Tuesday, March 21, 2006
THREE CHEERS FOR THE SCOTTISH DAILY MAIL
Someone had to draw my attention to these 2 letters published by the Daily Mail (I assume just the Scottish edition since a disproportionate number of letters are from Scotland) since they don't put them on the net & frankly I had not thought that they, or anybody else much, would do so given my experience of not getting letters on Yugoslavia accepted. I suspect that the Scottish edition are anxious to get letters from Scots addresses on their letters page.
The point is however that these 2 letters had gone out to every national UK newspaper & many US ones & nobody else had wished to publish them, indeed the second was originally drafted as a reply to a letter published in both the Herald & Scotsman which neither paper wanted to accept a reply to.
Apart from a few words shortening & the addition of an "alleged" re Oric's showing videos this is as I wrote it. They even let through the bit about ITN even though this is precisely the allegation that ITN sued LM magazine over some years ago (ITN's successful prosecution depended on the lack of overwhelming mention of the possibility of accident & that at the time, because the European declaration of human rights didn't apply it was possible for a judge who knew his duty to decide that the truth "didn't matter" & find for the liars).
Still it does establish a precedent.
Earlier letter - 14th March
All in all, for whatever reason, it is very good to see one newspaper willing to report unpalatable truths when rags such as the Guardian will allow no trace of honesty to be published about their Nazi friends.
The point is however that these 2 letters had gone out to every national UK newspaper & many US ones & nobody else had wished to publish them, indeed the second was originally drafted as a reply to a letter published in both the Herald & Scotsman which neither paper wanted to accept a reply to.
It's called MurderFriday 17th March
Slobodan Milosevic is dead, and the NATO-funded "court" will not mourn his passing. By refusing him access to his own doctor & putting him under intolerable pressure when he was known to be very ill, there is a case that his life was deliberately shortened. Legally this is known as murder.
It is not surprising if the West should have chosen to do this. In four-&-a-half-years, the only actual evidence ever produced against Milosevic was the claim by former NATO chief & presidential candidate that at an international conference Milosevic had, for unknown reasons, taken him aside to say he had known in advance about the alleged Srebrenica massacre.
In fact it is highly probable the only deliberate massacre that took place in Srebrenica was the massacre of at least 3,800 Serb civilians of which the Muslim commander, Nasir Oric boasted, and he is alleged to have shown home videos of him beheading people to journalists.
When the history of these atrocities comes to be written, the role of our media will not appear to have been honourable. Throughout, reporting was consistently anti-Yugoslav side and every propaganda lie, no matter how improbable, was treated as fact.
ITN even - it insists accidentally - faked an extremely influential "concentration camp" video. The failure of the media to report on what they called "the trial of the century" as soon as it became clear Milosevic was dismantling the prosecution case is also shameful.
Apart from a few words shortening & the addition of an "alleged" re Oric's showing videos this is as I wrote it. They even let through the bit about ITN even though this is precisely the allegation that ITN sued LM magazine over some years ago (ITN's successful prosecution depended on the lack of overwhelming mention of the possibility of accident & that at the time, because the European declaration of human rights didn't apply it was possible for a judge who knew his duty to decide that the truth "didn't matter" & find for the liars).
Still it does establish a precedent.
Earlier letter - 14th March
Divide and RuleAgain a few shortenings & the removal of a particularly graphic passage about net's Montenegrin government use of enslavement & torture of women for fun & the presence of Comorra & KLA gangsters, & also of an overly subtle dig at the US government having fought a civil war against secession. No complaints about that.
Western leaders are promoting, as a matter of principle, a referendum in Montenegro to get these people to choose independence from Serbia. This is somewhat different from their position in Iraq, where they have struggled, as a matter of principle, to prevent the Kurds choosing independence.
The difference may be that the Montenegrin government is so firmly committed to alliance with Messrs Blair & Bush.
The government of Montenegro, whose leaders the West has accepted "personally benefited finacially" from Western aid, has, for a number of years been recruiting police entirely from Albanians & Croats.
There have been many assassinations of pro-Serb community leaders which the police have, perhaps unsurprisingly been unable to solve.
Were anything remotely like this to have been going on in Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, one would expect the numerous western observers to have noticed & expressed doubts as to the reliability of any vote.
This has not happened, as indeed it did not happen in the independence referendum for Bosnia & Hercegovina. Western powers pronounced this a triumph of democracy. It was also the start of five years of genocide.
Perhaps before meddling in the dismemberment of other countries, NATO members might look to their own. Turkey has a genuinely oppressed Kurdish region which would choose separation by a majority of probably 95 per cent.
Spain has, as part of its constitution the forbidding of secession - certainly a large majority of the Basques and probaly also of the Catalans would vote to secede if given the choice.
There is also the question of what sort of "independence" NATO is proposing. Certainly, where we decide the rules and set aside the county's constitution it is a limited sort of independence.
All in all, for whatever reason, it is very good to see one newspaper willing to report unpalatable truths when rags such as the Guardian will allow no trace of honesty to be published about their Nazi friends.
Comments:
<< Home
Your letters are, of course, nonsense. There is now so much evidence of the Srebrenica massacre that denying it took place is laughable.
You also give a very partial account of the Living Marxism libel trial. ITN and the Guardian had published pictures of the Serb-run Trnopolje camp in 1992. The pictures included the famous one of emaciated prisoners looking out through a barbed wire fence. The article which Living Marxism printed alleged that this picture was taken from within a transformer enclosure and that the field the prisoners were in was open and they were free to come and go. The trial was about whether or not this was a concentration camp. ITN won their case because their legal team proved that the prisoners were in a fenced enclosure patrolled by Serbian paramilitaries. ITN also led extensive witness evidence that non-Serbs were held against their will at this camp, that many were mistreated and some were killed. Living Marxism offered no evidence in rebuttal of this evidence and that was why they lost their case.
And anyway, talking about Nazis, was The Daily Mail not the very paper that had the hots for Adolph Hitler?
You also give a very partial account of the Living Marxism libel trial. ITN and the Guardian had published pictures of the Serb-run Trnopolje camp in 1992. The pictures included the famous one of emaciated prisoners looking out through a barbed wire fence. The article which Living Marxism printed alleged that this picture was taken from within a transformer enclosure and that the field the prisoners were in was open and they were free to come and go. The trial was about whether or not this was a concentration camp. ITN won their case because their legal team proved that the prisoners were in a fenced enclosure patrolled by Serbian paramilitaries. ITN also led extensive witness evidence that non-Serbs were held against their will at this camp, that many were mistreated and some were killed. Living Marxism offered no evidence in rebuttal of this evidence and that was why they lost their case.
And anyway, talking about Nazis, was The Daily Mail not the very paper that had the hots for Adolph Hitler?
# posted by 
: March 24, 2006
: March 24, 2006
I would be interested to seeing some.
You are quite wrong about the trial - it SHOULD have been about whether it was a concentration camp where they were being held behind barbed wire. In fact that was accepted as untrue, it was about whether, in a British court, the truth doesn't matter.
"Perhaps the most surreal thing of all was that we lost the case, even though the central fact in Thomas Deichmann's article, 'The picture that fooled the world' - that the barbed-wire fence at Trnopolje surrounded the ITN journalists - was never seriously questioned. Indeed, Gavin Millar did such an impressive job of proving it through cross-examination that Justice Morland had to concede in his summing up, 'Clearly Ian Williams and Penny Marshall and their TV teams were mistaken in thinking they were not enclosed by the old barbed-wire fence', before adding in his even-handed way, 'but does it matter?'. from http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/00000002D0E3.htm
I must admit to not having read the Mail in the 1930s - on the other hand I have read the Grauniad & seen ITN while they deliberately lied to help people they knew to be Nazis committed to genocide to do so.
You are quite wrong about the trial - it SHOULD have been about whether it was a concentration camp where they were being held behind barbed wire. In fact that was accepted as untrue, it was about whether, in a British court, the truth doesn't matter.
"Perhaps the most surreal thing of all was that we lost the case, even though the central fact in Thomas Deichmann's article, 'The picture that fooled the world' - that the barbed-wire fence at Trnopolje surrounded the ITN journalists - was never seriously questioned. Indeed, Gavin Millar did such an impressive job of proving it through cross-examination that Justice Morland had to concede in his summing up, 'Clearly Ian Williams and Penny Marshall and their TV teams were mistaken in thinking they were not enclosed by the old barbed-wire fence', before adding in his even-handed way, 'but does it matter?'. from http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/00000002D0E3.htm
I must admit to not having read the Mail in the 1930s - on the other hand I have read the Grauniad & seen ITN while they deliberately lied to help people they knew to be Nazis committed to genocide to do so.
Gentlemen. The net is a wonderful source of information I'm sure you will agree.
A brief Google search for 'Living Marxism' quickly turns up lots of information on this publication, which is neither living nor Marxist, and on the very dubious reputation of the group of people associated with it. Try 'SourceWatch' for starters
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Living_Marxism#Bosnia
'Spiked online', Mr Craig's source, is run by ex-members of the LM team. The 'Living Marxism/Spiked' version of the trial concentrates on playing word games with descriptions of the fence. The trial actually did deal with the question of whether the camp was a prison and whether those pictured were free or not. A visit to the 'Guardian' site will produce a totally different version of events. Your readers can make up their own minds.
Mr North's apologia is a reheating of Serbian propaganda, mostly from 'The Emperor's Clothes'. Anyone visiting their site can easily spot the bias. Their association with the campaign to free Slobodan Milosevich is a bit of a give-away. Any curious reader wishing a more credible view should again Google search 'Srebrenica Massacre' and read the witness testimony and accounts of the forensic evidence now available. The Wikipedia article on the massacre is a good starting point
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_Massacre
A brief Google search for 'Living Marxism' quickly turns up lots of information on this publication, which is neither living nor Marxist, and on the very dubious reputation of the group of people associated with it. Try 'SourceWatch' for starters
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Living_Marxism#Bosnia
'Spiked online', Mr Craig's source, is run by ex-members of the LM team. The 'Living Marxism/Spiked' version of the trial concentrates on playing word games with descriptions of the fence. The trial actually did deal with the question of whether the camp was a prison and whether those pictured were free or not. A visit to the 'Guardian' site will produce a totally different version of events. Your readers can make up their own minds.
Mr North's apologia is a reheating of Serbian propaganda, mostly from 'The Emperor's Clothes'. Anyone visiting their site can easily spot the bias. Their association with the campaign to free Slobodan Milosevich is a bit of a give-away. Any curious reader wishing a more credible view should again Google search 'Srebrenica Massacre' and read the witness testimony and accounts of the forensic evidence now available. The Wikipedia article on the massacre is a good starting point
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_Massacre
# posted by : March 26, 2006
: March 26, 2006
I agree that the first link you supplied is worth reading, it does not support your claim of bias. Indeed it reposts the original article that ITN sought to suppress, with a related article, at http://web.archive.org/web/19991006002016/www.informinc.co.uk/LM/LM97/LM97_Bosnia.html
Spiked/LM is a well regarded organisation which anybody should read on a very large variety of subjects. For anybody to be accused of bias for defending Slobodan Milosevic presupposes that he was not only guilty but more guilty than Tudjman & Clinton - if that is not accepted one could more reasonably argue that any publication that does not support him shows bias.
By coincidence the very Wikipedia article you hold up as a good starting point has been the subject of a previous article by me ( http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2005/06/wikipedia-nazi-monopoly-on-tudjman.html ) pointing out that the moderator deliberately censors the alternate view - although there is a section purporting to be about the alternate position any contribution to it by people who do not oppose it is rigorously excised. It is indicative, & to be expected, of the Nazi position that they do not allow free debate on these matters as we, as you are proving, do.
Spiked/LM is a well regarded organisation which anybody should read on a very large variety of subjects. For anybody to be accused of bias for defending Slobodan Milosevic presupposes that he was not only guilty but more guilty than Tudjman & Clinton - if that is not accepted one could more reasonably argue that any publication that does not support him shows bias.
By coincidence the very Wikipedia article you hold up as a good starting point has been the subject of a previous article by me ( http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2005/06/wikipedia-nazi-monopoly-on-tudjman.html ) pointing out that the moderator deliberately censors the alternate view - although there is a section purporting to be about the alternate position any contribution to it by people who do not oppose it is rigorously excised. It is indicative, & to be expected, of the Nazi position that they do not allow free debate on these matters as we, as you are proving, do.
Ah, you noticed that both the links I gave actually quoted arguments and material from both sides! This was my aim. I asked your readers to follow the links and make up their own minds. If they do that they may well question your view on the veracity of ‘Spiked online’. As to the word ‘bias’, although it is often used in a pejorative sense it can mean no more than ‘inclination’ and ‘proneness’. You are surely not disputing that ‘Emperor’s Clothes’ supports a pro-Serb line? The mistake would be to lead anyone to believe that it is objective. As to denying free debate on this subject (you appear to be calling me a Nazi for preferring a view different to your own), how can I do that? It’s your blog and you control what appears on it.
As to your own commitment to free debate and on the subject of Wikipedia censorship, if your readers follow the link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Srebrenica_massacre/Archive1#Schouten_quote
they will get an insight into the sort of thing that was ‘censored’ when they read your contribution to a discussion on the content of a previous version of the article.
As to your own commitment to free debate and on the subject of Wikipedia censorship, if your readers follow the link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Srebrenica_massacre/Archive1#Schouten_quote
they will get an insight into the sort of thing that was ‘censored’ when they read your contribution to a discussion on the content of a previous version of the article.
# posted by : March 27, 2006
: March 27, 2006
"You are surely not disputing that ‘Emperor’s Clothes’ supports a pro-Serb line? The mistake would be to lead anyone to believe that it is objective."
Objectivity is not the same as a refusal to draw conclusions. If it is a matter of fact that there is more evidence that Clinton & Tudjman were guilty of aggressive war & genocide than Milosevic & that the Nato funded court has ignored that then objectivity requires that this be mentioned.
Emperor's Clothes would be failing in objectivity if they had said something that was untrue or failed to report something injurious to Milosevic's case. you have made no attempt to show any such incident (or to accuse the BBC, CNN etc of lack of objectivity when they suppressed any report of our allies public commitment to genocide).
You clearly know something of what you are talking about yet have made no attempt to produce any evidence for your claims that my letters were "nonsence", ITN hadn't (accidentally or otherwise) faked their film, LM/Spiked were dishonest, Emperor's Clothes inaccurate or indeed anything else. that you cannot do so strongly suggests that when you take away the name calling from the Nato/Nazi case there is no case.
Objectivity is not the same as a refusal to draw conclusions. If it is a matter of fact that there is more evidence that Clinton & Tudjman were guilty of aggressive war & genocide than Milosevic & that the Nato funded court has ignored that then objectivity requires that this be mentioned.
Emperor's Clothes would be failing in objectivity if they had said something that was untrue or failed to report something injurious to Milosevic's case. you have made no attempt to show any such incident (or to accuse the BBC, CNN etc of lack of objectivity when they suppressed any report of our allies public commitment to genocide).
You clearly know something of what you are talking about yet have made no attempt to produce any evidence for your claims that my letters were "nonsence", ITN hadn't (accidentally or otherwise) faked their film, LM/Spiked were dishonest, Emperor's Clothes inaccurate or indeed anything else. that you cannot do so strongly suggests that when you take away the name calling from the Nato/Nazi case there is no case.
‘Objectivity is not the same as refusal to draw conclusions.’ No it is not, but neither is it what you imply.
‘The Emperor’s Clothes’ has a distinct bias, it is not objective. I am pasting in a definition from The New Oxford Thesaurus of English (regrettably from a CD ROM, not online):
‘objectivity; noun; the ideals of journalistic accuracy and objectivity; IMPARTIALITY, absence of bias/prejudice, fairness, fair-mindedness, equitableness, equitability, even-handedness, justness, justice, open-mindedness, disinterest, disinterestedness, detachment, dispassion, dispassionateness, neutrality.
-opposite(s): SUBJECTIVITY, BIAS, PREJUDICE.’
I suggest that even the editorial team of ‘The Emperor’s Clothes’ do not consider themselves objective or disinterested. They are committed to a view and are practicing advocacy journalism ‘…in which the writer or the publication expresses a subjective view or promotes a certain cause’ [Answers.com/Reference]. See also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advocacy_journalism
The ‘Emperor’s Clothes team feel no obligation to put the other point of view at all and refer to other opinions only to rubbish them. If you think the site is objective then you do not understand the nature of your source. By all means quote the site but do not claim it is objective.
As for the rest of your post, you assert I have produced no evidence on a variety of issues when I quite clearly have done so. Again, let your readers decide whose arguments are soundest.
‘The Emperor’s Clothes’ has a distinct bias, it is not objective. I am pasting in a definition from The New Oxford Thesaurus of English (regrettably from a CD ROM, not online):
‘objectivity; noun; the ideals of journalistic accuracy and objectivity; IMPARTIALITY, absence of bias/prejudice, fairness, fair-mindedness, equitableness, equitability, even-handedness, justness, justice, open-mindedness, disinterest, disinterestedness, detachment, dispassion, dispassionateness, neutrality.
-opposite(s): SUBJECTIVITY, BIAS, PREJUDICE.’
I suggest that even the editorial team of ‘The Emperor’s Clothes’ do not consider themselves objective or disinterested. They are committed to a view and are practicing advocacy journalism ‘…in which the writer or the publication expresses a subjective view or promotes a certain cause’ [Answers.com/Reference]. See also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advocacy_journalism
The ‘Emperor’s Clothes team feel no obligation to put the other point of view at all and refer to other opinions only to rubbish them. If you think the site is objective then you do not understand the nature of your source. By all means quote the site but do not claim it is objective.
As for the rest of your post, you assert I have produced no evidence on a variety of issues when I quite clearly have done so. Again, let your readers decide whose arguments are soundest.
# posted by : March 27, 2006
: March 27, 2006
Once again you produce no evidence of any point on which Emperors Clothes have said things which were not true or suppressed things which are. Again your post amounts to unjustified (unjustifiable?) insults.
I challenge you to find one single instance where either EC or I have said something which is untrue or have reported anything which the BBC or any other major mainstream media have reported in a more objective manner or else apologise.
I challenge you to find one single instance where either EC or I have said something which is untrue or have reported anything which the BBC or any other major mainstream media have reported in a more objective manner or else apologise.
I think you have missed my point. We also appear to be at cross purposes. You want a detailed rebuttal of material presented in the ‘Emperor’s Clothes’ and other sites. I am surfing, I am not being paid to fact-check sites which seem unreliable so I generally think that is unnecessary.
The web is full of information, much of it garbage. In politics a large number of sites are not what they appear, being the creations of PR organisations trying to masquerade as grassroots movements. It is thus sensible to use well-established methods to judge the validity of a source. With regard to the net, my personal practice is to look for adequate footnotes which allow the checking of any primary source material and to check for any information on the author.
The previous postings by Peter North can be used to explore this. In his first posting Mr North insists at length on the authenticity and balance of his sources, particularly the ‘prestigious’ International Strategic Studies Association (ISSA). Much of the meat of his argument is contained in a cut and paste of an article from the ISSA Special Report: Srebrenica and the politics of War Crimes by George Bogdanich. The original is at http://www.srebrenica-report.com/defense.htm. The article quotes a large number of unfamiliar names as the source for evidence and argument supporting a pro-Serb position. The article has only two footnotes, only one of which indicates a source. As it stands I have very little chance of checking out the factual basis of this article. I have to accept it or reject it whole.
A Google search reveals that Mr Bogdanich is a director of documentaries. His (apparently) only exhibited film is Yugoslavia: the Avoidable War. A film review at http://www.offoffoff.com/film/2002/yugoslavia.php3 yields the interesting information that ‘George Bogdanich, identified innocuously on the film's web site as ‘an independent documentary producer, reporter, freelance journalist and editor’. But in addition, an Internet search shows that Bogdanich has spent years as a Serbian-American activist with groups identified variously as SerbNet and the Serbian American Media Center. Bogdanich raised money for the film from the Serbian-American community… There is nothing wrong with being a pro-Serbian activist, but you don't then release a three-hour propaganda film, pretending it's objective and factual, and fail to disclose your partisan background. Especially in this day and age when it's so easy to find out’. The review then goes on to say ‘"Yugoslavia: The Avoidable War" is interesting for all the wrong reasons. Promoted as an expose of how Western countries mishandled the Yugoslavia wars of the 1990s, it's really something totally different — a whiny, dishonest, sometimes outright racist, nearly three-hour excuse-a-thon on behalf of Serbian murderers. And the more you look into this horrid little propaganda film, the more you discover its fascinating connections not only to the Serbs themselves but also to a network of American right-wing extremists.’ The site seems a genuine New York entertainment site, so some doubt is cast on Mr Bogdanich’s objectivity. It also raises some doubt about the International Strategic Studies Association. Right enough, when you go to their site it appears that the ISSA specialises in pro-Serb, anti Islamic scare stories. I do not know who thinks this merits the ‘prestigious’ tag but I smell garbage. I can now safely dismiss Mr North’s posting as containing no worthwhile information.
In a previous posting in this thread you acknowledge that I appear to know something about what I’m talking about. I do. I have read enough to be able to judge the Wikipedia article on the ‘Srebrenica Massacre’ as being a reasonably balanced account of the matter. I do not have to argue my point in detail because I have adopted the article as my own argument. Similarly, using the technique above, I do not feel the need for a detailed rebuttal of ‘Emperor’s Clothes’ and ‘Living Marxism’ positions because they are so clearly biased.
Just for you, however, I have checked the ‘Emperor’s Clothes’ articles on the ‘supposed Bosnian Serb death camp’ at http://emperors-clothes.com/villainy.htm and the LM libel trial http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/missing.htm. Far from being ‘meticulously researched’, they actually contain very little that can be called fact. Both articles are an extended series of suppositions which seek to undermine but do not rebut the ITN evidence. Mr Israel appears to have sat on his butt in his office and written fiction. The Guardian version can be checked at http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,181985,00.html and http://www.guardian.co.uk/itn/article/0,,184816,00.html. These articles at least have the virtues of giving you some perspective on the trial, an account of the evidential basis of the verdict and the reason why pro-Serb sources would seek to discredit the ITN/Guardian account. For my money ‘Living Marxism’ and ‘Emperor’s Clothes’ deliberately set out to deceive and their allegations can be set aside.
The web is full of information, much of it garbage. In politics a large number of sites are not what they appear, being the creations of PR organisations trying to masquerade as grassroots movements. It is thus sensible to use well-established methods to judge the validity of a source. With regard to the net, my personal practice is to look for adequate footnotes which allow the checking of any primary source material and to check for any information on the author.
The previous postings by Peter North can be used to explore this. In his first posting Mr North insists at length on the authenticity and balance of his sources, particularly the ‘prestigious’ International Strategic Studies Association (ISSA). Much of the meat of his argument is contained in a cut and paste of an article from the ISSA Special Report: Srebrenica and the politics of War Crimes by George Bogdanich. The original is at http://www.srebrenica-report.com/defense.htm. The article quotes a large number of unfamiliar names as the source for evidence and argument supporting a pro-Serb position. The article has only two footnotes, only one of which indicates a source. As it stands I have very little chance of checking out the factual basis of this article. I have to accept it or reject it whole.
A Google search reveals that Mr Bogdanich is a director of documentaries. His (apparently) only exhibited film is Yugoslavia: the Avoidable War. A film review at http://www.offoffoff.com/film/2002/yugoslavia.php3 yields the interesting information that ‘George Bogdanich, identified innocuously on the film's web site as ‘an independent documentary producer, reporter, freelance journalist and editor’. But in addition, an Internet search shows that Bogdanich has spent years as a Serbian-American activist with groups identified variously as SerbNet and the Serbian American Media Center. Bogdanich raised money for the film from the Serbian-American community… There is nothing wrong with being a pro-Serbian activist, but you don't then release a three-hour propaganda film, pretending it's objective and factual, and fail to disclose your partisan background. Especially in this day and age when it's so easy to find out’. The review then goes on to say ‘"Yugoslavia: The Avoidable War" is interesting for all the wrong reasons. Promoted as an expose of how Western countries mishandled the Yugoslavia wars of the 1990s, it's really something totally different — a whiny, dishonest, sometimes outright racist, nearly three-hour excuse-a-thon on behalf of Serbian murderers. And the more you look into this horrid little propaganda film, the more you discover its fascinating connections not only to the Serbs themselves but also to a network of American right-wing extremists.’ The site seems a genuine New York entertainment site, so some doubt is cast on Mr Bogdanich’s objectivity. It also raises some doubt about the International Strategic Studies Association. Right enough, when you go to their site it appears that the ISSA specialises in pro-Serb, anti Islamic scare stories. I do not know who thinks this merits the ‘prestigious’ tag but I smell garbage. I can now safely dismiss Mr North’s posting as containing no worthwhile information.
In a previous posting in this thread you acknowledge that I appear to know something about what I’m talking about. I do. I have read enough to be able to judge the Wikipedia article on the ‘Srebrenica Massacre’ as being a reasonably balanced account of the matter. I do not have to argue my point in detail because I have adopted the article as my own argument. Similarly, using the technique above, I do not feel the need for a detailed rebuttal of ‘Emperor’s Clothes’ and ‘Living Marxism’ positions because they are so clearly biased.
Just for you, however, I have checked the ‘Emperor’s Clothes’ articles on the ‘supposed Bosnian Serb death camp’ at http://emperors-clothes.com/villainy.htm and the LM libel trial http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/missing.htm. Far from being ‘meticulously researched’, they actually contain very little that can be called fact. Both articles are an extended series of suppositions which seek to undermine but do not rebut the ITN evidence. Mr Israel appears to have sat on his butt in his office and written fiction. The Guardian version can be checked at http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,181985,00.html and http://www.guardian.co.uk/itn/article/0,,184816,00.html. These articles at least have the virtues of giving you some perspective on the trial, an account of the evidential basis of the verdict and the reason why pro-Serb sources would seek to discredit the ITN/Guardian account. For my money ‘Living Marxism’ and ‘Emperor’s Clothes’ deliberately set out to deceive and their allegations can be set aside.
# posted by : March 29, 2006
: March 29, 2006
You are treating your inability to provide any factual basis to your insults as if it were a good thing - it isn't.
You are also practicing double standards. If Mr Bogdanovich's movie is intrinsicly biased because he is part Serbian where is your attack on years of BBC reporting on the grounds that they are wholly British (not to say state funded)? More seriously, you then use the Guardian, probably the single newspaper most supportive of the Croatian & Bosnian Moslem Nazis, & in particular Ed Vulliamy as an example of impartial reporting on the (allegedly accidental) faking of ITN's video. Since Mr Vulliamy was part of the team that created the video his "objectivity" is clearly limited.
You may be interested to know that that same article was the subject of a complaint to the Press Council by me on a number of grounds the most serious being that Mr Vulliamy's statement that everybody who did not approve of the Izetbegovic regime was guilty of a "strand of anti-semitism". Since Izetbegovic was known (by UK journalists tho' the public was kept ignorant) to have been an SS auxiliary who had been cleansing Sarajevo of most of its Jews this was clearly a lie, insulting to anti-Nazis & Jewsc alike.
The Press Commission did not dispute that the Guardian was lying but decided that it had nonetheless been able to "maintain the highest standards of the British Press", so obviously it had.
Once again I must ask you to produce some facts not insults.
You are also practicing double standards. If Mr Bogdanovich's movie is intrinsicly biased because he is part Serbian where is your attack on years of BBC reporting on the grounds that they are wholly British (not to say state funded)? More seriously, you then use the Guardian, probably the single newspaper most supportive of the Croatian & Bosnian Moslem Nazis, & in particular Ed Vulliamy as an example of impartial reporting on the (allegedly accidental) faking of ITN's video. Since Mr Vulliamy was part of the team that created the video his "objectivity" is clearly limited.
You may be interested to know that that same article was the subject of a complaint to the Press Council by me on a number of grounds the most serious being that Mr Vulliamy's statement that everybody who did not approve of the Izetbegovic regime was guilty of a "strand of anti-semitism". Since Izetbegovic was known (by UK journalists tho' the public was kept ignorant) to have been an SS auxiliary who had been cleansing Sarajevo of most of its Jews this was clearly a lie, insulting to anti-Nazis & Jewsc alike.
The Press Commission did not dispute that the Guardian was lying but decided that it had nonetheless been able to "maintain the highest standards of the British Press", so obviously it had.
Once again I must ask you to produce some facts not insults.
...Mr North why should I smear you when you do such a good job of smearing yourself.
I note that you have written that your sources '...are all full of pro-Serb, Islamophobic RUBBISH'and '...that every single one of the organizations...[cited]... are far from being prestigious or reliable...they are all run by pro-Serb-Communist-Stalinist-Bolshevik-Nazi-Right Wing Fanatic-Anarchist-Racist-Freemason-Ku Klux Klan Jewish-parrot molesting & poodle raping,seal clubbing extremists!'
I think at last, you are getting closer to the truth Pete!
I'm enjoying the weekend lads. I'll catch you later on.
I note that you have written that your sources '...are all full of pro-Serb, Islamophobic RUBBISH'and '...that every single one of the organizations...[cited]... are far from being prestigious or reliable...they are all run by pro-Serb-Communist-Stalinist-Bolshevik-Nazi-Right Wing Fanatic-Anarchist-Racist-Freemason-Ku Klux Klan Jewish-parrot molesting & poodle raping,seal clubbing extremists!'
I think at last, you are getting closer to the truth Pete!
I'm enjoying the weekend lads. I'll catch you later on.
# posted by : April 02, 2006
: April 02, 2006
I have decided after Mr Anonymous' most recent post that while I have an obligation & wish, to give a forum to those who support opposing views I have no obligation to do so for those who merely produce unsubstantiated insults, particularly from an anonymous source & to other parties. If he wishes to produce a fact related post I will reproduce it.
Post a Comment
<< Home
