Informazione
Yugoslavia-Iraq-Libya-Syria:
Bad results of humanitarian intervention practice
1) Fact and Propaganda: Yugoslavia and The "Politics of Genocide"
a review of the book “The Politics of Genocide” by Edward Herman and David Peterson
Stanko Stojilkjovic - January 22, 2011
2) Libya overshadowed by "Kosovo model"
Wu Liming - May 23, 20113) 2011' Yugoslavia anniversary highlights parallels with Libya
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2012/03/08/fruits-of-humanitarian-intervention-destruction-of-states-huge-civilian-casualties-destabilization-of-countries/
Fruits Of “Humanitarian Intervention”: Destruction Of States, Huge Civilian Casualties, Destabilization Of Countries
*Alexey Pilko, Associate Professor at the Moscow State University Faculty of History
Russia Today - March 24, 2011
4) Bad results of humanitarian intervention practice
Alexey Pilko - March 8, 2012Source of the following documents in english language is the Stop NATO e-mail list
Archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages
Website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com
Archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages
Website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com
=== 1 ===
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22909
Global Research/Politika Daily - January 22, 2011
Fact and Propaganda: Yugoslavia and The "Politics of Genocide"
Global Research/Politika Daily - January 22, 2011
Fact and Propaganda: Yugoslavia and The "Politics of Genocide"
by Stanko Stojilkjovic
Is it possible that the prevailing current usage of the word genocide is “an insult to the memory of the Nazi regime's victims”?
This incisive thought of Noam Chomsky was taken from the preface he wrote to an astonishing book titled “The Politics of Genocide” by Edward Herman and David Peterson, published in Belgrade in 2010 by Vesna info.
Edward Herman is a professor emeritus teaching finance at the University of Pennsylvania and David Peterson is a free-lance journalist. What an unusual match, you might think at first. However, if you check the exhaustive list of references you will find out that they have worked on at least two more published books, both dedicated to the former Yugoslavia and its disintegration. David Peterson is author of another dozen published books, either alone or in cooperation with other authors.
According to Noam Chomsky, the end of the Cold War “opened an era of Holocaust denial,” in which the humanitarian bombing of Yugoslavia (read: Serbia) is far from being the last piece of the puzzle.
According to “Counter-Revolutionary Violence: Bloodbaths in Fact and Propaganda,” written by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky, in the period between 1945 and 2009 the USA organized “major” military interventions in as many as 29 countries. “Thanks to its dominant position and its global counter-revolutionary efforts, the US has been the key single instigator, organizer and provider of moral and material support for some of the heaviest bloodshed that took place after the World War Two.
"US officials, supported by the media and intellectuals close to the administration (“genocide intellectuals”), have mastered the skills of “crime management” used to draw the attention of the public away from the violence instigated and endorsed by the leading global super-power and direct the public eye towards the violence perpetrated by US enemies."
In line with this the authors [Herman and Peterson] have come up with an unusual classification of the bloodbaths into four categories: constructive, benign, criminal and mythical.
“The largest genocidal act undertaken in the last thirty years was the economic sanctions imposed on Iraq following the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, both in respect of the number of victims and in respect of full awareness of the impact of this policy among its creators,” reads the introductory section of the book.
The New York Times revealed that “in the long run, Iraq has been pushed back into pre-industrial times, though it still suffers from post-industrial dependence on energy and technology.” And the Washington Post, quoting a reliable source, stated that “the bombs… were targeted at everything that was vital for survival of the country.” Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
Denis Halliday, the leading UN humanitarian coordinator in Iraq, resigned, issuing a statement that the overall effects of the sanctions were comparable to that of genocide. And Eleanor Robinson, lecturer at the Old Soul College in Oxford (England), added: ”You will have to go back in time as far as the Mongol invasion of Baghdad in 1258 to find an example of pillage of comparable magnitude.” You can guess who was doing the pillage!
Edward Herman and David Peterson have exposed the ill doings of politicians, intellectuals and reporters who used the word genocide in their reports on the most deadly world crisis since the end of the World War Two (5.4 million dead between 1998 and 2007 in DR Congo) only 17 times, while the killing of 4,000 Albanians in Kosovo and Metohija was qualified as genocide as many as 323 times!
George Robertson, British Defense Minister, admitted during a hearing before Parliament: “Before Račak this year (24 March 1999), the KLA was responsible for more deaths in Kosovo than the authorities of Yugoslavia”. The number of killings since 1998 was estimated at 2,000, and 500 of these killings were attributed to Serbian forces.
“During the civil wars in the wake of the disintegration of the former SFR Yugoslavia in the nineties, the USA, Germany, NATO and EU supported national minorities which insisted on breaking away from the federal state and acted against the national group of Serbs who persisted in their efforts to save the former Yugoslavia. That is why the Western powers strongly supported first Croats and Slovenes, later Bosnian Muslims, and finally Kosovo Albanians,” explained Edward Herman and David Peterson, quoting a number of critically acclaimed works.
We are also informed that the NATO forces supported, “even coordinated war operations, and as there were numerous cases of ethnic cleansing and ethnically motivated killings, it was only natural that expressions such as ethnic cleansing, massacre and genocide were applied primarily to the war acts of the Serbs.” Regarding the “Srebrenica massacre”, they say that there is no proof that Serbian forces killed anyone but “Muslim men capable of army service,” taking care to evacuate all children, women and the elderly by buses.
“If Račak was a contrived crime, and we believe that it was, then the war sold to the world on the strength of this crime was based on a lie, and therefore any claims that the war was waged on humanitarian grounds must be disputed, if for no other reason then on account of this fact alone,” said Edward Herman and David Peterson, referring to their own article “CNN: Sale of a NATO War on a Global Scale” from 2009.
“The Račak massacre” perfectly suited the needs of Bill Clinton's administration and NATO and provided them with an excuse to launch the air attacks against Yugoslavia (Serbia), which had been prepared for a long time, soon after the failure of the negotiations in Rambouillet, “one of the greatest staged deceptions in recent history.”
When Madeleine Albright was first informed that the attacks had been launched, she commented with delight: “Spring has come early to Kosovo this year.”
This valuable book meticulously reveals the double standards applied to war acts in Darfur (Sudan), Rwanda, Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Guatemala, El Salvador, and so on.
Is it possible that the prevailing current usage of the word genocide is “an insult to the memory of the Nazi regime's victims”?
This incisive thought of Noam Chomsky was taken from the preface he wrote to an astonishing book titled “The Politics of Genocide” by Edward Herman and David Peterson, published in Belgrade in 2010 by Vesna info.
Edward Herman is a professor emeritus teaching finance at the University of Pennsylvania and David Peterson is a free-lance journalist. What an unusual match, you might think at first. However, if you check the exhaustive list of references you will find out that they have worked on at least two more published books, both dedicated to the former Yugoslavia and its disintegration. David Peterson is author of another dozen published books, either alone or in cooperation with other authors.
According to Noam Chomsky, the end of the Cold War “opened an era of Holocaust denial,” in which the humanitarian bombing of Yugoslavia (read: Serbia) is far from being the last piece of the puzzle.
According to “Counter-Revolutionary Violence: Bloodbaths in Fact and Propaganda,” written by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky, in the period between 1945 and 2009 the USA organized “major” military interventions in as many as 29 countries. “Thanks to its dominant position and its global counter-revolutionary efforts, the US has been the key single instigator, organizer and provider of moral and material support for some of the heaviest bloodshed that took place after the World War Two.
"US officials, supported by the media and intellectuals close to the administration (“genocide intellectuals”), have mastered the skills of “crime management” used to draw the attention of the public away from the violence instigated and endorsed by the leading global super-power and direct the public eye towards the violence perpetrated by US enemies."
In line with this the authors [Herman and Peterson] have come up with an unusual classification of the bloodbaths into four categories: constructive, benign, criminal and mythical.
“The largest genocidal act undertaken in the last thirty years was the economic sanctions imposed on Iraq following the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, both in respect of the number of victims and in respect of full awareness of the impact of this policy among its creators,” reads the introductory section of the book.
The New York Times revealed that “in the long run, Iraq has been pushed back into pre-industrial times, though it still suffers from post-industrial dependence on energy and technology.” And the Washington Post, quoting a reliable source, stated that “the bombs… were targeted at everything that was vital for survival of the country.” Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
Denis Halliday, the leading UN humanitarian coordinator in Iraq, resigned, issuing a statement that the overall effects of the sanctions were comparable to that of genocide. And Eleanor Robinson, lecturer at the Old Soul College in Oxford (England), added: ”You will have to go back in time as far as the Mongol invasion of Baghdad in 1258 to find an example of pillage of comparable magnitude.” You can guess who was doing the pillage!
Edward Herman and David Peterson have exposed the ill doings of politicians, intellectuals and reporters who used the word genocide in their reports on the most deadly world crisis since the end of the World War Two (5.4 million dead between 1998 and 2007 in DR Congo) only 17 times, while the killing of 4,000 Albanians in Kosovo and Metohija was qualified as genocide as many as 323 times!
George Robertson, British Defense Minister, admitted during a hearing before Parliament: “Before Račak this year (24 March 1999), the KLA was responsible for more deaths in Kosovo than the authorities of Yugoslavia”. The number of killings since 1998 was estimated at 2,000, and 500 of these killings were attributed to Serbian forces.
“During the civil wars in the wake of the disintegration of the former SFR Yugoslavia in the nineties, the USA, Germany, NATO and EU supported national minorities which insisted on breaking away from the federal state and acted against the national group of Serbs who persisted in their efforts to save the former Yugoslavia. That is why the Western powers strongly supported first Croats and Slovenes, later Bosnian Muslims, and finally Kosovo Albanians,” explained Edward Herman and David Peterson, quoting a number of critically acclaimed works.
We are also informed that the NATO forces supported, “even coordinated war operations, and as there were numerous cases of ethnic cleansing and ethnically motivated killings, it was only natural that expressions such as ethnic cleansing, massacre and genocide were applied primarily to the war acts of the Serbs.” Regarding the “Srebrenica massacre”, they say that there is no proof that Serbian forces killed anyone but “Muslim men capable of army service,” taking care to evacuate all children, women and the elderly by buses.
“If Račak was a contrived crime, and we believe that it was, then the war sold to the world on the strength of this crime was based on a lie, and therefore any claims that the war was waged on humanitarian grounds must be disputed, if for no other reason then on account of this fact alone,” said Edward Herman and David Peterson, referring to their own article “CNN: Sale of a NATO War on a Global Scale” from 2009.
“The Račak massacre” perfectly suited the needs of Bill Clinton's administration and NATO and provided them with an excuse to launch the air attacks against Yugoslavia (Serbia), which had been prepared for a long time, soon after the failure of the negotiations in Rambouillet, “one of the greatest staged deceptions in recent history.”
When Madeleine Albright was first informed that the attacks had been launched, she commented with delight: “Spring has come early to Kosovo this year.”
This valuable book meticulously reveals the double standards applied to war acts in Darfur (Sudan), Rwanda, Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Guatemala, El Salvador, and so on.
=== 2 ===
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-05/24/c_13890288.htm
Xinhua News Agency - May 23, 2011
Commentary: Libya overshadowed by "Kosovo model"
Xinhua News Agency - May 23, 2011
Commentary: Libya overshadowed by "Kosovo model"
Wu Liming
BEIJING: The latest moves by Western allies against Libya have shown marked similarities to "strategies" they adopted in Kosovo in the 1990s.
Catherine Ashton, EU's foreign policy chief, opened the bloc's office on Sunday in Benghazi,the Libyan opposition's base camp when he visited the city on Sunday.
Earlier last Monday, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) requested arrest warrants for Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, his son Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi and his brother-in-law Abdullah Al-Sanousi who is Libya's head of intelligence.
In retrospect, NATO adopted a three-step strategy in the Kosovo war back in 1999.
NATO first supported the Kosovo authority and launched 78-day bombings against former Yugoslavia, forcing the late Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic to withdraw his forces.
The West then stirred up political unrest in Serbia, leading to the downfall of Milosevic.
The last step was to send Milosevic to The Hague to face trial at the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia. Later on, Milosevic died in custody.
Twelve years later, the Western allies again resorted to a similar three-step strategy in Libya.
NATO is launching continuous air strikes against Gaddafi's forces, while the Western allies are heaping political and psychological pressures on Gaddafi and openly supporting the opposition, in a bid to force Gaddafi to give up power. This was followed by ICC's issuance of an arrest warrant to bring Gaddafi to The Hague.
Yet, there are some differences between the two scenarios.
In 1999, the West unleashed the bombings without bothering to ask for a UN Security Council mandate, while 12 years later the West launched airstrikes on Libya by overstepping the authorization of UN Resolution 1973 to impose a "non-fly" zone supposedly to protect the civilians in Libya.
In addition, NATO has expanded its military actions from Europe, the defense area defined by the North Atlantic Treaty, to Africa, which is far beyond NATO's traditional legitimate defense area.
Ironically, the West has claimed to seek a "political solution" while continuing its airstrikes in Libya, but what it really means by "political solution" is something quite different from what is understood by the international community.
Since March 19 when several Western nations started air raids, the West has organized a so-called "Contact Group" on Libya and held several meetings to coordinate actions, claiming to "seek a political solution to resolving the Libya crisis."
However, the "Contact Group" has openly urged support for the Libya opposition on several occasions.
In short, what happened in Kosovo and Libya may well serve as perfect examples of the so-call "neo-interventionism" pursued by some Western powers.
Under the pretext of "human rights above sovereignty," they try to interfere in the domestic affairs of sovereign states, even to resort to military means to split them.
The strategies of these neo-interventionists are, more often than not, deceptive.
On the Libya issue, for instance, the Western powers seemed to have complied with international procedures and norms: they first tried to push UN Security Council resolutions and then seek an ICC arrest warrant to bring Libyan leader Gaddafi to justice.
These strategies, however, are merely employed on a selective basis to get rid of political figures the West dislikes, including Gaddafi and Milosevic. The West would turn a blind eye to similar cases in countries which are considered its own allies.
To put it clearly, some forces in the West are using just procedures of the international laws to serve their own political purposes.
In the 21st century, some Western countries take "neo-interventionism" as their standard practice and even try to apply the so-called "Kosovo model" elsewhere in the world. This should ring an alarm bell to the international community.
BEIJING: The latest moves by Western allies against Libya have shown marked similarities to "strategies" they adopted in Kosovo in the 1990s.
Catherine Ashton, EU's foreign policy chief, opened the bloc's office on Sunday in Benghazi,the Libyan opposition's base camp when he visited the city on Sunday.
Earlier last Monday, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) requested arrest warrants for Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, his son Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi and his brother-in-law Abdullah Al-Sanousi who is Libya's head of intelligence.
In retrospect, NATO adopted a three-step strategy in the Kosovo war back in 1999.
NATO first supported the Kosovo authority and launched 78-day bombings against former Yugoslavia, forcing the late Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic to withdraw his forces.
The West then stirred up political unrest in Serbia, leading to the downfall of Milosevic.
The last step was to send Milosevic to The Hague to face trial at the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia. Later on, Milosevic died in custody.
Twelve years later, the Western allies again resorted to a similar three-step strategy in Libya.
NATO is launching continuous air strikes against Gaddafi's forces, while the Western allies are heaping political and psychological pressures on Gaddafi and openly supporting the opposition, in a bid to force Gaddafi to give up power. This was followed by ICC's issuance of an arrest warrant to bring Gaddafi to The Hague.
Yet, there are some differences between the two scenarios.
In 1999, the West unleashed the bombings without bothering to ask for a UN Security Council mandate, while 12 years later the West launched airstrikes on Libya by overstepping the authorization of UN Resolution 1973 to impose a "non-fly" zone supposedly to protect the civilians in Libya.
In addition, NATO has expanded its military actions from Europe, the defense area defined by the North Atlantic Treaty, to Africa, which is far beyond NATO's traditional legitimate defense area.
Ironically, the West has claimed to seek a "political solution" while continuing its airstrikes in Libya, but what it really means by "political solution" is something quite different from what is understood by the international community.
Since March 19 when several Western nations started air raids, the West has organized a so-called "Contact Group" on Libya and held several meetings to coordinate actions, claiming to "seek a political solution to resolving the Libya crisis."
However, the "Contact Group" has openly urged support for the Libya opposition on several occasions.
In short, what happened in Kosovo and Libya may well serve as perfect examples of the so-call "neo-interventionism" pursued by some Western powers.
Under the pretext of "human rights above sovereignty," they try to interfere in the domestic affairs of sovereign states, even to resort to military means to split them.
The strategies of these neo-interventionists are, more often than not, deceptive.
On the Libya issue, for instance, the Western powers seemed to have complied with international procedures and norms: they first tried to push UN Security Council resolutions and then seek an ICC arrest warrant to bring Libyan leader Gaddafi to justice.
These strategies, however, are merely employed on a selective basis to get rid of political figures the West dislikes, including Gaddafi and Milosevic. The West would turn a blind eye to similar cases in countries which are considered its own allies.
To put it clearly, some forces in the West are using just procedures of the international laws to serve their own political purposes.
In the 21st century, some Western countries take "neo-interventionism" as their standard practice and even try to apply the so-called "Kosovo model" elsewhere in the world. This should ring an alarm bell to the international community.
=== 3 ===
http://rt.com/usa/news/usa-libya-yugoslavia-anniversary-war/
RT - March 24, 2011
Yugoslavia anniversary highlights parallels with Libya
In March the seasons change and sunshine falls on America. In March American politicians venture to foreign counties – to drop bombs.
March 1999 – the United States entered Yugoslavia.
“Our armed forces joined our NATO allies in air strikes against Serbian forces responsible for the brutality in Kosovo,” said US President Bill Clinton.
March 2011 – the United States entered Libya.
“The UN Security Council passed a strong resolution that demands an end to the violence against [Libyan] citizens. It authorizes the use of force,” US President Barack Obama said.
From one democratic president to another, bombing commences. The US and coalition forces reign down on Libya over the anniversary of the Yugoslavia bombings.
The attack on Libya was sanctioned by the UN Security Council, in contrast to the bombings in Yugoslavia. Without approval in 1999, NATO took the lead in the first time the alliance attacked an independent and sovereign nation which posed no threat to the organization’s members. Similarly, Libya poses no threat to the nations leading the campaign of aggressive attacks.
There are many sticking parallels between the two wars.
The enemy in 1999 was Slobodan and “The New Hitler” – Milosevic. Today it is Moammar Ghadafi who has been in power in Libya for over 40 years.
“As much as Ghadafi is this John Galliano-dressed freak show, he modernized Libya for a while,” said Pepe Escobar, a correspondent from the Asia Times.
Nevertheless, America seeks regime change and a nation friendlier to US interests.
“Ghadafi needs to step down and leave,” Obama stated.
“What we are seeing is a full-fledged war, including attempting evidently to kill the head of state of the targeted country. That again is a page from a Yugoslav book from 12 years ago,” said Rick Rozoff of Stop NATO. “What has the world learned? Evidently, not much.”
Officially, the US and allied intervention is one of humanitarian concern – the same rational argued in 1999 when bombings commenced in Yugoslavia.
“You can bomb a country because you are coming to save its people, and essentially that was what the rationale behind the war in Yugoslavia,” explained Michel Chossudovsky, the director of the Centre for Research on Globalization in Montréal. “You don’t come to the rescue of civilians with bombs and missiles, ok? Bombs and missiles are part of a killing machine, and they inevitable will kill civilians.”
Like Yugoslavia, a no-fly zone has ignited the engine of the war machine – a green light to use bombing and airstrikes.
The UN agreement on Libya created the no-fly zone and went further to allow “all means necessary” which opens the doors for nearly any type of assault.
In Yugoslavia thousands of people were killed and millions displaced.
“After the war, when they did a count, they found that US and NATO bombs had destroyed 14 tanks in Serbia. But, they had also bombed 473 schools,” said Sara Flounders from the International Action Center.
Experts are predicting a similar outcome in Obama’s war in Libya.
The White House is promising the conflict will last only days, not week – just days. Initially, the same guarantee was given for the war in Yugoslavia. That conflict lasted two and a half months.
“They think that a quick bit of bombing will sort the matter out, but in fact, I think they will find that it will last far longer than they’ve gambled for,” remarked journalist John Laughland.
12 years on Serbia still remembers the losses it suffered at the hands of US led NATO bombings and the US is now entering its fourth set of attacks on foreign soil in the past 12 years.
Gerald Celente, the director of the Trends Research Institute argued that the first great war of the 21st century has now begun – in Libya.
“Any excuse that the United States has to attack another county, they just make up,” said Celente.
It’s all hypocrisy, he argued. The US invaded Libya over supposed humanitarian concerns, but as governments in Yemen, Somali and other nations continue to kill their people, the US is not talking about intervention and invasion there.
“All this is the United States doing what it has become accustom to do, and that is attack any country it wants to at any time for any reason it can make up. And the new reason they made up is perfectly Orwellian – humanitarian crisis. So, you kill people to solve a humanitarian crisis and you take dictators out that you don’t like,” Celente said.
He argued the drive to war is oil and other resources. If the major export was anything less significant, like vegetables, the US would not have invaded, Celente contended.
RT - March 24, 2011
Yugoslavia anniversary highlights parallels with Libya
In March the seasons change and sunshine falls on America. In March American politicians venture to foreign counties – to drop bombs.
March 1999 – the United States entered Yugoslavia.
“Our armed forces joined our NATO allies in air strikes against Serbian forces responsible for the brutality in Kosovo,” said US President Bill Clinton.
March 2011 – the United States entered Libya.
“The UN Security Council passed a strong resolution that demands an end to the violence against [Libyan] citizens. It authorizes the use of force,” US President Barack Obama said.
From one democratic president to another, bombing commences. The US and coalition forces reign down on Libya over the anniversary of the Yugoslavia bombings.
The attack on Libya was sanctioned by the UN Security Council, in contrast to the bombings in Yugoslavia. Without approval in 1999, NATO took the lead in the first time the alliance attacked an independent and sovereign nation which posed no threat to the organization’s members. Similarly, Libya poses no threat to the nations leading the campaign of aggressive attacks.
There are many sticking parallels between the two wars.
The enemy in 1999 was Slobodan and “The New Hitler” – Milosevic. Today it is Moammar Ghadafi who has been in power in Libya for over 40 years.
“As much as Ghadafi is this John Galliano-dressed freak show, he modernized Libya for a while,” said Pepe Escobar, a correspondent from the Asia Times.
Nevertheless, America seeks regime change and a nation friendlier to US interests.
“Ghadafi needs to step down and leave,” Obama stated.
“What we are seeing is a full-fledged war, including attempting evidently to kill the head of state of the targeted country. That again is a page from a Yugoslav book from 12 years ago,” said Rick Rozoff of Stop NATO. “What has the world learned? Evidently, not much.”
Officially, the US and allied intervention is one of humanitarian concern – the same rational argued in 1999 when bombings commenced in Yugoslavia.
“You can bomb a country because you are coming to save its people, and essentially that was what the rationale behind the war in Yugoslavia,” explained Michel Chossudovsky, the director of the Centre for Research on Globalization in Montréal. “You don’t come to the rescue of civilians with bombs and missiles, ok? Bombs and missiles are part of a killing machine, and they inevitable will kill civilians.”
Like Yugoslavia, a no-fly zone has ignited the engine of the war machine – a green light to use bombing and airstrikes.
The UN agreement on Libya created the no-fly zone and went further to allow “all means necessary” which opens the doors for nearly any type of assault.
In Yugoslavia thousands of people were killed and millions displaced.
“After the war, when they did a count, they found that US and NATO bombs had destroyed 14 tanks in Serbia. But, they had also bombed 473 schools,” said Sara Flounders from the International Action Center.
Experts are predicting a similar outcome in Obama’s war in Libya.
The White House is promising the conflict will last only days, not week – just days. Initially, the same guarantee was given for the war in Yugoslavia. That conflict lasted two and a half months.
“They think that a quick bit of bombing will sort the matter out, but in fact, I think they will find that it will last far longer than they’ve gambled for,” remarked journalist John Laughland.
12 years on Serbia still remembers the losses it suffered at the hands of US led NATO bombings and the US is now entering its fourth set of attacks on foreign soil in the past 12 years.
Gerald Celente, the director of the Trends Research Institute argued that the first great war of the 21st century has now begun – in Libya.
“Any excuse that the United States has to attack another county, they just make up,” said Celente.
It’s all hypocrisy, he argued. The US invaded Libya over supposed humanitarian concerns, but as governments in Yemen, Somali and other nations continue to kill their people, the US is not talking about intervention and invasion there.
“All this is the United States doing what it has become accustom to do, and that is attack any country it wants to at any time for any reason it can make up. And the new reason they made up is perfectly Orwellian – humanitarian crisis. So, you kill people to solve a humanitarian crisis and you take dictators out that you don’t like,” Celente said.
He argued the drive to war is oil and other resources. If the major export was anything less significant, like vegetables, the US would not have invaded, Celente contended.
=== 4 ===
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2012/03/08/fruits-of-humanitarian-intervention-destruction-of-states-huge-civilian-casualties-destabilization-of-countries/
Fruits Of “Humanitarian Intervention”: Destruction Of States, Huge Civilian Casualties, Destabilization Of Countries
====
[W]e cannot rule out that Washington is preparing to launch a military campaign against Syria. McCain’s statement is intended to prepare world opinion for an inevitable war.
In other words, the U.S. is seriously considering staging a “humanitarian intervention” in the Middle East.
The decision taken in Dayton [in regards to Bosnia] in fact created a protectorate controlled by NATO, the EU and the U.S., a kind of modern colony almost in the center of Europe. The solution was in the spirit of Lloyd George and Clemenceau. Thus, we can assume that the entire military operation in the former Yugoslav republic had a single goal, i.e. to strengthen the position of Western powers in the Balkans.
The air campaign in Yugoslavia led to the formation of a de facto independent Kosovo, where ethnic minorities live behind barbed wire and cannot even go to the store without armed guards. Another result is the appearance on Kosovo territory of Europe’s largest U.S. military base, Camp Bondsteel…
The Libyan tragedy began in February 2011. It has passed through all stages, from the systematic military destruction of an independent state to the unleashing of chaos and lawlessness.
====
Republican Senator John McCain this week called for air strikes against Damascus. According to AFP, he said that it is necessary to disable the Syrian air defense system, at least in some parts of the country, to “establish and defend safe havens in Syria”.
McCain makes no attempt to conceal the purpose of these “safe zones”. They could be used by an armed opposition to “organize and plan political and military activities”. The American politician openly advocated providing military assistance to the militants, “including weapons and ammunition.”
Of course, McCain is not the U.S. president. He lost the battle for the post to Barack Obama in 2008, and this time around he is not even standing for election. Nonetheless, the Senator has a clear influence on the formation of U.S. foreign policy. We recall that his proposal to launch an operation to oust Muammar Gaddafi received a warm response at the White House. John McCain even visited the rebel stronghold of Benghazi to show U.S. support for Libyan opposition fighters. Thus, we cannot rule out that Washington is preparing to launch a military campaign against Syria. McCain’s statement is intended to prepare world opinion for an inevitable war.
In other words, the U.S. is seriously considering staging a “humanitarian intervention” in the Middle East. In the American political establishment, we can find many supporters of using military force for humanitarian purposes. If necessary, they are prepared to act (and have acted before) without the sanction of the United Nations. However, the success of such operations is highly relative. They often result in a high number of victims and significantly worsen the situation in the country under the banner of “intervention with noble aspirations.”
Examples are easy to find. In 1995, NATO forces launched an air campaign against Bosnian Serbs, thereby getting involved in the civil war in Bosnia.
In this case, NATO armed forces appeared to be intervening in the conflict on the side of Bosnian Muslims and Croats. According to eyewitnesses of those events, the Serbs’ adversaries would attack after massive NATO air raids. As a result, a very original state appeared on the political map of Europe, consisting of two parts: the Muslim-Croat Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Serb Republic. The decision taken in Dayton in fact created a protectorate controlled by NATO, the EU and the U.S., a kind of modern colony almost in the center of Europe. The solution was in the spirit of Lloyd George and Clemenceau. Thus, we can assume that the entire military operation in the former Yugoslav republic had a single goal, i.e. to strengthen the position of Western powers in the Balkans.
Proof of who is actually the master of the situation in Bosnia can be found in the Brcko District, which, in violation of Article 5 of the Dayton Agreement of 1999, has been given an autonomous status. This area, which has great strategic importance, is out of the control of both the Federation and the Serb Republic. The real power is in the hands of an administrator, American diplomat Roderick Moore, who has been in the position since 2010. Does he not resemble a colonial governor-general?
In 1999, Kosovo was the scene of dramatic events that until recently were considered a classic example of “humanitarian intervention”. The U.S. and its NATO allies actually intervened in the internal conflict (bypassing the UN Security Council) in Yugoslavia and incited armed rebellion in a Serbian province. During the three-month air campaign, the strikes hit more than just military targets. Industrial facilities, infrastructure, hospitals, schools and homes were destroyed. At the time of the Kosovo campaign, NATO waged war against the press for the first time. On the night of 22 to 23 April 1999, NATO aircraft launched a missile strike on the building of Radio Television Serbia, killing 16 journalists.
Why not draw direct parallels with the current situation in Syria? Of course, the death of Marie Colvin and Remi Ochlik in Homs is a tragedy, and the international media quite rightly put this issue at center stage. However, they were war correspondents who had been in the besieged city for a long time and entered it illegally, and they were fully aware of the inevitable risks. The killing in Belgrade in 1999, however, involved Yugoslav journalists working in their own country and city and at their workplace. They were killed deliberately, and no one took responsibility for this crime. It simply disappeared from the world’s mainstream media.
The air campaign in Yugoslavia led to the formation of a de facto independent Kosovo, where ethnic minorities live behind barbed wire and cannot even go to the store without armed guards. Another result is the appearance on Kosovo territory of Europe’s largest U.S. military base, Camp Bondsteel, named after an American sergeant and hero of the Vietnam War. In fact, in Europe there has appeared a second enclave (after the one in Bosnia) under the control of NATO and the European Union. Based on available information, Kosovo is now ruled by organized crime. The region has become a nexus for drug trafficking from Afghanistan and Africa to European consumers.
Finally, the most recent example of “humanitarian intervention” was the regime change in Libya carried out by NATO allies. Formally, it was sanctioned by a UN Security Council resolution, though the latter was completely turned on its head. It dealt with the establishment on Libyan territory of a useless zone. Let me remind you that John McCain has called for the same actions in Syria. Thus, we can guess what he has in mind for the Syrian government.
The Libyan tragedy began in February 2011. It has passed through all stages, from the systematic military destruction of an independent state to the unleashing of chaos and lawlessness. At present, Libya is in a state of low-intensity civil war, and the situation in the country is not completely clear. Even the countries that supported the rebels in 2011 cannot build any effective dialogue. There is a total loss of control processes in Libya. If this happens in Syria, which is one of the key states of the Arab world, the consequences for the entire Middle East would be hard to imagine.
These examples show that the doctrine of “humanitarian intervention” espoused by politicians like McCain only leads to one thing: the destruction of statehood, huge civilian casualties, and the complete destabilization of the country being intervened in.
Of course, it is not a foregone conclusion that Washington will adopt Senator McCain’s proposed approach in Syria. However, statements by influential American hawks suggest it is at least being considered by the political leadership of the United States. This is quite worrying.
Therefore, Russia should closely monitor the mood on Capitol Hill. And if necessary, together with countries that share the same positions as Moscow, take diplomatic and other measures to prevent armed action against Syria in defiance of the UN Security Council. In the end, has nothing in the world changed since 1999?
[W]e cannot rule out that Washington is preparing to launch a military campaign against Syria. McCain’s statement is intended to prepare world opinion for an inevitable war.
In other words, the U.S. is seriously considering staging a “humanitarian intervention” in the Middle East.
The decision taken in Dayton [in regards to Bosnia] in fact created a protectorate controlled by NATO, the EU and the U.S., a kind of modern colony almost in the center of Europe. The solution was in the spirit of Lloyd George and Clemenceau. Thus, we can assume that the entire military operation in the former Yugoslav republic had a single goal, i.e. to strengthen the position of Western powers in the Balkans.
The air campaign in Yugoslavia led to the formation of a de facto independent Kosovo, where ethnic minorities live behind barbed wire and cannot even go to the store without armed guards. Another result is the appearance on Kosovo territory of Europe’s largest U.S. military base, Camp Bondsteel…
The Libyan tragedy began in February 2011. It has passed through all stages, from the systematic military destruction of an independent state to the unleashing of chaos and lawlessness.
====
Voice of Russia - March 8, 2012
Bad results of humanitarian intervention practice
Bad results of humanitarian intervention practice
Alexey Pilko*
McCain makes no attempt to conceal the purpose of these “safe zones”. They could be used by an armed opposition to “organize and plan political and military activities”. The American politician openly advocated providing military assistance to the militants, “including weapons and ammunition.”
Of course, McCain is not the U.S. president. He lost the battle for the post to Barack Obama in 2008, and this time around he is not even standing for election. Nonetheless, the Senator has a clear influence on the formation of U.S. foreign policy. We recall that his proposal to launch an operation to oust Muammar Gaddafi received a warm response at the White House. John McCain even visited the rebel stronghold of Benghazi to show U.S. support for Libyan opposition fighters. Thus, we cannot rule out that Washington is preparing to launch a military campaign against Syria. McCain’s statement is intended to prepare world opinion for an inevitable war.
In other words, the U.S. is seriously considering staging a “humanitarian intervention” in the Middle East. In the American political establishment, we can find many supporters of using military force for humanitarian purposes. If necessary, they are prepared to act (and have acted before) without the sanction of the United Nations. However, the success of such operations is highly relative. They often result in a high number of victims and significantly worsen the situation in the country under the banner of “intervention with noble aspirations.”
Examples are easy to find. In 1995, NATO forces launched an air campaign against Bosnian Serbs, thereby getting involved in the civil war in Bosnia.
In this case, NATO armed forces appeared to be intervening in the conflict on the side of Bosnian Muslims and Croats. According to eyewitnesses of those events, the Serbs’ adversaries would attack after massive NATO air raids. As a result, a very original state appeared on the political map of Europe, consisting of two parts: the Muslim-Croat Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Serb Republic. The decision taken in Dayton in fact created a protectorate controlled by NATO, the EU and the U.S., a kind of modern colony almost in the center of Europe. The solution was in the spirit of Lloyd George and Clemenceau. Thus, we can assume that the entire military operation in the former Yugoslav republic had a single goal, i.e. to strengthen the position of Western powers in the Balkans.
Proof of who is actually the master of the situation in Bosnia can be found in the Brcko District, which, in violation of Article 5 of the Dayton Agreement of 1999, has been given an autonomous status. This area, which has great strategic importance, is out of the control of both the Federation and the Serb Republic. The real power is in the hands of an administrator, American diplomat Roderick Moore, who has been in the position since 2010. Does he not resemble a colonial governor-general?
In 1999, Kosovo was the scene of dramatic events that until recently were considered a classic example of “humanitarian intervention”. The U.S. and its NATO allies actually intervened in the internal conflict (bypassing the UN Security Council) in Yugoslavia and incited armed rebellion in a Serbian province. During the three-month air campaign, the strikes hit more than just military targets. Industrial facilities, infrastructure, hospitals, schools and homes were destroyed. At the time of the Kosovo campaign, NATO waged war against the press for the first time. On the night of 22 to 23 April 1999, NATO aircraft launched a missile strike on the building of Radio Television Serbia, killing 16 journalists.
Why not draw direct parallels with the current situation in Syria? Of course, the death of Marie Colvin and Remi Ochlik in Homs is a tragedy, and the international media quite rightly put this issue at center stage. However, they were war correspondents who had been in the besieged city for a long time and entered it illegally, and they were fully aware of the inevitable risks. The killing in Belgrade in 1999, however, involved Yugoslav journalists working in their own country and city and at their workplace. They were killed deliberately, and no one took responsibility for this crime. It simply disappeared from the world’s mainstream media.
The air campaign in Yugoslavia led to the formation of a de facto independent Kosovo, where ethnic minorities live behind barbed wire and cannot even go to the store without armed guards. Another result is the appearance on Kosovo territory of Europe’s largest U.S. military base, Camp Bondsteel, named after an American sergeant and hero of the Vietnam War. In fact, in Europe there has appeared a second enclave (after the one in Bosnia) under the control of NATO and the European Union. Based on available information, Kosovo is now ruled by organized crime. The region has become a nexus for drug trafficking from Afghanistan and Africa to European consumers.
Finally, the most recent example of “humanitarian intervention” was the regime change in Libya carried out by NATO allies. Formally, it was sanctioned by a UN Security Council resolution, though the latter was completely turned on its head. It dealt with the establishment on Libyan territory of a useless zone. Let me remind you that John McCain has called for the same actions in Syria. Thus, we can guess what he has in mind for the Syrian government.
The Libyan tragedy began in February 2011. It has passed through all stages, from the systematic military destruction of an independent state to the unleashing of chaos and lawlessness. At present, Libya is in a state of low-intensity civil war, and the situation in the country is not completely clear. Even the countries that supported the rebels in 2011 cannot build any effective dialogue. There is a total loss of control processes in Libya. If this happens in Syria, which is one of the key states of the Arab world, the consequences for the entire Middle East would be hard to imagine.
These examples show that the doctrine of “humanitarian intervention” espoused by politicians like McCain only leads to one thing: the destruction of statehood, huge civilian casualties, and the complete destabilization of the country being intervened in.
Of course, it is not a foregone conclusion that Washington will adopt Senator McCain’s proposed approach in Syria. However, statements by influential American hawks suggest it is at least being considered by the political leadership of the United States. This is quite worrying.
Therefore, Russia should closely monitor the mood on Capitol Hill. And if necessary, together with countries that share the same positions as Moscow, take diplomatic and other measures to prevent armed action against Syria in defiance of the UN Security Council. In the end, has nothing in the world changed since 1999?
*Alexey Pilko, Associate Professor at the Moscow State University Faculty of History
=== * ===
E' nata indoona : chiama, videochiama e messaggia Gratis.
Scarica indoona per iPhone, Android e PC
http://www.noidonne.org/articolo.php?ID=03913
Israele
Export - import di coppie miste
Ogni anno migliaia di coppie israeliane di diversa religione si sposano all’estero perché nel loro paese non esistono le unioni civili. Ne parliamo con la giornalista italo-marocchina Anna Mahjar-Barducci
Nel giugno del 2011 la piazza centrale di Larnaca, a Cipro, divenne per un giorno teatro di un vero e proprio matrimonio di massa. 170 coppie arrivate da Israele per dire sì al loro amore. Non un evento eccezionale perché le statistiche parlano chiaro: ogni anno almeno 1000 coppie di futuri sposi israeliani si recano a Cipro perché nello Stato ebraico “formalizzare” il proprio amore é impossibile se i promessi sposi appartengono a due fedi religiose diverse o semplicemente qualora uno dei due non abbia alcun credo. La legislazione attualmente in vigore consente infatti di sposarsi solamente all’interno di una delle dodici comunità religiose riconosciute (ebraica, musulmana, drusa e nove diverse confessioni cristiane). Non essendo contemplato il matrimonio civile (riconosciuto dalla Corte Suprema israeliana se registrato in un paese estero) migliaia di coppie “miste” sono costrette ogni anno a spendere soldi per sposarsi fuori, lontano dalle loro famiglie, e a sottoporsi ad una lunga trafila burocratica perché il loro matrimonio sia poi formalmente riconosciuto dal Ministero degli Interni. Tanto che il matrimonio a Cipro è diventato una delle opzioni offerte dai pacchetti turistici delle agenzie di viaggio israeliane. Un articolo apparso la scorsa estate sul quotidiano israeliano Haaretz mette in luce come la mancanza di una legislazione sulle nozze civili sia legata alla cosiddetta haredizzazione della società israeliana, vale a dire alla crescente influenza dell’establishment dell’ebraismo ortodosso, che detiene anche la gestione di tematiche della sfera civile, quali il matrimonio e la famiglia. Con l’appoggio palese dei vertici politici. Nel luglio 2011 il parlamento israeliano, la Knesset, ha bocciato la proposta di legge per consentire i matrimoni civili, una sconfitta in termini di libertà che si deve, secondo le parole del deputato Nitzan Horowitz (del partito Meretz, promotore del disegno), alle comunità ultra-ortodosse. A riprova che lo Stato di Israele si “va sempre più trasformando in una fortezza ebraica” citando il giornalista Johnatan Cook. “È un paese che si va sempre più richiudendo in se stesso” dice Anna Mahjar-Barducci, giornalista e scrittrice italo-marocchina autrice di due libri, “Italo-marocchina” edito da Diabasis e “Pakistan Express” uscito per Lindau. La sua storia è l’emblema delle difficoltà che ogni anno le coppie “miste” e i loro figli incontrano in Israele. Cresciuta tra la Versilia, il Marocco, la Tunisia e il Pakistan, anche Anna, che non è ebrea, ha dovuto recarsi a Cipro per sposare quello che è diventato suo marito, un ebreo israeliano. Dopo un anno (durante il quale sulla carta di identità di suo marito è apparsa la scritta “sotto investigazione”) lo Stato di Israele ha finalmente riconosciuto la loro unione. E fino a qui tutto bene. I due coniugi, affinché Anna abbia il suo permesso di soggiorno regolarmente rinnovato, devono sottoporsi a interrogatori separati condotti dal Ministero degli Interni e presentare ogni volta lettere di “raccomandazione” scritte da amici e parenti. Le complicazioni burocratiche, da vero teatro beckettiano, sono nate però quando i due coniugi hanno avuto una bambina, Hili, nell’agosto del 2009. “Non essendo io né israeliana e neppure di fede ebraica, lo Stato di Israele non ha voluto che mia figlia avesse il cognome paterno, nonostante mio marito avesse già riconosciuto la bimba e noi fossimo regolarmente sposati, ci hanno obbligati a sottoporci ad un test del DNA. Il primo certificato di nascita di Hili non riportava né il nome del padre né la nazionalità, ma soltanto il mio cognome. Per otto mesi, Hili è stata apolide e non abbiamo potuto lasciare il paese”. Quando suo marito - che tra l’altro è anche stato consigliere del premier Yitzhak Rabin e ha ricoperto alti ruoli nell’Esercito - si è lamentato con il Ministero degli Interni, si è sentito rispondere dall’impiegata responsabile che era "una vergogna che lui portasse degli stranieri in Israele". “Il test lo abbiamo dovuto fare a nostre spese - racconta Anna - spendendo 1000 euro, a cui si aggiungono le spese legali di quasi 2000 euro per il Tribunale della Famiglia. Soltanto dopo otto mesi dalla sua nascita, Hili ha avuto un nuovo certificato di nascita con il cognome paterno e il passaporto”. Ovviamente le voci “religione” e “nazionalità”sul suo documento sono vuote. “Ogni giorno, quando porto al parco mia figlia nel parco a Gerusalemme incontro decine di donne i cui figli sono nella stessa situazione. Questi bimbi sono cittadini israeliani a tutti gli effetti, un giorno saranno uomini e donne, pagheranno i contributi allo Stato e saranno obbligati - così vuole la legge - a fare il servizio militare; eppure non potranno godere del diritto a sposarsi nel loro paese”. Negli anni ’60 il caso di Benjamin Shalit, sposato ad una donna cristiana, fece scalpore. Quando tentò di registrare suo figlio come “senza religione”, ovvero appartenente al popolo ebraico ma non alla religione, fu costretto a rivolgersi alla Corte Suprema, che alla fine gli diede ragione. Una decisione che scatenò polemiche tali da parte degli ortodossi che negli anni ’70 un emendamento approvato dal Parlamento decretò che solo chi si dichiara “religiosamente” ebreo secondo l’halakha (ovvero la tradizione giuridica dell’ebraismo di cui il Gran Rabbinato è l’autorità) può essere anche considerato parte del popolo ebraico. “Anche la legge approvata nel 2010 sulle unioni civili di persone non religiose, non risolve il problema - afferma Anna -. Ancora una volta si ghettizza, trattandosi di una riforma di facciata”. Il matrimonio civile, infatti, è attualmente consentito ma solo nel caso in cui entrambi i coniugi abbiano certificati di nascita sui quali è indicato “senza affiliazione religiosa. La sinistra israeliana non porta avanti alcuna battaglia per i diritti civili. E a destra è ancora peggio. Anche durante l’enorme ondata di protesta sociale che ha interessato il paese la scorsa estate, sono stati dimenticati i diritti civili, come se poi lo sviluppo economico e quello della società fossero due elementi separati. Viene negato un diritto fondamentale, quello di sposare liberamente chi si ama. In questo senso Israele viola apertamente l’articolo 16 della Dichiarazione Universale per i Diritti Umani (ndr secondo cui uomini e donne, senza limitazioni relative a razza, nazionalità o religione, hanno il diritto di sposarsi e formare una famiglia)”. Anna conclude con il racconto amaro di un commento di cui è stata testimone, mentre frequentava il corso di ebraico a Gerusalemme. La sua insegnante israeliana, in jeans attillatissimi, ha candidamente ammesso “non vorrei mai che mio figlio sposasse una ragazza non ebrea”. “Se una madre ‘bianca’ affermasse che non vuole che sua figlia sposi un ‘nero’ - dice Anna - sarebbe accusata di razzismo. Negli Stati Uniti puoi essere denunciato per una frase simile”.
(12 Marzo 2012)
(12 Marzo 2012)
=== * ===
E' nata indoona : chiama, videochiama e messaggia Gratis.
Scarica indoona per iPhone, Android e PC
(srpskohrvatski / english.
Nei giorni scorsi a Belgrado veniva commemorato l'anniversario dell'assassinio dell'ex premier serbo Djindjic, mentre l'anniversario dell'assassinio dell'ex presidente Milosevic nella galera dell'Aia passava in sordina. Con un duro comunicato la SKOJ - organizzazione giovanile del Nuovo Partito Comunista di Jugoslavia / NKPJ - ha contestato il martirologio della figura di Djindjic, che è stato tra i principali artefici del golpe del 2000, dello scioglimento della RF di Jugoslavia e della svendita della Serbia all'imperialismo straniero, ed in quanto tale fu già criticato a suo tempo persino dalle pagine del Guardian...)
Zoran Djindjic
1) The quisling of Belgrade (Neil Clark, 2003)
2) Tragična smrt ne abolira fašistička dela (SKOJ, 2012)
=== 1 ===
Comment
The quisling of Belgrade
The murdered Serbian prime minister was a reviled western stooge whose economic reforms brought misery
- The Guardian, Friday 14 March 2003 02.45 GMT
Tributes to Zoran Djindjic, the assassinated prime minister of Serbia, have been pouring in. President Bush led the way, praising his "strong leadership", while the Canadian government's spokesman extolled a "heralder of democracy" and Tony Blair spoke of the energy Djindjic had devoted to "reforming Serbia".
In western newspaper obituaries Djindjic has been almost universally acclaimed as an ex-student agititator who bravely led a popular uprising against a tyrannical dictator and endeavoured to steer his country into a new democratic era.
But beyond the CNN version of world history, the career of Zoran Djindjic looks rather different. Those who rail against the doctrine of regime change should remember that Iraq is far from being the first country where the US and other western governments have tried to engineer the removal of a government that did not suit their strategic interests. Three years ago it was the turn of Slobodan Milosevic's Yugoslavia.
In his recent biography of Milosevic, Adam LeBor reveals how the US poured $70m into the coffers of the Serb opposition in its efforts to oust the Yugoslav leader in 2000. On the orders of Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, a covert US Office of Yugoslav Affairs was set up to help organise the uprising that would sweep the autocratic Milosevic from power.
At the same time, there is evidence that underworld groups, controlled by Zoran Djindjic and linked to US intelligence, carried out a series of assassinations of key supporters of the Milosevic regime, including Defence Minister Pavle Bulatovic and Zika Petrovic, head of Yugoslav Airlines.
With Slobo and his socialist party finally toppled, the US got the "reforming" government in Belgrade it desired. The new President Vojislav Kostunica received the bouquets, but it was the State Department's man, Zoran Djindjic, who held the levers of power - and he certainly did not let his Washington sponsors down.
The first priority was to embark on a programme of "economic reform" - new-world-order-speak for the selling of state assets at knockdown prices to western multinationals. Over 700,000 Yugoslav enterprises remained in social ownership and most were still controlled by employee-management committees, with only 5% of capital privately owned. Companies could only be sold if 60% of the shares were allocated to workers.
Djindjic moved swiftly to change the law and the great sell-off could now begin. After two years in which thousands of socially owned enterprises have been sold (many to companies from countries which took part in the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia), last month's World Bank report was lavish in its praise of the Djindjic government and its "engagement of international banks in the privatisation process".
But it wasn't just state assets that Djindjic was under orders to sell. Milosevic had to go too, for a promised $100m, even if it effectively meant kidnapping him in contravention of Yugoslav law, and sending him by RAF jet to a US-financed show trial at the Hague. When a man has sold his country's assets, its ex-president and his main political rivals, what else is there to sell? Only the country itself. And in January this year Djindjic did just that. Despite the opposition of most of its citizens, the "heralder of democracy" followed the requirements of the "international community" and after 74 years the name of Yugoslavia disappeared off the political map. The strategic goal of its replacement with a series of weak and divided protectorates had finally been achieved.
Sometimes, though, even the best executed plans go awry. Despite the western eulogies, Djindjic will be mourned by few in Serbia. For the great majority of Serbs, he will be remembered as a quisling who enriched himself by selling his country to those who had waged war against it so mercilessly only a few years earlier. Djindjic's much lauded reforms have led to soaring utility prices, unemployment has risen sharply to over 30%, real wages have fallen by up to 20% and over two-thirds of Serbs now live below the poverty line.
It is still unclear who fired the shots that killed Zoran Djindjic. The likelihood is that it was an underworld operation, his links to organised crime finally catching up with him. But, harsh though it sounds, there are many in Serbia who would willingly have pulled the trigger. On a recent visit to Belgrade, I was struck not only by the level of economic hardship, but by the hatred almost everyone I met felt towards their prime minister, whose poll ratings had fallen below 10%.
The lesson from Serbia for today's serial regime changers is a simple one. You can try to subjugate a people by sanctions, subversion and bombs. You can, if you wish, overthrow governments you dislike and seek to impose your will by installing a Hamid Karzai, General Tommy Franks or a Zoran Djindjic to act as imperial consul. But do not imagine that you can then force a humiliated people to pay homage to them.
· Neil Clark is writing a book about the recent history of Yugoslavia
=== 2 ===
http://www.skoj.org.rs/67.html
TRAGIČNA SMRT NE ABOLIRA FAŠISTIČKA DELA
Tragično preminuli neofašistički premijer Đinđić ne prestaje da bude predmet radikalne idealizacije i obožavanja buržoaskih partija u Srbiji. Ovih dana uoči datuma njegove smrti smo ponovo bili svedoci različitih propagandnih manifestacija poput šetnji za Zorana, tribina za Zorana, koncerata za Zorana... Svi ti sletovi na koje se troše ogromne sume naših para buržuji koriste kako bi dalje raspirivali mit o njegovom vizionarstvu kojim pokušavaju da dočaraju sliku ojađenim i izgladnelim građanima naše zemlje o tome da je san bio tako lako ostvariv i moguć, samo da ga njegovi kerovi na lancu koji su ga u pučističkom prevratu 5. okobra doveli na vlast nisu rastrgli. Niko ne krije njegovu duboku upletenost u prljave mafijaške rabote dojučerašnjih najbližih saradnika Željka Ražnatovića Arkana, a i kako bi kada se sećamo članaka iz naše štampe u kojima je sam Đinđić govorio o Legiji kao svom velikom prijatelju, kom je uostalom imao da zahvali za lojalnost kad mu je bila najpotrebnija, bez koje ne bi oborio Miloševića, pa ga potom i uhapsio i isporučio imperialstičkom oruđu, sudu u Hagu.
Međutim kakav je to san koji smo bespovratni ispustili da dosanjamo tom ogromnom brzinom koju nam je njegov besprekorni tempo rada bio omogućio? Promovišući taj san buržuji žele da sakriju košmar bede u kojoj naše društvo svakodnevno grca, a nikakav vizionar, istinski vizionar, ne može da je previdi. Dobronamerni ljudi svesni istorijske uloge i dela ubijenog premijera, u najboljem bi slučaju za Đinđića rekli da je on bio samo jedan naivni idealista koji nije shvatio kakav nam se zapravo košmar s njegovim snom sprema. Međutim, mi kao marksisti-lenjinisti, revolucionari, ne možemo biti dobronamerni prema klasnom neprijatelju, a Đinđić je bio egzamplarni model klasnog neprijatelja radnog naroda naše zemlje.
Mi skojevci ćemo uvek između antikomunizma i fašizma podvlačiti znak jednakosti. Zoran Đinđić je bio ostrašćeni antikomunista. To potvrđuje bezbroj njegovih izjava, članaka i knjiga u kojima se on koristi autentičnom fašističkom argumentacijom kojom komunizam naziva „bolešću“, a svoju političku misiju vidi u nalaženju „leka“ za istu. Taj svoj lek on nam je prepisao na najbrutalniji način dolaskom na vlast, munjevito odstranjujući milion zaposlenih, odstranjujući besplatno obrazovanje, državno vlasništvo nad preduzećima u mnogim granama privrede, odstranjujući 50 do 70 % stočnog fonda, udvostručavanjem pa kasnije i utostručavanjem spoljnog duga, a za kasnije, sovojim naslednicima je ostavio u amanet i odstranjivanje Kosova i Metohije iz Srbije. Sve to je bio njegov lek za teško izlečive „bolesti komunizma“ koje smo spomenuli. Antikomunizam Zorana Đinđića je logična reakcija kojom su bila odgajana mnoga deca titovih oficira poput njega u revizionističkom titoizmu u Jugoslaviji, u kom su bile podsticane različite reakcionarne i antikomunističke devijantne buržoaske ideje. Tako je mladi Zoki za sebe tvrdio da je anarhista, ludo zagriženi kropotkinovac, što je samo izdigao na viši nivo odlaskom na postdiplomske studije u Saveznu Republiku Nemačku (neće sigurno iz titove Jugoslavije da ide na studije u Demokratsku Republiku Nemačku) gde je mogao da dodatno unapredi svoja reakcionarna i nenaučna anarhistička gledišta koja ga konačno vode do onoga do čega svaki napredni anarhista na kraju svog „revolucionarnog“ puta stiže – liberalzam, i to „neo“! Takav nam se Zoki vraća u domovinu zaglibanu u nasleđene „bolesti komunizma“ i njegove radikalne titoističke reakcije i „pravilno“ shvata da sve ono čega su ga naučili anarhizam i neoliberalizam može da postigne samo raspirivanjem histeričnog antikomunizma kom je najbolji saveznik oduvek bio malograđanski i šovinistički nacionalizam. Ne sedi Zoran skrštenih ruku, i kako imperijalisti otpočinju sa rušenjem naše domovine SFRJ formira stranku istočnik buržoaske i proimerijalističke misli i organizacija u Srbiji, otpočinje i rat, te on organizuje ultrancionalističke paravojne formacije, peče vola na Palama s Radovanom Karadžićem, tokom NATO agresije na SR Jugoslaviju odlazi na zapad da ih moli da dodatno intenziviraju napade kako bi on što pre došao na vlast, a na kraju svoj prljavi malograđanski pir zaokružuje uvođenjem veronauke u škole pravdajući to „visoko demokratskim činom“. Međutim, malograđanski nacionalizam koji je Đinđić tokom devedesetih jednako raspirivao kao i njegovi saborci i tobožnji protivnici iz buržoaskih partija u Srbiji pokazo se samo maskom brutalnog klasnog tlačenja koje je njegova osnovna suština i koje postaje više nego očigledno kako Đinđić preuzima apsolutnu vlast u Srbiji. Ovaj apsolutista vlada kratko i umire kako bi mit mogao da živi.
Danas, u toku predizborne kampanje bržoaskih partija kada se u Srbiji sprovodi brutalna klasna eksploatacija radnog naroda, kada nezaposlenost, spoljni dug, inflacija i školarine strmoglavo rastu, mit o Đinđiću je jedino za šta se buržuji mogu čvrsto držati u svojoj propagandi laži. Slika svakodnevice radnog naroda Srbije taj mit rastura u paran parčad, a neće još mnogo vremena proći kada ćemo jednom zauvek strgnuti tu ljagu s naše istorije u novim pobedama radnog naroda u klasnom ratu.
Savez komunističke omladine Jugoslavije
TRAGIČNA SMRT NE ABOLIRA FAŠISTIČKA DELA
Tragično preminuli neofašistički premijer Đinđić ne prestaje da bude predmet radikalne idealizacije i obožavanja buržoaskih partija u Srbiji. Ovih dana uoči datuma njegove smrti smo ponovo bili svedoci različitih propagandnih manifestacija poput šetnji za Zorana, tribina za Zorana, koncerata za Zorana... Svi ti sletovi na koje se troše ogromne sume naših para buržuji koriste kako bi dalje raspirivali mit o njegovom vizionarstvu kojim pokušavaju da dočaraju sliku ojađenim i izgladnelim građanima naše zemlje o tome da je san bio tako lako ostvariv i moguć, samo da ga njegovi kerovi na lancu koji su ga u pučističkom prevratu 5. okobra doveli na vlast nisu rastrgli. Niko ne krije njegovu duboku upletenost u prljave mafijaške rabote dojučerašnjih najbližih saradnika Željka Ražnatovića Arkana, a i kako bi kada se sećamo članaka iz naše štampe u kojima je sam Đinđić govorio o Legiji kao svom velikom prijatelju, kom je uostalom imao da zahvali za lojalnost kad mu je bila najpotrebnija, bez koje ne bi oborio Miloševića, pa ga potom i uhapsio i isporučio imperialstičkom oruđu, sudu u Hagu.
Međutim kakav je to san koji smo bespovratni ispustili da dosanjamo tom ogromnom brzinom koju nam je njegov besprekorni tempo rada bio omogućio? Promovišući taj san buržuji žele da sakriju košmar bede u kojoj naše društvo svakodnevno grca, a nikakav vizionar, istinski vizionar, ne može da je previdi. Dobronamerni ljudi svesni istorijske uloge i dela ubijenog premijera, u najboljem bi slučaju za Đinđića rekli da je on bio samo jedan naivni idealista koji nije shvatio kakav nam se zapravo košmar s njegovim snom sprema. Međutim, mi kao marksisti-lenjinisti, revolucionari, ne možemo biti dobronamerni prema klasnom neprijatelju, a Đinđić je bio egzamplarni model klasnog neprijatelja radnog naroda naše zemlje.
Mi skojevci ćemo uvek između antikomunizma i fašizma podvlačiti znak jednakosti. Zoran Đinđić je bio ostrašćeni antikomunista. To potvrđuje bezbroj njegovih izjava, članaka i knjiga u kojima se on koristi autentičnom fašističkom argumentacijom kojom komunizam naziva „bolešću“, a svoju političku misiju vidi u nalaženju „leka“ za istu. Taj svoj lek on nam je prepisao na najbrutalniji način dolaskom na vlast, munjevito odstranjujući milion zaposlenih, odstranjujući besplatno obrazovanje, državno vlasništvo nad preduzećima u mnogim granama privrede, odstranjujući 50 do 70 % stočnog fonda, udvostručavanjem pa kasnije i utostručavanjem spoljnog duga, a za kasnije, sovojim naslednicima je ostavio u amanet i odstranjivanje Kosova i Metohije iz Srbije. Sve to je bio njegov lek za teško izlečive „bolesti komunizma“ koje smo spomenuli. Antikomunizam Zorana Đinđića je logična reakcija kojom su bila odgajana mnoga deca titovih oficira poput njega u revizionističkom titoizmu u Jugoslaviji, u kom su bile podsticane različite reakcionarne i antikomunističke devijantne buržoaske ideje. Tako je mladi Zoki za sebe tvrdio da je anarhista, ludo zagriženi kropotkinovac, što je samo izdigao na viši nivo odlaskom na postdiplomske studije u Saveznu Republiku Nemačku (neće sigurno iz titove Jugoslavije da ide na studije u Demokratsku Republiku Nemačku) gde je mogao da dodatno unapredi svoja reakcionarna i nenaučna anarhistička gledišta koja ga konačno vode do onoga do čega svaki napredni anarhista na kraju svog „revolucionarnog“ puta stiže – liberalzam, i to „neo“! Takav nam se Zoki vraća u domovinu zaglibanu u nasleđene „bolesti komunizma“ i njegove radikalne titoističke reakcije i „pravilno“ shvata da sve ono čega su ga naučili anarhizam i neoliberalizam može da postigne samo raspirivanjem histeričnog antikomunizma kom je najbolji saveznik oduvek bio malograđanski i šovinistički nacionalizam. Ne sedi Zoran skrštenih ruku, i kako imperijalisti otpočinju sa rušenjem naše domovine SFRJ formira stranku istočnik buržoaske i proimerijalističke misli i organizacija u Srbiji, otpočinje i rat, te on organizuje ultrancionalističke paravojne formacije, peče vola na Palama s Radovanom Karadžićem, tokom NATO agresije na SR Jugoslaviju odlazi na zapad da ih moli da dodatno intenziviraju napade kako bi on što pre došao na vlast, a na kraju svoj prljavi malograđanski pir zaokružuje uvođenjem veronauke u škole pravdajući to „visoko demokratskim činom“. Međutim, malograđanski nacionalizam koji je Đinđić tokom devedesetih jednako raspirivao kao i njegovi saborci i tobožnji protivnici iz buržoaskih partija u Srbiji pokazo se samo maskom brutalnog klasnog tlačenja koje je njegova osnovna suština i koje postaje više nego očigledno kako Đinđić preuzima apsolutnu vlast u Srbiji. Ovaj apsolutista vlada kratko i umire kako bi mit mogao da živi.
Danas, u toku predizborne kampanje bržoaskih partija kada se u Srbiji sprovodi brutalna klasna eksploatacija radnog naroda, kada nezaposlenost, spoljni dug, inflacija i školarine strmoglavo rastu, mit o Đinđiću je jedino za šta se buržuji mogu čvrsto držati u svojoj propagandi laži. Slika svakodnevice radnog naroda Srbije taj mit rastura u paran parčad, a neće još mnogo vremena proći kada ćemo jednom zauvek strgnuti tu ljagu s naše istorije u novim pobedama radnog naroda u klasnom ratu.
Savez komunističke omladine Jugoslavije
Beograd, 12. mart 2012. godine
=== * ===
E' nata indoona : chiama, videochiama e messaggia Gratis.
Scarica indoona per iPhone, Android e PC
(srpskohrvatski / english / deutsch / italiano)
Belgrade 24 March 1999-2012: THEY STARTED IT WITH A LIE
1) COMMEMORATIVE EVENTS ON THE 13TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE NATO AGGRESSION
Комеморативне активности поводом 13 година агресије НАТО / Programma iniziative a Belgrado per il 13.mo dell'aggressione NАТО
2) ES BEGANN MIT EINER LUEGE / IT STARTED WITH A LIE
"NATO bombed Serbia because of lies", former German member of OSCE mission says
* Link to the Deutsche TV NDR reportage (program "Zeitreise")
* Links to the docu-film ES BEGANN MIT EINER LUEGE (2001)
LINKS:
DOCUMENTAZIONE COMPLETA sulla aggressione della NATO contro la Repubblica Federale di Jugoslavia
24 marzo - 6 giugno 1999
https://www.cnj.it/24MARZO99/index.htm
VIDEO: Michael Parenti - The U.S. War on Yugoslavia
talk given May 16, 1999 in Seattle, WA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEzOgpMWnVs
WHITE BOOKS about NATO aggression against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
NATO Crimes in Yugoslavia - Documentary Evidence
24 March - 24 April 1999 - Part One
Belgrade, Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1999
Preface Zivadin Jovanovic - ISBN 86-7549-124-7
HTML: https://www.cnj.it/24MARZO99/dvd_target/docs/wb1/index.htm
PDF: http://www.beoforum.rs/download/white-books-nato-aggression/ISBN-86-7549-124-7.html
NATO Crimes in Yugoslavia - Documentary Evidence
25 April - 10 June 1999 - Part Two
Belgrade, Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1999
ISBN 86-7549-134-4
HTML: https://www.cnj.it/24MARZO99/dvd_target/docs/wb2/sadrzaj.htm
PDF: http://www.beoforum.rs/download/white-books-nato-aggression/ISBN-86-7549-134-4.html
NATO AGGRESSION AGAINST THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA - Documents Part One
PDF: http://www.beoforum.rs/download/white-books-nato-aggression/ISBN-86-7549-178-6-Part-One.html
NATO AGGRESSION AGAINST THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA - Documents Part Two
PDF: http://www.beoforum.rs/download/white-books-nato-aggression/ISBN-86-7549-178-6-Part-Two.html
=== 1 ===
Programma iniziative a Belgrado per il 13.mo dell'aggressione NАТО
venerdi 23/3: tavola rotonda sul Kosmet / prima del film "Da Belgrado a Bagdad"
sabato 24/3: deposizione corona di fiori al monumento delle vittime
Комеморативне активности поводом 13 година агресије НАТОПоштовани,
Независна, нестраначка удружења – Београдски форум за свет равноправних, Савез удружења бораца народноослободилачког рата (СУБНОР) Србије и Клуб генерала и адмирала Србије и ове године организују комеморативне активности поводом 13. годишњице од почетка агресије НАТО пакта против Србије (СРЈ).
У петак, 23 марта 2012. године, у 11 часова одржаће се Округли сто на тему „Косово и Метохија – 13 година после агресије НАТО“.
Истог дана у 13:30 часова, одржаће се премијера филма “Од Београда до Багдада”, канадских аутора Радослава Огњеновића, редитеља и Скота Тејлора, новинара и публицисте.
Оба ова догађаја одржаће се у Амфитеатру Сава Центра, Нови Београд, улаз из улице Милентија Поповића бр.9.У суботу, 24 марта 2012. године, у 12 часова, организатори, друга удружења грађана и појединци, положиће венце и цвеће на споменик жртвама агресије, на Ушћу, Нови Београд.
Част нам је да Вас позовемо да присуствујете овим комеморативним догађајима како би смо на тај начин заједнички исказали поштовање према многобројним људским жртвама НАТО агресора и послали поруку мира.
С поштовањем,КЛУБ ГЕНЕРАЛА И АДМИРАЛА СРБИЈЕ
Љубиша СтојимировићСУБНОР СРБИЈЕ
Проф. Др Миодраг ЗечевићБЕОГРАДСКИ ФОРУМ ЗА СВЕТ РАВНОПРАВНИХ
Живадин Јовановић
Inizio messaggio inoltrato:
Da: "Zivadin Jovanovic"Data: 08 marzo 2012 09.27.06 GMT+01.00Živadin JovanovićChairmanBelgrade Forum for a World of Equals
Belgrade, March 7th, 2012
COMMEMORATIVE EVENTS ON THE 13TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE NATO AGGRESSION
Independent, nonparty civic associations – The Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals, The League of Veterans of the People’s Liberation Struggle of Serbia and the Club of Generals and Admirals of Serbia are organizing traditional commemorative activities on the occasion of 13th anniversary of the NATO 1999 aggression against Serbia (FR Yugoslavia). The aggression has caused over 3.500 deaths, over 10.000 wounded, two thirds of whom were civilians and over 100 billion US dollars economic damage. During 78 days of constant bombings NATO has used missiles with the depleted uranium causing lasting pollution of the soil, water and food and malignant deceases and deaths.
On Friday, March 23rd, 2012, at 11 a.m. there will be held the round table “Kosovo and Metohija 13 years after NATO Aggression”, in the Sava Conference Center (Amphitheater), Main entrance, Street Milentije Popovic No.9. The Round table will be followed by the documentary film “From Belgrade to Baghdad”, of Canadian authors Radoslav Ognjenovic, Director, and Scott Taylor, journalist and publicist. Free Entrance.
On Saturday, March 24rth, 2012, at 11 a.m. delegations will lay flowers at the Monument to the children victims in the Tasmajdan Park and at 12 noon to the Monument of Eternal Flame at Usce, New Belgrade
The public is welcome to attend these events to pay respect to the victims and send common message of peace.
LVPLSS Prof. Miodrag Zecevic Chairman
CLUB OF GENERALS AND ADMIRALS Ljubisa Stojimirovic Chairman
BELGRADE FORUM Zivadin Jovanovic Chairman
[links:
http://www.en.beoforum.rs/press-releases-belgrade-forum-for-the-world-of-equals/240-commemoratiev-events-on-the-13th-anyverssary-of-the-nato-aggression.html
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29664 ]
=== 2 ===
http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2012&mm=02&dd=28&nav_id=79007
B92 - February 28, 2012
"NATO bombed Serbia because of lies"
VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy9JZk8GBlw
BELGRADE: NATO launched its 1999 war against Serbia "because of German Defense Minister Rudolf Scharping's lies", claims a former member of an OSCE mission in Kosovo.
Belgrade-based Blic newspaper writes, quoting the Vestionline website, that ahead of the start of the war, Scharping falsely presented members of the ethnic Albanian KLA "rebels" as civilian victims.
The Serbian authorities considered the KLA to be a terrorist group.
Scharping was accused by former German police official Henning Hensch, an OSCE observer in Kosovo before the war, who spoke for Germany's NDR television.
This OSCE observer was personally present during the investigation of the scene in Rugovo in Kosovo in January 1999, where Serbian police units fought against KLA members.
The German television program featuring an interview with Hensch also showed Scharping in a news conference in early 1999, where he presented photographs from Rugovo of KLA members killed in battle, claiming they depicted massacred civilians.
Furthermore, the German minister told reporters that the OSCE photos of the scene were made "secretly by a German officer", and that he would have "gladly presented him (to reporters)", but that the officer is question was "receiving medical treatment because of the traumatic experiences" that he underwent in Kosovo.
13 years later, NDR journalists asked the German Defense Ministry to confirm that "a German officer" was in the area at the time secretly taking photoraphs, to after several weeks receive a reply that this was not the case.
Scharping himself, said the television, could not be reached for comment.
NATO's aerial war lasted for 78 days in the spring of 1999, and ended with the signing of the Kumanovo Agreement, and the adoption of Resolution 1244 at the UN Security Council.
B92 - February 28, 2012
"NATO bombed Serbia because of lies"
VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy9JZk8GBlw
BELGRADE: NATO launched its 1999 war against Serbia "because of German Defense Minister Rudolf Scharping's lies", claims a former member of an OSCE mission in Kosovo.
Belgrade-based Blic newspaper writes, quoting the Vestionline website, that ahead of the start of the war, Scharping falsely presented members of the ethnic Albanian KLA "rebels" as civilian victims.
The Serbian authorities considered the KLA to be a terrorist group.
Scharping was accused by former German police official Henning Hensch, an OSCE observer in Kosovo before the war, who spoke for Germany's NDR television.
This OSCE observer was personally present during the investigation of the scene in Rugovo in Kosovo in January 1999, where Serbian police units fought against KLA members.
The German television program featuring an interview with Hensch also showed Scharping in a news conference in early 1999, where he presented photographs from Rugovo of KLA members killed in battle, claiming they depicted massacred civilians.
Furthermore, the German minister told reporters that the OSCE photos of the scene were made "secretly by a German officer", and that he would have "gladly presented him (to reporters)", but that the officer is question was "receiving medical treatment because of the traumatic experiences" that he underwent in Kosovo.
13 years later, NDR journalists asked the German Defense Ministry to confirm that "a German officer" was in the area at the time secretly taking photoraphs, to after several weeks receive a reply that this was not the case.
Scharping himself, said the television, could not be reached for comment.
NATO's aerial war lasted for 78 days in the spring of 1999, and ended with the signing of the Kumanovo Agreement, and the adoption of Resolution 1244 at the UN Security Council.
---
VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy9JZk8GBlw
Istina o razlozima napada NATO na Srbiju 1999-te i glavnom krivcu tadašnjem ministru odbrane Nemačke Rudolfu Šarpingu.
U ovom prilogu ćete videte svedočenje gospodina Heninga koji je tada na Kosovu bio posmatrač OEBS-a i lično je prisustvovao uviđaju u Rugovu, gde se desila borba između srpskih policijskih jedinica i UČK pobunjenika.
Tadašnji ministar Rudolf Šarping je zloupotrebio čitavu situaciju i predstavio UČK pobunjenike kao civilne žrtve, što je dovelo i opravdavalo vojni napad na Srbiju.
U ovom prilogu ćete videte svedočenje gospodina Heninga koji je tada na Kosovu bio posmatrač OEBS-a i lično je prisustvovao uviđaju u Rugovu, gde se desila borba između srpskih policijskih jedinica i UČK pobunjenika.
Tadašnji ministar Rudolf Šarping je zloupotrebio čitavu situaciju i predstavio UČK pobunjenike kao civilne žrtve, što je dovelo i opravdavalo vojni napad na Srbiju.
---
DOKU-FILM:
Es begann mit einer Lüge
[It started with a lie / Cominciò con una bugia]
Deutschland im Kosovo 99
Dieser Film zeigt, wie schon vom ersten Tag des Kosovokrieges an die Bevölkerung getäuscht wurde. Dieser Film zeigt auf, wie Tatsachen verfälscht und Fakten erfunden, wie manipuliert und auch gelogen wurde. Dieser Film zeigt, weshalb Bomben auf Belgrad fielen.
Documentary about the lies of German officials during the Nato war against Yugoslavia
ARD (Germany), 8/2/2011 - 43:02
[It started with a lie / Cominciò con una bugia]
Deutschland im Kosovo 99
Dieser Film zeigt, wie schon vom ersten Tag des Kosovokrieges an die Bevölkerung getäuscht wurde. Dieser Film zeigt auf, wie Tatsachen verfälscht und Fakten erfunden, wie manipuliert und auch gelogen wurde. Dieser Film zeigt, weshalb Bomben auf Belgrad fielen.
Documentary about the lies of German officials during the Nato war against Yugoslavia
ARD (Germany), 8/2/2011 - 43:02
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5884882720546967347
Počelo je sa jednom laži / Почело је са једном лажи
1 od 5
Počelo je sa jednom laži / Почело је са једном лажи
1 od 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIdSm5ZkS5M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpb8rMhocHE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQvbaRXfW7s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iheHfPGQyao
5 od 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqCs-9-RVbI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqCs-9-RVbI
Von Dietmar Henning - 23. Februar 2001
http://wsws.org/de/2001/feb2001/koso-f23.shtml
=== * ===
E' nata indoona : chiama, videochiama e messaggia Gratis.
Scarica indoona per iPhone, Android e PC
