Posted on 02/10/2002 10:31:32 AM PST by joan
|
======================================= Note from Emperor's Clothes: The following article, entitled "How the Media and Scholars Write About Slobodan Milosevic," was sent to us by Francisco Gil-White. He is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania and a Fellow at the Solomon Asch Center for Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict. Professor Gil-White informs us that:
The following views are those of Professor Gil-White and not necessarily the University of Pennsylvania or the Solomon Asch Center. -- Jared Israel "How the Media and Scholars Write about Slobodan Milosevic" A couple of months ago I chanced upon the Emperor's Clothes Website because of their coverage of 9-11. I noticed their startling claim that we have been systematically lied to about Yugoslavia. Since their views entirely contradicted my own, I started systematically checking their references by obtaining the relevant original documents. I have yet to find a single claim in error. This was particularly surprising regarding the famous speech that Slobodan Milosevic delivered at Kosovo Field in 1989 at the 600th anniversary of the Battle of Kosovo. According to what I had read, this was supposed to be an inflammatory ultranationalist diatribe in which memories of a famous defeat in Serbian history were manipulated by Milosevic to mobilize hatred against Muslims and Albanians. Emperor's Clothes posted what they claimed was an official U.S. government translation of that speech (done by the National Technical Information Service, a dependency of the Commerce Department) at http://emperors-clothes.com/milo/milosaid.html The posted speech was certainly not hateful, as had been reported virtually everywhere. But was I looking at the real speech? Although I had failed so far to find Emperor’s Clothes in error, or, to be frank, even guilty of simple exaggeration, this speech worried me, for it completely contradicted what I was supposed to expect from Slobodan Milosevic and everything I had heard and read about this very speech in the media. With some effort I managed to obtain, through my university library, a copy of the microfilm of the BBC's translation. I compared this text to the one posted at Emperors Clothes and they matched almost exactly except for very minor variations in wording due to the fact that they used different translators. The speech is not devoid of a certain poetry in some passages and—amazingly, given the prejudices with which I came to it—it is explicitly tolerant. This stunning revelation led me to read voraciously, trying to understand how academics and the media report what happened in Yugoslavia. I have found an enormous amount of misinformation, and it is hard to dispel the impression that much of this is deliberate. This is quite important for my field because students of ethnic conflict, like myself, need to know what it is that we are supposed to explain. Our case data comes from historians and journalists who describe the ethnic conflicts for us. Until recently, I was assuming that those who wrote about Yugoslavia could at least be trusted to try to report things accurately. I have changed my mind. What I now know suggests that the problem is not merely that reporters and academics are misinformed. I have observed that the same source will report the facts accurately and then, in another place, usually later, report them completely inaccurately. I have difficult explaining this as a result of ignorance, or chance, or confusion. It appears to be a conscious effort to misinform. Furthermore, it appears that these inaccuracies are calculated to exploit the human tendency to essentialize racial, national, and ethnic groups, in order to solidify the prejudice that Serbs are virulent nationalists, which prejudice then stably frames the conflict in Yugoslavia in such a way that the interests of the powers which dismembered it might be served. As an example of what is done, I have assembled excerpts from various sources regarding Milosevic’s famous speech at Gazimestan (the location is often referred to as Kosovo Polje or Kosovo Field) in 1989. I have provided Emperor's Clothes with a pdf version of the microfilm of the BBC translation so that they may post it, allowing readers to compare the US government and the BBC versions for themselves. The BBC microfilm can be obtained from some university libraries. If you are an academic, you can get it at your library or through an inter-library loan, in the same way that I did. [Note from Emperor's Clothes: We will post the pdf of the BBC translation some time in February.] What follows below is a compilation (certainly not complete) of misquotations, misrepresentations, misattributions, and mischaracterizations of Milosevic’s 1989 speech in the media and by academics along with some excerpts from the speech and my comments. It is important to keep the following in mind: the 1989 speech at Kosovo Field is everybody’s favorite example of Milosevic indulging an ultra-nationalist rant. It is said over and over in the media that Milosevic used this speech to incite the Serbs to nationalistic hatred. It should be obvious that incitement is a public behavior. If Milosevic was going to become an ultra-nationalist populist politician, then he had to make ultra-nationalist speeches, for one can hardly incite the masses in secret. It is thus noteworthy that this speech—supposedly the best example of Milosevic virulently inciting people—is explicitly tolerant, and that in order to suggest otherwise all sorts of fabrications that in fact appear nowhere in the speech have been necessary. If there was something better to quote or cite as evidence of Milosevic’s ultra-nationalistic demagoguery, surely the media would have used it long ago. Why fabricate if evidence is on hand? Below are examples that reveal either willful misinformation or pathologically low journalistic standards in the media. Following that, in the second part of my analysis, I quote newspaper reports made on or immediately after June 28, 1989, the day Milosevic spoke. These accounts, published immediately after his speech, were accurate, and this demonstrates that the truth was easily available if someone had wanted to report it later on.
COMMENT: Slobodan Milosevic did not say that. But here is something that he did say:
COMMENT: Mr. Zerjavic (a Croat) puts actual quotation marks around words that never appear in the text of Milosevic’s speech. That is bold. As bold, perhaps, as the claims by the same Mr. Zerjavic, in his book Population Losses of Yugoslavia in the World War II, to the effect that the number of Yugoslavs (especially Serbs) who lost their lives in the Ustashe (Croatian Nazi) death camps has been wildly exaggerated.
COMMENT: No such threat appears in the text of the speech. This allusion to an "open threat" sounds like the Independent is probably using Dr. Vladimir Zerjavic as source. They certainly have not seen the text of the speech. * * *
COMMENT: The Irish Times does not borrow the quote from Dr. Vladimir Zerjavic, but they do borrow the boldness. They have put quotation marks around a phrase that appears nowhere in the text.
COMMENT: Notice how casually the Croatian Student evokes "the superiority complex, and the feelings of cultural insecurity which are common among lower and middle-class Serbs." This reads like an ethnic slur, although Serbs have been so thoroughly demonized in the media that most readers will hardly notice it, or else will consider it a probably just appraisal. Below is another excerpt from Milosevic’s speech. How does one create an "us versus them" atmosphere with these words? (They do seem ineptly chosen for this purpose):
COMMENT: No such "plan" was "outlined". Note that the writer speaks of "the plan" not "a plan" thus suggesting that the existence of said plan is common knowledge… * * *
COMMENT: Oppression.org gets high marks for boldness. Others merely put quotation marks around a fabricated sentence. They have put quotations around an entirely fabricated paragraph. * * *
COMMENT: The passages from Milosevic’s speech quoted above already make it clear that this was not a "stirringly virulent nationalist speech." The Economist would have you believe that Milosevic was literally foaming at the mouth, and wanted to use the memories of Prince Lazar and the defeat at Kosovo Polje as a catalyst for arousing ultra-nationalistic feelings. This is how Milosevic actually introduced his remarks about that historical event:
COMMENT: Is this a virulent nationalist speaking? Milosevic sounds positively professorial. He sounds like an academic, showing a grandfatherly understanding for the human frailties that lead people to conveniently forget things in order to make legends out of history in a romantic and nationalistic manner. And he is talking about the famous battle at Kosovo Polje, in the very place where that battle was fought. The truth of what happened, he says, is for scientists to establish! Is this a nationalist using a myth of the people to rouse their passions? Does he sound ‘injured’ and ‘insecure’? TIME Magazine had a similar slant:
And so did the New York Times: [The Excerpt from NEW YORK TIMES Starts Here] In 1989 the Serbian strongman, Slobodan Milosevic, swooped down in a helicopter onto the field where 600 years earlier the Turks had defeated the Serbs at the Battle of Kosovo. In a fervent speech before a million Serbs, he galvanized the nationalist passions that two years later fueled the Balkan conflict.
But does Milosevic sound like his purpose is "whipping a million Serbs into a nationalist frenzy" with his remembrance of the events of 1389? Is this a "fervent speech" meant to "galvanize the nationalist passions"? Is it a "rallying cry for nationalism"? The following excerpt is relatively long but it is worth reading because of the juxtaposition of Milosevic with Tudjman and Izetbegovic. (If you wish to skip forward to the Comment on T.W. Carr's article, click here.)
COMMENT: Contrary to Carr’s claim, Milosevic did not speak about the status of Kosovo in the 1989 speech. It is known from other sources, of course, that he certainly did not want Kosovo to be split from Yugoslavia (for good reasons having to do with the security of Serbs, Roma, Slavic Muslims, Jews, Albanians and everyone else in Kosovo and his conviction that Kosovo was legitimately part of the country he was after all helping lead. How many leaders want their countries broken up?) But that does not mean that in this speech he said, "that the Autonomous Province of Kosovo would remain an integral part of Serbia and Yugoslavia, despite the then current and often violent, problems of separatism demanded by the Muslim Albanian majority living in Kosovo." So this is false. Moreover, Milosevic never referred to the Ottoman Empire as "Islamist." On the contrary, Milosevic’s remarks on the Ottoman Empire showed no real animosity. He even acknowledged certain strengths:
More importantly, however, notice that Carr pairs the three leaders, Milosevic, Izetbegovic, and Tudjman, and prefaces his remarks by saying all three rose to prominence by manipulating nationalism. But does Milosevic belong in this company? Whereas a good and effortless case can be made for Izetbegovic and Tudjman being ultra-nationalists (see above), all we get as evidence for Milosevic’s "ultra-nationalism" is a false allusion to a declaration he never made in the Kosovo Polje speech about the fact that he did not want Serbia to be partitioned, which in itself would not even be evidence of intolerant ultra-nationalism anyway. Moreover, the speech Carr refers us to is the antithesis of an ultra-nationalistic speech. Is this the worst one can say about Milosevic? Finally, I must observe that Carr is arguing that the US and Germany are carving zones of interest in Europe and that this is the central reason for the troubles in Yugoslavia. In other words, he is not sympathetic to the official propaganda about the causes of the wars in Yugoslavia. Yet even he seems blithely to assume that Milosevic is a virulent nationalist, even though he provides no evidence. (Izetbegovic and Tudjman, both US allies, certainly do sound like bad guys, on the other hand). The propaganda against Milosevic has been so successful that even a critic like Carr believes it, though he can only give us one short paragraph to support his belief, and that paragraph refers to a consummately tolerant speech. Is this the worst one can say about Milosevic?
COMMENT: This quote does appear in the speech. Any observer of Yugoslavia at this time knew that it was possible that armed battles could break out. Why should the observation of such an obvious fact be interpreted as a threat? One could just as well interpret it as a worry. Any state trying to contain irredentist terrorists may find itself in the position of having to deploy its army to protect its citizens—Milosevic was just stating the obvious. It is really necessary to omit any reference to any other part of the speech, and to ignore the facts of Yugoslavia at this time, for the quote—completely out of context—to appear as a threat. Even then it does not look very threatening (you have to be told that it is a threat, for otherwise how could you reliably infer it?). But it pays to see this quote in its minimal context: the paragraph in which it appears:
COMMENT: This minimal context is already quite informative. The "chief battle" has nothing to do with armed conflict. And it requires "heroism, of course of a somewhat different kind." If one further puts this paragraph into the larger context of the speech it is obvious that Milosevic is hardly making threats. For example, elsewhere in the speech Milosevic says:
COMMENT: Milosevic was warning that nationalism was being used by "internal and external enemies of multi-national communities" to destroy Yugoslavia. He was chiding his fellow Yugoslavs for failing to remember World War II and other catastrophes during which the Balkans "experienced the worst tragedy of national conflicts that a society can experience and still survive." Does this sound like a man whipping up the population to go to war against other ethnic groups? * * *
COMMENT: This one comically gets it wrong. Milosevic probably never said, "No one will ever beat you!" He more likely said something like "No one will be allowed to beat you like that!" In any event, he did not say it at the commemoration of the battle at Kosovo Polje (the speech we have been discussing here). Those words were uttered at Kosovo Polje but two years earlier, in 1987. At that time, Milosevic met with Serbs and Montenegrins, mostly peasants, who had serious grievances: they said they were being mistreated by prejudiced Albanian authorities in Kosovo and violently harassed by radical Albanian terrorists. They wanted to speak directly with Milosevic but he was only meeting with a relatively small group in the hall.
Milosevic said, "No one will be allowed to beat you!" Is this nationalistic incitement? Or is he reassuring a nervous crowd that their civil rights will be respected? After all, he is an official with responsibilities to citizens who were being beaten by police before his eyes. But in the London Times article the context of the peasant Serbs getting beaten is no longer evident. The utterance has been transformed into, "No one will ever beat you" which has an eternal, mythical overtone, and which therefore fits well with the new and excellent location that the Times has found for this utterance: the speech to commemorate the battle of Kosovo Polje. Two different events have been fused into one, and Serbian mythology has been joined to an injured cry, providing a total impression of a syndrome of victimization that lashes out as a reborn and vicious nationalism. "No one will be allowed to beat you" is supposed to mean, "We will beat them." I want to emphasize that Cohen’s book, which I quoted above, is an attempted indictment of Milosevic. If Cohen’s description has a bias it is to suggest that Milosevic is a virulent nationalist. For example, although we have Albanian policemen beating peasant Serbs brutally, this is not described as ethnic animosity (the remark that some of these policemen are Serbs seems to have been inserted in order to dispel any such impression). But Milosevic’s attempt to reassure a crowd whose rights are being trampled right in front of his eyes—that is nationalism, as Cohen goes on to explain in what remains of the chapter. Everybody else has done the same. Tthe 1987 events are supposed to mark a turning point on Milosevic’s road to becoming a virulent nationalist (Cohen calls it "the epiphanal moment"). However, notice that despite these attempts, it is difficult not to see Milosevic’s behavior as perfectly natural, indeed laudable. Why not reassure a crowd of your constituents, who are being bludgeoned by policemen, that this will not be allowed to happen? What else should he have morally done? By what stretch of the imagination is this utterance transformed into a nationalistic call to arms? Well, it helps to omit the context in which the utterance was made, and it also helps to insert it into a speech commemorating the defeat of the Serbs at Kosovo Polje, as the Times has done. * * *
COMMENT: Notice what has happened here. First, for Newsday, apparently, it is enough that Noel Malcolm said something. The same can probably also be said for The Times of London, which paper, as we saw above, parroted a similar line to the one we see here: utterances to the effect that "nobody will beat you" are supposed to allude to the defeat of the Serbs at Kosovo Polje in 1389. This is a fusion of the events of 1987 and 1989 and, since this connection does not seem to appear prior to 1999 (which is the year Noel Malcolm’s book appeared), it is at least a reasonable guess that: a) Malcolm is the originator of this confusion and b) ever since, newspapers like The Times of London and Newsday have been fusing remarks that Milosevic made in two different years and in two very different contexts (neither of them even remotely damning). This is worth a pause and a reflection. Academics typically get their facts about what happened in a particular time and place from journalists. But here we have newspapers getting their facts from an academic. It would be fine for the newspaper to report the interpretation or theory of an academic, but isn’t the world turned upside down when a newspaper gets the basic facts of what happened from some bookish professor who wasn’t there? The second observation is that what Milosevic actually said, "no one will be allowed to beat you!" has been changed to "no one should dare to beat you!" With this change the utterance dovetails nicely with Malcolm’s reference to Milosevic’s supposed lyricism concerning the "sacred rights of the Serbs". So not only is this fusing of the events of 1987 and 1989 apparently an innovation of Malcolm’s, it is one he seems to work hard at, modifying other facts as well, to give the fusion plausibility. In any case, it should be obvious that it is quite a stretch of interpretation to say that one is invoking a moment in history by making assurances to peasant Serbs that no one should beat them, when those peasant Serbs are at that very moment being "attacked by local police, most of them Albanians." How about the hypothesis that rather than making "an eloquent extempore speech in defense of the sacred rights of the Serbs", Milosevic was saying that the Albanian policemen right below him should not be beating the peasant Serbs? * * *
COMMENT: The quote from Milosevic's speech is accurate, but it is difficult to do justice to the distortions in this paragraph with the appropriate superlatives. Cigar is, in second-order Orwellian fashion, claiming that Milosevic’s speech is Orwellian. When Milosevic contrasts Serbs to "others", this means (according to Cigar) other Serbs! That is a very interesting code. And when Milosevic talks about liberation, he really means that Serbs should oppress non-Serbs. But just a tiny little bit of history suggests a different hypothesis. In World War I, the Serbs were the only Balkan people to side with the allies. This means they simultaneously fought for their independence against two empires (Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian), while the Croats, Muslims, Albanians, etc. fought on the side of the empires. The Serbs won, but instead of creating a ‘Greater Serbia’, as many a victor might have, they spearheaded the creation of a joint kingdom, and they even shared the name (the Kingdom of Serbia, Croatia, and Slovenia, which later got an even more inclusive name when it was renamed Yugoslavia – land of the Southern Slavs). Thus, they had liberated these other peoples from the clutches of the empires, and did not create an empire themselves. Contrast this with the treatment that Germany got from the victorious allies. Then, in World War II, the Croats, Slovenes, Yugoslav Muslims, and the Albanians for the most part betrayed Yugoslavia and allied themselves with the invading Nazis. The Hungarians, Bulgarians, and Romanians also either allied themselves outright or reached an understanding with the Nazis. The Serbs were surrounded but fought the invaders anyway, and they were practically alone. Tito’s dogmatically tolerant partisans, who won the war in Yugoslavia, were mostly Serbs. Once again, the result was not a ‘Greater Serbia’, but a magnanimous recreation of Yugoslavia (and this, despite the fact that Serbs had suffered a Holocaust during the war very much like that of the Jews). Could it be that when Milosevic said that the Serbs had always fought for their liberation, and that of others when possible, he was merely saying what he meant? The examples of how this speech has been maligned could be multiplied. But we gain a valuable perspective by taking a look at how the speech was reported the very moment it happened:
COMMENT: It does not appear that the BBC reporter had the impression Milosevic's speech produced a nationalist incitement. On the contrary, the reporter has explicitly highlighted the tolerance of the speech. The London Independent, which had reporters covering the speech, had a similar impression:
COMMENT: The quotes from Milosevic are accurate. This account, a day after the event, suggests that the speech was not "emotionally charged," as Cigar claims, and as a speech designed to whip up "a million Serbs into a nationalist frenzy"—as Time Magazine untruthfully alleges—might have been. Neither was it a "ferocious and frustrated crowd," as the Times of London would have it, nor a "fervent speech …[that]… galvanized the nationalist passions" as The New York Times stated. Finally, for good measure, it was not a "fiery speech…to a million angry Serbs [and] a rallying cry for nationalism," as the Washington Post reported. From the story above we even learn that one observer thought people had been disappointed, although this impression is belied by the opinion of the locals who said this was not a protest rally. Indeed, it didn’t sound like one, if one reads the speech. The framing of the events is that Milosevic was conciliatory. How should we describe the fact that The Independent, which paper had reporters on the ground, and which had accurately reported this speech when it was given, later said that this was Milosevic setting his agenda "as he openly threatens force to hold the six-republic federation together" (see above)? Scandalous? Or perhaps we should show sympathy for the harried journalists at The Independent, who apparently cannot find the time to read their own paper! And what about the other, 1987, speech? This is how it was reported by the New York Times, immediately after it happened:
COMMENT: It is clear from how that speech was reported at the time that Milosevic had simply meant to reassure the assembled Serb peasants that the police certainly did not have the right to beat them like that. It was not a nationalistic call to arms nor was it supposed to have overtones to the battle of Kosovo Polje. Why should it? What was happening in front of his eyes was not metaphorical. Policemen were beating peasants. FINAL REMARKS This is how a myth is constructed: we hear the same story everywhere. The repetition of the story convinces us that the story has been confirmed. But, of course, repetition is hardly confirmation. If it were, every urban legend would be true. It is important to pause and reflect on what this means. If the media can lie so blatantly about what Milosevic had said in 1989, and if they do it consistently and across the board, something is wrong. The question is: how wrong? The US government obviously has an interest in demonizing the people it bombed. Although its own translation of the speech is a rebuke to how the speech has been portrayed, we should not expect the US government to criticize the misinformation. This is corrupt but understandable. Explaining the behavior of the BBC, on the other hand, is not so easy. The BBC is not the US government. Its role is supposedly to give us the truth, as best it can. Moreover, the BBC is supposed to be in competition with other media outlets. Since the BBC translated the speech, they were in a position to lay bare that what was being written about the speech was misinformation. They have not done it, and this is a very serious sin of journalistic omission. If only this was their biggest sin! On April 1, 2001, the BBC wrote the following:
The BBC here makes it seem as though Milosevic was indeed talking about preparing the Serbs for aggression against other people. But the BBC translated the live relay of the speech! They know Milosevic did no such thing in 1989 at Kosovo Polje. The BBC piece continues:
Again: the BBC translated the speech. They know that he spoke in skeptical and professorial tones about the famous battle at Kosovo Polje, rather than manipulating it for ultra-nationalist ends. This is not an isolated instance. Here is the BBC again, in a different piece:
But…but…the BBC knows that what it is reporting here is not true. They translated the speech. Milosevic did not vow any such thing in 1989 at the Kosovo Polje commemoration. He may have vowed it elsewhere (and the vow in and of itself is perfectly consistent with his desire to keep Yugoslavia whole, and does not indict him of anything). But he certainly made no such vow in the 1989 speech. Why is the BBC not reporting what it knows to be true? Since this is possible, I am forced to wonder what else is possible. What can we believe about what has been written about Milosevic in particular, and Yugoslavia more generally? After all, the demonization of Milosevic, and the Serbs more generally, perfectly fits with the propaganda aims of the NATO powers that went to war against Yugoslavia, including the US and Britain. Here we have seen that the media establishment in these two countries has produced stories about Milosevic’s speech that are consistent with such a deliberate propaganda campaign. -- Slobodan Milosevic's speech at Kosovo Field can be read at http://emperors-clothes.com/milo/milosaid.html |
"diversity."
Class warfare does not stop here after all. From the White coalition of Nazi medias in 1940 Germany to the rainbow coalition of today in the media, have we really made progress? Are the anti-gay religious going to go in the dustbin of history? Or is it the other way around? The anti-religious gay?
If in the doubt, stay out from class warfare conflicts.
Beautifully put--even if Mr. Milosevic had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to the bridges over the Danube, to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Serbs. At least he recongnized a line in the sands of history when one slapped him in his baby-face.
The thing that killed him in the eyes of the Masters of the Universe was the one emotional outburst when he declared that he would not let anyone "hurt you."
This is the only mortal sin left--outbursts of affection and protectiveness towards the sheep one is preparing to sheer and slaughter. One must work to develop a stoic acceptance that sheep, after all, are just sheep; and bear up under the fact that they must be sheared and slaughtered from time to time. How else could a Master of the Universe live with Himself?
I've noticed a marked upsurge in "conservative" commentary the past few weeks in which Milosevic is casually referred to with his old appelations "monster", "butcher", "maniac"--the whole litany. (There are some who think a "Bush" administration is qualitatively different than a "Clinton" administration and they are deluding themselves into believing that the Serbs will find some relief....)
"Conservatives" are being taken to the cleaners and they don't even know their pants are off. They waste their mental energies defending "capitalism", the myth of "free markets" and whining about "affirmative action". The biggest "affirmative action" project in the world is being carried out in the Balkans and conservatives are still referring to Milosevic as "another Hitler"...
The official Neo-Ustasha policies of the Zagreb governments since 1991 are pretty evident by the following items (and a embarassment to all decent Croats everywhere)
1) The naming of Mile Budak street in downtown Zagreb
2) The tacit acceptance of singing NDH 'athemns' at public gatherings, both official and un-official
3) Never cleaning up "U" grafetti
4) Removing most of the little bronze plagues in Zagreb commemorating anti-Ustasha Croats
5) The destruction of hundreds of anti-Ustasha memorials throughout the country. The destruction of memorial at Gudovac is just one example
6) The construction of a Francetic Memorial in Sljunj.
Until decent Croats rise up and stop the semi-official glorification of the NDH years, Croatia will forever be tainted with Jasenovac. Germans have been able to rejoin the family of nations because they are obessed with attacking the slightest Neo-Nazi activity. Official Germany still constantly apoligizes for the crimes done by (some) of their Great-Grandfathers.
Yet, Official Croatia engages in silly sorts of apologizing for NDH horrors, trying to downplay the NDH killings, spending great effort justifying why today's Croatia uses NDH symbols.
Until Croats follow the modern German path of apology and complete detachment from the slightes hint of pro-Ustasha leanings, they will never be accepted into the family of civilized nations. It is up to decent Croats to do this.
I find it amusing that so many of the denial tactics pioneered by Noam Chomsky can be found in these apologies for Milosevic.
Clinton is slime, KLA are thugs and terrorists, Bosnian muslim militias included islamic fanatics and Milosevic is a mass murderer. None of these statements contradict each other.
Did you happen to catch last night's CNN hit piece on Milosevic?
No I didn't. But I confess I cannot bear to watch America's corporate conformist "free press". The insult to my intelligence is always too much to bear and there isn't enough brandy in the world to dull the brain after being exposed to it. I can't live beautifully in a constant state of outrage, you know.
For a while I took refuge in satellite broadcasts of foreign news, which, at its worst, is still not as insulting as American TV.
But I began to notice that most English-language brodcasts were being Americanized to a greater or lesser extent. And then there was the little incident where "Living Marxism" (it wasn't what you might think) was smashed by the corporate media mogul ITN--over the war against the Serbs, of course.
So, it's safer to hide out in history books. Anything about the French Revolution will gives useful--and accurate--insight into current events.
Still, it might have been interesting to test my prowess at predicting--almost to the letter--what the content of the broadcast would turn out to be. What was it like?
By the way--have you seen the "mass graves" report in the BBC today? It's Sadaam again--of course. The mills of the Masters of the Universe grind small (and constantly) in their never-ending search for the new Hitler....
It's got skulls and everything!!!
(The British are so good at this sort of thing. They deserve an award.)
Demonizing Serbs is wrong. Demonizing Muslims is wrong. Demonizing Croats is wrong. Need I say more?
Here are a few of the things I learned last night from Christianne Amanpour:
1) Milosevic was a bad man. A very bad man.
2) I am supposed to hate him. If I don't hate him, I am also a very bad man.
3) He was bad for the economy, and is therefore a war criminal.
4) He started all of the Balkan wars.
5) Many people died in NATO bombings who could otherwise have lived. This is Milosevic's fault, since NATO was bombing for peace. Richard Holbrooke gives me his word as a man--a very smart man--that this is true.
6) The Serbs--after a generation or two--might be able to redeem their "collective guilt" for having elected him. But this is something the UN will have to decide.
7) Wartime slaughter on the part of the losers is called genocide.
8) If you're going to kill civilians in wartime, go big. Don't hold back. Be like the British at Dresden or the Americans at Hiroshima. Otherwise, you'll end up in a deluxe Belgian prison, helplessly watching yourself on CNN International
In addition, the government of Croatia has been 'weak' on the subject. They need to go after neo-Ustasha in the same way, Germans go after neo-Nazi's.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.