Also, stories about Milosevic's regime are wildly over-shot by the western propaganda.

Greetings from Serbia

I am American and I did a bit of research on the war with Serbia and have to say that you are correct. We have been fed some very good propaganda.

The most interesting point was how CIA was arming Albanians and encouraging them to provoke the Serbs. Also most Americans are un-ware (again very good propanda efforts were made), that Serbian atrocities started after the bombings. Those attrocities are still atrocities and are in no way justified, but their portail in the Western media is terribly skewed.

It was very interesting to find out that at the same time as we were supposed to "prevent atrocities" in Serbia we dramatically increased Turkey's arms shiptment quota so they can bomb Kurdish villages. It was a quid-pro-quo kind of deal. Turkey said if you "bomb and use our airspace, then we want to bomb too." And bomb they did, big time. About 3000 Kurdish villages were destroyed.

If you were albanian, you couldn't go to school were you could learn your own language, you couldn't get a job a state industry (except for crappy jobs), you couldn't go to college/university where you can study in your own language. You even needed a visa to get out of Kosova!

BTW, Albanians there have been trying to secede peacefully since 1990, where they formed their own goverment. They had their own parallel structures, schools, etc. Slovenia split, got attacked, then Croatia split and endedup with war, then we all now of the Bosnian massacres.

It seem in all these, the common denominator is Serbia, and Slobodan, using vapid nationalism for his own purposes.

Kosova was going to end up just like Bosnia, where over 200k people were massacred if the west didn't intervene. he was doing the exact same tactics that he did during the previous war.

BTW, the Albanians in Kosova got armed after 1997, when there were trouble in Albania, and all the army depot got emptied, and you could find a Ak-47 for less than $100.

There were no american weapons in the region.

I agree with that. I never said that Serbians didn't commit attrocities. What I a blaming here is the Western propaganda machine (well ok, not Western, mostly NATO i.e. American) for lying.

Would you deny the facts that Serbian paramilitary forces intensified their attacks greatly after the bombing started?

I am not saying there we no masacres before, it is just that US knew it would get worse afterwards, they knew international observers would withdraw, but they decided to bomb anyway. Then they lied through their teeth when they used the victims of the retaliatory attacks of the Serbs to justify the bombings.

Yes, it was Serbian army who killed, but US (a suposedly rational country) knew that Slobodan would react in that way, and they didn't give a fuck. So it wasn't about humanitarian help, it was about saber rattling and not letting NATO get embarrassed in the middle of Europe.

It was not too long after USSR fell, European Union was gainging strength and US and NATO had to show the world who is boss. Yes, as a result they helped Albanians, and it is hard to play the "what if" game and guess what happened if they never went it. But they definetly didn't go in because they love Albanians or they cannot tollerate attrocities in the world. Look at Turkey and Indonesia -- both US clients that committed attrocities and nobody in US is bothered by it.

But innocent civilians being killed are innocent civilians being killed. It doesn't matter who's killing or what color their skin or what religion they are. There are terrible killing and attrocities still going on in the world.

We should do something about it if we can. But if we don't or we can't. We shouldn't lie about it, and pretend we do while we have completely different motives for our foreign war "adventures"

I wouldn't mind if the government actually told everyone what its real motives are. Perhaps there will be less support for war, or perhaps there won't. At least we won't be lied to.

Still, nice to hear that someone is interested in more then flashy headlines.

In light of my comment bellow, I will not pursue the subject further, HN is not the place for it.

I'm pretty sure that is a blatantly false statement. But if you would like to convince me otherwise, please show me some sources.

Then: Kosovo and the Metaphor War by Roland Paris (Political Science Quarterly, Volume 117, Number 3, Fall 2002) is a good analysis of how metaphors of previous wars and events were used to promote the war.

For 10x infation of number of deaths by NATO propaganda machine in preparing for war try: Kosovo: Orders of Magnitude by Adam Jones (IDEA Journal, Volume 5, Number 1, July 2000).

On the media portrail and lack of journalistic impartiality try: Ruigrok, Nel., Schoenbach, Klaus., Scholten, Otto. and De Ridder, J.. "Covering the Bosnian War: ‘Journalism of Attachment’ in Dutch Newspapers" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Dresden International Congress Centre, Dresden, Germany, Jun 16, 2006 (http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p92731_index.html)

Also note that there was a humanitarian catastrophy and there were certainly terible masacres going before the bombings and there were on both sides and have been going on for centuries. But after March 24, 1999 the Serbian attrocities intensified terribly.

You can listen to press reports around the time. For example Clinton says on March 24, 1999 that the reason for the war is "to deter an even bloodier offensive against innocent civilians in Kosovo and, if necessary, to seriously damage the Serbian military’s capacity to harm the people of Kosovo." However intelligence reports warned him that bombing will actually intensify the attacks and that is exactly what happened. The large number of victim from these retaliatory attacks were then used as the reasons for the bombing.

> I'm pretty sure that is a blatantly false statement.

Well, do you have any sources? Please show that the number of claimed dead and missing Albanians (around 100,000) by NATO media monkeys was true as that was used to justify the war.

Please show evidence that US had purely humanitarian objectives, and reasons for US not getting involved in much larger humanitarian crises in Africa, South America, Asia (especially Laos, Cambodia and Indonesia). Some of then occuring simoultaneusly with the Kosovo war (hint: try Indonesia, it's a easy one).

Thanks for the links. I think your statement

there were certainly terible masacres going before the bombings

gets to the point of why I was skeptical about your earlier post. It would be incredible to say that United States bombing started Serbian-inflicted atrocities, when Serb atrocities were plainly occurring before there was any aerial bombing anywhere in the Balkans. I do not claim that the United States policy under the Clinton administration was ideal (or even beneficial to the United States) but I do claim that massacres were already occurring before there was any United States intervention.

There is no Turk vs Kurd fight going on its just an up moron brain washing people and turning them in to each other.

Get your facts right.

Alright, "my facts" are that European Court has consitently condemned Turkey for human right violations agains Kurds. "Your facts" are that you claim to have Kurdish friends. I think, I'll stick to "my facts" for now...

Zoltan did not commit any war crimes or ordered to do so. By that twisted logic, were Vietnam war USAF pilots in a pub after successful sortie celebrating My Lai massacre?

replace treason with "war crimes" and it would be as valid.

What constitutes "war crimes" is defined, in practice, by the winners of the war. I wonder if you notice that the winning side in a war never commits "war crimes" and if they do are never punished severely. If the Nazis had won, Roosevelt and Eisenhower would be the "war criminals" (please note the quotes). Stalin is not a "war criminal" in spite of being responsible for the deaths of more people than the Nazis ever killed.

The British were the first to use concentration camps to imprison the Boer women and children where they died like flies. How many British commanders w were prosecuted and punished, do you think?

Even when Americans lose wars, they are never prosecuted for war crimes. This is because American loss of a war does not (yet) involve the enemy invading the United States mainland and conducting prosecutions there.

Btw how many American soldiers were shot for My Lai?

From Wikipedia

My Lai "was the mass murder conducted by a unit of the U.S. Army on March 16, 1968 of 347 to 504 unarmed citizens in South Vietnam, all of whom were civilians and a majority of whom were women, children, and elderly people.

Many of the victims were sexually abused, beaten, tortured, and some of the bodies were found mutilated."

Certainly sounds like a "war crime" to me.

"After a four-month-long trial, in which he claimed that he was following orders from his commanding officer, Captain Medina, William Calley was convicted, on March 29, 1971, of premeditated murder for ordering the shootings. He was initially sentenced to life in prison. Two days later, however, President Nixon made the controversial decision to have Calley released from prison, pending appeal of his sentence. Calley's sentence was later adjusted, so that he would eventually serve four and one-half months in a military prison at Fort Benning."

"Most of the enlisted men who were involved in the events at My Lai had already left military service, and were thus legally exempt from prosecution. In the end, of the 26 men initially charged, Calley's was the only conviction."

So much for "war crimes" and "criminal regimes". Many non Americans believe the Bush/Cheney administration was a criminal regime waging unjustified "aggressive wars of conquest" (one of the main charges against the Japanese after world war 2, btw) Does that make them criminals?

Many Afghans believe that Predator drone attacks that kill civilians are "war crimes". Does that make the American army "criminal"?

Imo not really. "International Law" is much flimsier than the term would have us believe. Without a commonly understood idea of what a "crime" is, it is hard to have a law relating to that crime.

Are you claiming Americans never commit war crimes? Or that they are punished severely when they do? How is an American soldier fighting for his country in Iraq during Gulf War 2 any less "supporting a criminal regime" than this Serb commander downing planes that bomb his country?

Please note that I am not saying only Americans are war criminals or that the Nazis were not.

All sides in a war conduct "war crimes" (as seen by the victims). Who wins and what form the victory takes decides who is a "war criminal" (in terms of getting punished) and who is not.

There's a distinction between a criminal regime and instances of war crimes committed by a country's army. When a country's leaders organize the deliberate and purposeful extermination or forcible relocation of an ethnic population, that's a type of criminal regime. (There are other types, of course.) I would apply this standard to Andrew Jackson, Hitler, and Milosevic, and to the American, German, and Yugoslav governments under them. So while the Luftwaffe and flak gunners didn't kill any Jews themselves, they protected an illegitimate regime. Same for Zoltan, same for the US troops deployed outside the removal operation (for instance, the troops sent to menace the South during the nullification crisis).

When individual units or troops commit war crimes without the authorization of superiors, that's a separate issue. I would have rather seen Calley and his troops face trial in an international court, but there wasn't one then. There is one now, but the US is not yet party to it. I wish it were.

I think there may be evidence that the Bush administration was a criminal regime. I would not have fought for Bush.

I still don't know how to judge Zoltan, though. I'd say the same for a soldier in Iraq or a Luftwaffe pilot. I can appreciate his achievements, but I still raise questions about the morality of them.

NATO bombers (USA bombers in this instance, really) were attacking Serbia, and Zoltan was a soldier operating in his own country, defending it against enemy aggression. How can you raise morality questions against that?

And as I already said, the truth about Kosovo is far from what your media told you. Kosovo is now brought down to two functions only:

1. American army base (Bondsteel) 2. Haven for drug lords, and traffickers of people and weapons. Now they've got their own state in the heart of Europe, thanks to USA lobbying practice which is where all of it originated from.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether Serbia was in the right or in the wrong in Kosovo. It's just a bullshit argument to pretend Zoltan was doing something entirely separate from supporting the continued Serbian domination of Kosovo and its people. Either Serbia was in the right (in which case Zoltan would have been perfectly justified no matter what) or Serbia was in the wrong (in which case--since the bombing was an attempt to pressure Serbia to leave Kosovo--protecting Kosovo from bombing turned out to be indirectly supporting the domination of Kosovo.)

You see, this is a thing about definitions. If you stretch them too hard they lose their meaning and you can't usably distinguish the concepts they denote. If you call every opposing soldier a war criminal, then it does only service actual war criminals.

Considering how little his actions mattered in the overall outcome, I can't help but think that he and his team simply relished the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to match their wits against the world's most advanced air force.

Just like von Braun was "happy" to bomb London with his rockets and killing many more concentration camp workers who were building his rockets. Somehow, Americans didn't mind making him their space age hero.

Not to even mentions Japanese "scientists" that were directly involved in horrendous bio-"experiments" on Chinese, but were never brought to trial, and instead went to become heads of big pharma companies in Japan. So if we want to talk about some kind of guilt-by-association, we should first examine our own track record.

I am not taking sides here, but do note that a soldier does what he is told. As far as I know, Zoltan did not murder any civilians. He was simply defending his country against an act of aggression. Given the atrocities committed by the Serbs, the aggression initiated by NATO may or may not have been justified. I will abstain from moral issues here.

Last but not least: do note that Zoltan is of Hungarian (not Serbian) ethnicity, and Hungarians are not Slavs. I doubt he was ideologically aligned with Milosevic.

Yes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_Early_Warning_and_Cont...

...do note that a soldier does what he is told. As far as I know, Zoltan did not murder any civilians.

US military personnel needn't obey all orders, only lawful orders. Zoltan wasn't just obeying orders, he was working overtime to support human slaughter.

He was simply defending his country against an act of aggression.

I really don't know what to say to that. If someone breaks into your home and begins killing and raping your family, and you fight back, is the attacker "defending himself against an act of aggression?"

Your analogy is confusing. The Serbs didn't break into American homes and rape/kill anyone. So how exactly was the US "fighting back"?

From the Serbian viewpoint, the USA could be seen as the party "breaking in" and killing civilians from the air (sure "collateral damage", but when it is your family beneath the rubble, I am sure it is a fine distinction) and the Serbs as the ones "fighting back".

" he was working overtime to support human slaughter."

A lot of non Americans believe this is precisely what US soldiers did (Vietnam) and do (Iraq / Afghanistan). I am not taking positions on who is "right", but this is why politics should be avoided on HN if possible - arguments on politics and religion can circle endlessly with no useful conclusion.

Seriously? You've basically vilified every soldier that has ever served in the history of any army ever.

I doubt that it was a Japanese plane in use there (though theoretically it could be).

The F117 is exclusively operated by the US air force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-3_Sentry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nato_awacs.jpg

I went for a walk in a British one at the Abbotsford Airshow this summer (all UK crew), and I know the NATO ones can have Canadian pilots and Radar ops.

The US does operate the E-3's as a part of their Air Force as well, but the NATO ones are not American.

There are lots of interesting craft here, not just AWACS.

Google maps has the area 'obfuscated', so I can't use that to look at the planes (it was to be expected), but I'm sure an opportunity will come soon enough.

edit: this side of the border there is actually quite a bit of resistance against the AWACS craft taking off and landing because they are technically in Germany but the noise pollution is mostly felt on the dutch side which is much more densely inhabited than the German one.

It may be simple, its often used for political or manipulation purposes because it is emotionally charged but it is never an accurate way to assess the situation. And it annoys me very much.

Or is kosher to kill civilians just as long as it's the USAF doing it?

Do you want me to go search how many Vietnamese civilians were killed by U.S. military personnel who were merely following "lawful orders"? What is a "lawful order to kill"? One that is according to the ROE?

Justified or not, NATO's attack was an act of aggression, by definition of aggression. No need to play semantics here. Go tell the civilians in Novi Sad (which is ethnically Hungarian) that destroying their city was justified because of what ethnical Serbs were doing in Kosovo. Go read a bit about the rich and convoluted history of the Balkans, because your black & white view of the world is a bit fuzzy.

Sadly, that describes the NATO position very well. There are "worthy victims" and "unworthy victims." Victims of our allies are "unworthy": if Isreal, Turkey, or some banana owned by the CIA is killing, then we never hear about it who died, we don't know their names, we don't see interviews on CNN with grieving relatives. If it is our enemies' killing anyone, then the victims become automatically "martirs" and we hear their personal stories, we know their names and watch the grieving families on TV.

> No need to play semantics here.

Propaganda is all about redefinition of words and skewing of semantics. Clinton administration did a remarcable job with propagnda during the war in Bosnia.

All the little pseudo-intellectual lapdogs at the time were writing in their little foreign policy journals how we entered into a new era, where US is a beacon of freedom and hope, and from now on we'll only have wars with pure humanitarian reasons.