
buried with the civilian dead, while Yugoslavia's every war crime would be amplified and distributed around the world.
*****************************************
Everything about this war has been a lie, so don't expect the peace to be any different. NATO has created a refugee crisis of mammoth
proportions. NATO has alienated Russia and China. NATO has de-stabilized an entire region.

NATO has blown up the very refugees it purported to save with its humanitarian bombs. And as Svend Robinson recently observed, NATO
has killed off the fragile democracy movement in Yugoslavia.
When Nancy E. Soderberg, a UN Security Council delegate and a member of the U.S. National Security Council, recently told an audience
at Princeton University that the Rambouillet talks never called for stationing NATO troops in any part of Yugoslavia other than Kosovo,
that was a lie. A necessary lie to make it look like Slobodan Milosevic
was an unreasonable tyrant that left the West no alternative but F-18s. Really?

Here is what Appendix B of the Feb. 23, 1999 peace accord for Kosovo says:
"NATO personnel shall enjoy, together with their vehicles, vessels, aircraft, and equipment, free and unrestricted passage and unimpeded
access throughout the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, including associated airspace and territorial waters. This shall include, but not be
limited to, the right of bivouac, manoeuvre, billet, and utilization of any areas or facilities as required for support, training, and
operations."
That is an army of occupation. That is subjugation. No leader, not even a bad one like Milosevic, could sign such an accord.

Still, some people are buying the bull from the boys.
As Don Legere, a reader from Hamilton advised me about my take on Yugoslavia: "All you need to do now is siton top of a Serb tank and
you can become Canada's Jane Fonda."
Donny, I've been called worse.

Michael Harris can be e-mailed at mharris@istar.ca or visit his home page.
He is The Sun's national affairs columnist.
Letters to the editor should be sent to editor@sunpub.com.

Zpka - Zoja - Emina -Kolina - Rosie
wow, how many names, how many personalities,
and insults towards others.

You thruly are a caring and compassionate person.

From the

http://www.washtimes.com


When is it war?


Former Russian Ambassador Vladimir Luken is as
confused as others by the Clinton administration's insistence
that the conflict in Yugoslavia is not a war.
When he met members of Congress three weeks ago, he
questioned them about this war by any other name.
"You are dropping bombs on Serbia and Kosovo, and your
president says this is not war," Mr. Lukin said.
"What if we dropped an atomic bomb on you? Could we
then say it's not war?"
That presumably rhetorical question came from a
reform-minded Russian leader who was on good terms with
the United States when he returned to Moscow in January
1994.
The story was recounted yesterday by Rep. Roscoe G.
Bartlett, Maryland Republican, who is a party in a bipartisan
lawsuit aimed at forcing President Clinton to abide by the War
Powers Act.
The law requires the president to seek congressional
authority to continue hostilities after 62 days. The deadline
passed last night.
Mr. Bartlett was part of the congressional delegation that
met with Mr. Lukin and other Russian legislators in Vienna,
Austria, to discuss ways to end the war in Kosovo.
"This is a very substantial constitutional crisis," Mr. Bartlett
said.

http://www.washtimes.com

Diplomatic definitions


"I recalled what a Hindu scholar once said to me: There is
no difference between diplomacy and deception. " -- Former
U.N. Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali in his new
book "Unvanquished: A U.S.-U.N. Saga."

The War on TV

by Philip Hammond

Philip Hammond is senior lecturer in media at South Bank University, and
worked as a consultant on BBC2's Counterblast: Against the War (4 May).

May 14, 1999

In its war against Yugoslavia,Nato has tried to silence all debate, criticism
and dissent. The most grotesque instance of this was the bombing of the Serbian
television building, killing an estimated 10 civilians and injuring dozens more.
Prime Minister Tony Blairdescribed this as 'entirely justified'. The attack
was allegedly carried out in the name of Truth, since the station produces
propaganda. The image-conscious Blair explained that television is part of
the 'apparatus' which keeps a political leader in power, so camera
operators, make-up ladies and janitors are therefore legitimate targets.


Perhaps Nato also hoped reports by Western journalists in Belgrade -filed
from the TV building until it was hit - would become collateral damage.
Certainly in Britain politicians have sought to stifle opinions and facts they
do not like, most conspicuously by portraying John Simpson's reports as
Serbian propaganda. What are they scared of?


First, they are worried by suggestions that the Serbian people are united
against Nato. Defence Secretary George Robertson argued unconvincingly
that if an opinion poll were conducted in Serbia it wouldnot show the united
opposition Simpson had reported. Second, they are uncomfortable about
interviewers questioning the success of Nato strategy. Development
Secretary Claire Short, for example, did a bad impersonation of the 'clever
di.k' questions asked by the likes of John Humphries. Third, politicians have
been rattled by reports of civilian damage and death caused by Nato, which
began to come out within the first 24 hours of the bombing campaign and
have continued steadily since.


'I only, as Nato spokesman, give out information when it is totallya ccurate
and confirmed', Jamie Shea told Channel Four News. In fact Nato
information has been about as accurate as its bombs - several of which
have landed outside Yugoslavia's borders. In this interview, Shea was giving
out the 'totally accurate and confirmed' information that twoYugoslav pilots
had been captured after their planes were shot down overBosnia while they
were attempting to attack Nato peacekeepers there. Nato later admitted no
pilots had been captured and the MiG fighters did not have ground attack
capability. We have since been fed a string of stories - that 20
schoolteachers were killed in front of their pupils, that Pristina stadium was
being used as a concentration camp, that the paramilitary leader Arkan was
in Kosovo, that President Slobodan Milosevic's family had fled the country,
that Kosovo Albanian leadershad been executed - all of which turned out to
be false.


Nato even lied about its intention to bomb Serbian television. We were told
people in Yugoslavia do not have access to the Western side of thestory -
though in fact they do - and that airstrikes would follow unless Serbian TV
carried six hours a day of Western news programming. When Belgrade
offered to accept the six hours in exchange for six minutes of Yugoslav
news on Western networks, Nato backtracked, saying it had only meant it
would bomb transmitters also used for military communications.


Nato also explicitly assured the International Federation of Journalistsit
would not target media workers. What are we to make of an organisation
which kills others because it says they are lying, but consistently lies itself?


Hitting civilian targets has been the most sensitive issue for Nato. The
technique for stage-managing the release of such information is to begin
with a bare-faced lie, in the hope that the first headlines will leave a lasting
impression. This is followed by an admission of limited culpability, designed
to indicate Nato's honesty and openness whilst continuing to imply the
enemy is at least partly to blame. This procedure was established over the
damage caused to civilian areas of Pristina, which Nato initially tried to pin
on the Serbs. They then admitted 'one bomb' may have been 'seduced off
the target' - as if theSerbs were willing reluctant Nato bombs to hit them.
The same strategy was adopted to explain the attack on the refugee
convoy: the Serbs were blamed, then Nato admitted to hitting one tractor.


British broadcasters have drawn some self-flattering comparisons,
suggesting that whilst Serbian TV is a propaganda machine, our news is
impartial and balanced. It is true that some has been, particularly reporting
by correspondents in Serbia able to see the results of Nato bombardment.
But back in the studio there is a tendency to stick slavishly to the Nato line.
When Simpson reported from the site of the downed US Stealth aircraft, his
colleagues in London insisted Nato had not yet confirmed a plane had been
shot down. Similarly, Sky's presenter tried to question the credibility of a
report by theirBelgrade correspondent Tim Marshall on the bombing of the
refugee convoy, even though Marshall maintained his sources were reliable.


Of course, even in London newsrooms there are honourable exceptions.
Channel Four's Alex Thompson introduced some Nato cockpit video
footageby remarking pointedly that it was 'impossible to verify
independently'. Yet his self-consciously even-handed use of this phrase was
striking precisely because it was a departure from the norm. Most of the
time, official briefings are faithfully reproduced complete with pictures
supplied by Nato and the Ministry of Defence, and the prepared soundbites
of politicians and military spokesmen are parroted by journalists. For
example, when it became clear that airstrikes were precipitating a
humanitarian crisis rather than achieving the stated purpose of preventing
one, Nato covered its embarrassment by saying it needed to 'catch up'. This
euphemistic description of intensified bombing was dutifully repeated by
Mark Laity, the BBC's man in Brussels,on both the evening's bulletins.


The problems with the coverage run deeper than an insufficiently
questioning attitude toward official sources, however. Some journalists have
actively taken the part of Nato. When Robert Fisk's article in the
Independent contradicted the outlandish claim that the Serbs had bombed
Pristina themselves, one British television correspondent stood up at the
briefing in Brussels and urged his fellow reporters not to ask Nato any
awkward questions. Allegiances have been signalled in more subtle ways
too. Reports which take us on board planes flying missions over Yugoslavia
invite viewers to identify with Nato just as much as the 'bomb's eye view'
cockpit video. Coming under fire with the Kosovo Liberation Army inside
Kosovo, Jonathan Charles spoke romantically of' the men who dream of
liberating Kosovo' as 'a symbol of hope for ethnic Albanians', while Channel
Five News offered a human-interest story about the family of a Kosovo
Albanian who had left Britain to join the KLA.


Many seem to have bought into the simplistic 'Good versus Evil' morality
with which politicians have framed the conflict, and have joined in with
Nato's demonisation of Milosevic and the Serbs. A Panorama special
exhorted Nato leaders to prosecute Milosevic for war crimes. Brian Barron
went to Montenegro in search of the 'grizzly details' of the 'troubled history'
of the Milosevic 'clan'. Jeremy Paxman suggested a programme of
'thoroughgoing imposed de-Nazification' for post-warSerbia, echoing the
view voiced by everyone from government ministers to the Sun newspaper
that the Serbs are the new Nazis.


The heavy-handed moralism has made it difficult to ask questions,
especially about the plight of refugees. Yet questions demand to be asked:
about the reasons for their flight, and the tales of atrocities they bring with
them. Judging from British news reports, these must be the first airstrikes in
history no-one has fled.

Even when told theyhad been bombed by Nato,
survivors of the attack on the convoy blamed the Serbs. This gives some
indication of the reliability of refugees' statements.


From the viewpoint of
ethnic Albanians who welcome Nato action, such statements are
understandable. But this does not explain why Western reporters should
accept them, nor why the hundreds of thousands of Serbs displaced by
Nato attacks are routinely ignored.


Rather than admitting they don't know what is happening inside Kosovo,
correspondents on the border repeat every horror story. The fact such
accounts are uncorroborated is countered by the mantra that refugees'
claims are 'consistent and credible', despite sometimes flimsy evidence. The
experience of Bosnia is cited as support for the tales of'systematic mass
rape', for example. Yet despite claims that more than 50,000 Muslim
women were raped by Serbs in Bosnia, a 1993 United Nations commission
scaled down to 2,400 victims - including Serbs and Croats -based on 119
documented cases.


No doubt civilians are being killed and terrorised from their homes by
Yugoslav forces in Kosovo, just as Serbian civilians are being killed and
terrorised by Nato bombing across Yugoslavia as a whole. That's war. But
the focus on atrocity stories obscures what little we do know of what is
happening: a military campaign against armed separatists. Occasionally, this
hidden story leaks through. Panorama repeatedly mentioned attacks on
'KLA strongholds'. A Newsnight report on 'video evidence of the killings of
civilians' let slip that at least one of the six 'civilians' was a KLA member
and another a strong KLA supporter. But it generally appears no KLA
members are ever killed, and no-one is killed by them.


Every war produces atrocity stories, and it is difficult to chart acourse
through propaganda and rumour. A useful start would be to discount the
obviously ludicrous claims, such as the story of the 'mass graves'. Nato
asked us not only to accept a grainy aerial photograph as evidence of
atrocities, but also to believe that the Serbs forced ethnic Albanians to dress
up in orange uniforms and bury the dead in 'neat rows of graves facing
Mecca', in the words of Nato general Guiseppe Marani. Presumably this
too was 'totally accurate and confirmed'?


Source: ACADEMY FOR PEACE

'Jurist Pitt' or a . or ? what

check further before embarrassing yourself
with posts of false informations.

Is that why are you a dot now?

To NazICK and Daniela

My, my what sourness! Never done anything, never seen anything and such strong opinions! Such hatred! Such a urging need to prove yourselves!

Remember your postings are not only against NATO. If that would be the case, fine. I could even for a part agree with you.

But both your postings are also backing up dictator Milosevic. And that is an entirely different story.

I can see that you never experienced oppression by a dictator. Not direct or indirect. Otherwise you would not be writing such foulness and self centred sourness. The more crap you write, the more I get convinced about the rightness of my views on you.

But OK, I guess part of a democracy is also letting cunts like you have a say. Only remember this: the NAZIS got too far, and they eventually got beaten the sheit outof their pants. Keep on going too far, and the same will happen to you.

Besides, whatever happens, democracy, with all its down sides, is still the best way to ensure creeps like you are wiped out in the end. NAZIS WILL NEVER WIN!

The best example in the last few years I saw in Holland where a little extremist Nazi party was in the equivalent of the House of Commons for a few years, but got voted away in the next elections, because everybody only laughed themselves sick over their stupid views.

And that is exactly what I do with you. Can you send me a pack of diapers, Daniela, some sizes bigger than you are still wearing. I can pee in my pants with laughter just as much with less damage to my clothing then!


Zoja

Zpka - Zoja, just a few days ago you were shouting
"viva UCK", now to pretend that you are against the war ? What is wrong with you, get some medical help .

Emina signing Kolina, and at the same time claiming that she is not lying !?


>>By Emina on Monday, May 17, 1999 - 11:46 am:

To make things clear my answer an Daniela's message

By Kolina Dukic on Monday, April 12, 1999 - 02:26 pm:
TO DANIELA.

Before you start acusing me of dirty trick.Do you mind explaining what they are.???????????

Yes Kolina Dukic is my real name im born in Saravo 23 of April 1965.So then you know my nationality too!!!
And also my history.
I live in Holland now no wonder i speak dutch .Don't you think i just quess your referring to that

Kolina <<<

By Emina on Monday, May 17, 1999 - 12:04 pm:

Jee then the language issue came up.Can you all still follow it? And ofcourse my respons BTW slovanian is
different from Bosnian.For people who don't know that.

>>> The language came up only since you got annoued with Maja's post in 'slovenian'(not 'slovAnian'), so I was asking you, why you got so upset with it since you kept writing duch...

By Daniela on Wednesday, April 14, 1999 - 09:49 am:
SO dutch is ok but SLOVENIAN isn't ??????????

You werent sick of reading dutch so far but
Slovenian ...
Or mabey you can acctualy understand it ???


>>> The fact was that you couldn't .

>>>By Emina on Monday, May 17, 1999 - 12:23 pm:

Forgot the Ps.For everyones information read carefully. I state "ALMOST"

PS SEE ATLEAST I AM HONEST ENOUGH TO TELL WHEN I CHANGE MY NAME. NOT THAT YOU CARE IALMOST
START TO BE SO ANGRY THAT I HOPE SOMETHING BAD WILL HAPPEN TO YOU ONE DAY ! <<<<<<<<


Yes, you tell it only since confronted with evidence.