Oh ya, that makes more sense. I forgot that the bombing campaign was based on a ‘we have to bomb them to stop the genocide’ narrative. From my vague memories of hearing news stories about it, ‘ethnic cleansing’ was the term used most often around that time. Quite a reach to label someone opposed to a mass bombing campaign as a ‘genocide denier’.
e:
NATOpedia even acknowledges that the ‘humanitarian crisis’ was mostly precipitated by the bombing campaign itself.
On the 10th anniversary of the bombing campaign, Ian Bancroft wrote in The Guardian: “Though justified by apparently humanitarian considerations, NATO’s bombing of Serbia succeeded only in escalating the Kosovo crisis into a full-scale humanitarian catastrophe”; citing a post-war report released by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe he concluded that it is “widely acknowledged that the bulk of the ethnic cleansing and war crimes occurred after the start of [NATO]'s campaign”.
You could say the same thing if you were living in Kuwait in the early 90 or Iran in the 80s. Doesn’t make what we did to Iraq anything less than one big genocidal war crime. I’m glad you’re safe, but never mistake that for a sincere desire to help anything on the part of the empire. They ran the numbers and found that doing what they did would be the most profitable course of action. If the numbers said any different, you would not be safe, and there would be a different person in here explaining why that’s okay.
I’m inclined to agree with you. I just added the other side of the coin to your comment, which portrayed a filtered, single-sided story. However, the mods don’t seem to like it.
Could I get a message from the mods as for the reason of removal?
We have all spent our entire lives passively marinating in the side of the story you’re adding, the removal was probably because in the context of discussing the deliberately under-discussed massive humanitarian disaster, choosing that moment to reassert the same hegemonic narrative creates a result identical to deliberate apologia. It reads as a defense and justification for what was done.
That’s a well written, logical statement that I can agree with. The comment I replied to originally contained definitive statements that stated the ONLY thing NATO did was worsen a specific situation. When I objected to that radical simplification, many words, even speeches and foreign identities (a mod called me “van der Leyem”) were stapled on me/put into my mouth and completely discarded my comment. And the comment is as true as the truth gets, in the terms of, it actually happened hahaha. That way of discussion, communication and treatment of people can not possibly yield any useful information, conclusions or anything good.
Oh ya, that makes more sense. I forgot that the bombing campaign was based on a ‘we have to bomb them to stop the genocide’ narrative. From my vague memories of hearing news stories about it, ‘ethnic cleansing’ was the term used most often around that time. Quite a reach to label someone opposed to a mass bombing campaign as a ‘genocide denier’.
e: NATOpedia even acknowledges that the ‘humanitarian crisis’ was mostly precipitated by the bombing campaign itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_of_the_NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia#Humanitarian_reasoning
The specific issue people focus on now is the bosnian genocide/the srbenica massacre.
Removed by mod
Fuck NATO, full stop
You could say the same thing if you were living in Kuwait in the early 90 or Iran in the 80s. Doesn’t make what we did to Iraq anything less than one big genocidal war crime. I’m glad you’re safe, but never mistake that for a sincere desire to help anything on the part of the empire. They ran the numbers and found that doing what they did would be the most profitable course of action. If the numbers said any different, you would not be safe, and there would be a different person in here explaining why that’s okay.
I’m inclined to agree with you. I just added the other side of the coin to your comment, which portrayed a filtered, single-sided story. However, the mods don’t seem to like it.
Could I get a message from the mods as for the reason of removal?
not a mod was just skimming the modlog. It reads “van der Leyen’s personal account NATOposting”
We have all spent our entire lives passively marinating in the side of the story you’re adding, the removal was probably because in the context of discussing the deliberately under-discussed massive humanitarian disaster, choosing that moment to reassert the same hegemonic narrative creates a result identical to deliberate apologia. It reads as a defense and justification for what was done.
That’s a well written, logical statement that I can agree with. The comment I replied to originally contained definitive statements that stated the ONLY thing NATO did was worsen a specific situation. When I objected to that radical simplification, many words, even speeches and foreign identities (a mod called me “van der Leyem”) were stapled on me/put into my mouth and completely discarded my comment. And the comment is as true as the truth gets, in the terms of, it actually happened hahaha. That way of discussion, communication and treatment of people can not possibly yield any useful information, conclusions or anything good.