"WHY DO YOU SAY 'OF COURSE' MR HUME?"

Borba100 at SPAMaol.com Borba100 at SPAMaol.com
Mon Dec 27 20:00:54 MST 1999




>From   www.EMPERORS-CLOTHES.com

"WHY DO YOU SAY 'OF COURSE' MR HUME?"
by Jared Israel

Mike Hume is the leader of the legendary group, Living Marxism, or LM. LM,
which I am told is not actually Marxist, is legendary because, unlike a lot
of people on the left, he and it stood up to the media campaign to demonize
the Serbian people during the Bosnian conflict. And he and it have been sued
by British television for telling the truth.

This following the axiom that "No good deed shall go unpunished."

Mr. Hume's outfit published the findings of German journalist Thomas
Deichmann and his wife. (I don't know the lady's name). These two have minds,
which they use.

In 1992 some pictures were flashed around the world: supposedly a Bosnian
death camp, run by Serbian forces, where Muslims were (we were told)
tortured, raped, and murdered. Quite a horror story. It was a hoax.

A British film crew, led by Penny Marshall, very illustrious, filmed at the
"camp" and from the video footage took stills showing Muslims behind barbed
wire. (Nobody ever explained why the Serbian forces would allow a British TV
crew to spend a day filming a place the Serbs subsequently denied existed.)

The pictures were shown everywhere. One of the men looked particularly bad -
emaciated, half naked - and his picture was used the most. Often the shots
were packaged in a collage with old black and white photos of Nazi death
camps so the hundreds of millions exposed to these pictures could not fail to
get the message and Clinton and Bush competed in calling for Serbian blood.
Demonization with a vengeance.

As I mentioned, it was all a lie. The camp, the emaciated man. The barbed
wire to start with. Mr. Deichmann's wife noticed something: the barbed wire
was attached to the fence posts the wrong way if the purpose was to keep the
Bosnian Muslims in. It only made sense if the film crew was inside the barbed
wire enclosure, shooting their footage through the wire while the Muslims
were outside, free as birds.

By some miracle, a Serbian film crew accompanied Marshall's people that day.
So the Serbs filmed Marshall's crew filming the "inmates" - and the film,
which I have seen several times, makes it perfectly clear. Marshall's crew
was standing near a shed used to store building materials. To prevent theft,
the shed and the materials were surrounded by barbed wire. Marshall and her
people had set up inside this barbed wire enclosure; they were filming a
group of refugees who were wandering around - filming them through the barbed
wire. Slick, eh? Well, not that slick; they didn't figure anybody would study
the photos and notice the scam. No, it wasn't terribly slick, but it was good
enough for government work.

The Serbian film has a sound track. It isn't very good, but it's audible and
one can hear (and see) Marshall questioning a Bosnian Muslim who speaks
English. She is clearly trying to get him to say something negative; alas,
the man has nothing negative to say.

"This is a refugee center," he explains. The Serbian forces set it up to
distribute food and people are free to come and go and sleep there if they
wish. The only problem is it's extremely hot, hence the half-stripped man.
"What about that man?" asks Marshall, fishing. "Why is that man so thin?" The
refugee shrugs, says something about it being a personal problem. (As it
turned out, the man had Tuberculosis) Marshall becomes increasingly
irritated, trying to get the man to criticize the Serbs, but the man
patiently explains: "No, no, everything good. Just too hot."

When LM exposed the death camp hoax, it was sued for libel by ITN, the
British TV network for which Penny Marshall worked. Hume and LM refused to
back down, arguing that their defense was: truth. The world owes LM and Mike
Hume a great debt.

Mike Hume's article, "Who buried the evidence?" was posted on antiwar.com the
other day. In it Hume mocks NATO leaders' justifications for bombing
Yugoslavia. 'Up to 100,000 Albanians have been killed,' we were told by NATO
leaders. 'Mass graves are everywhere. This is a new Holocaust,' etc.

As Hume notes, despite months of digging by teams of forensic experts sent by
NATO governments - in all that time, and with all those NATO hirelings,
nothing has been dug up. No evidence of genocide. No proof of atrocities.

A few weeks ago, Carla del Ponte, Chief Prosecutor of the "War Crimes
Tribunal" made a public statement. According to del Ponte, the NATO
investigators had found 2108 bodies. That happens to ALSO be the number NATO
said died in fighting BEFORE the bombing, fighting between the Yugoslav and
KLA forces. Emperors-clothes has posted a critique of the del Ponte report
and we urge people to read it. The logic is compelling: devastating: there is
no credible evidence that any of the 2108 claimed by del Ponte were Albanian
civilians killed by Serbian government forces. No evidence at all. (See
note#1 at the end)

Mr. Hume seems to agree with Emperors-clothes on this. And yet, having
presented his evidence that there is NO evidence of Serbian atrocities - Mr.
Hume apparently feels compelled to state:

"Of course, Serbs did commit atrocities in Kosovo..."

By why "Of course"? Why do you say "Of course", Mr. Hume? You've just
presented overwhelming evidence that the evidence NATO presented is false.
Not partially false; entirely false. Of course it is conceivable that Serbian
troops committed atrocities. They are human, and God knows they had
provocation - being bombed; faced with a population (Albanians) which
included a large Fifth Column; being lied about in the Western press - so of
course it is possible that some Yugoslav troops cracked and committed
atrocities. But since when is "possible" the same as "proven"? I mean it is
possible that you committed atrocities, Mr. Hume. Or maybe I did. Plenty of
bad things have been done to both of us. Maybe we cracked. Maybe our mothers
did atrocities; you know, getting together on the sly, knitting, planning how
to lure in witless strangers and remove their body parts.

And sure, someday somebody MIGHT present real evidence that Serbian
government forces committed atrocities in Kosovo - and that would be tragic -
but it would have no more than an accidental relationship to NATO's case
against the Serbs because, as we now know, NATO claimed to have solid
evidence of Serbian government-sanctioned atrocities when it knew it had none
at all. In other words, NATO's case was and is nothing more than war
propaganda. That's what I call it today, because I hang out in polite
circles. In Brooklyn, where I used to hang out, they'd call it a lying crock
of, well, you know. Manure.

Has the demonization of Serbs gone on so long and so long gone unchallenged
that by now even sharp fellows like Hume feel the need to pay obeisance?
Apparently so. It is stuck under the scalp, this demonization, like a sliver
of glass; the wound festers; it must be dug out or the head will rot. In the
interest of the head, I wrote the following:

The Obligatory Bash by Jared Israel

"So far, not one mass grave has been found in Kosovo, despite four months'
work by forensic teams, including experts from the FBI and the RCMP."
(Richard Gwyn in the Toronto Star, 11/4/99)

When speaking of the Serbs it is considered proper to say something negative.
More than one thing is optional. But one is obligatory.

This is not due to politics. Some leftists engage in this practice, and some
rightists as well. It is not simply due to prejudice: after all, some Serbs
do it too. Nor, as Jared Israel and others have insisted, does it result from
an organized effort to demonize the Serbs because they have been and still
are the main force in the Balkans resisting Great Power (read: German and now
US) Imperial domination.

No. It is Etiquette.

In the West, when invited to a bash (or party) that one wishes not to attend,
one must lie: "I'd love to go; I wish I had known sooner..."

 Why must one lie?

Etiquette. It is obligatory.

Similarly, with the Serbs. Even if a newspaper, let us say the Toronto Star,
should happen to report that there is overwhelming evidence that there is no
evidence that Serbian troops committed atrocities in Kosovo - even if said
newspaper article should suggest to any functioning mind that the media tales
of widespread Serbian atrocities, now revealed to be false, must therefore
have been fabricated by some living beings - even then said newspaper must
add: "There's no question that atrocities were committed in Kosovo,
overwhelmingly by the Serb forces."

No question? Even though one is reporting that half the charges are based on
misinformation (that is, lies) one must state, without restriction of
evidence, that the other half of the charges is true? Doesn't this contradict
every rule of normal reasoning?

It does. But giving Serbs the benefit of normal reasoning is just not done.

So it should come as no surprise that Richard Gwyn writes in the Toronto
Star: "There's no question that atrocities were committed in Kosovo,
overwhelmingly by the Serb forces."

What is surprising is that earlier in his article, Mr. Gwyn reports that
scores of forensic experts - the FBI, Royal Mounties, Scotland Yard, Spanish
police, French police, German police, Italian police - in fact all the police
except Hercule Poirot - report finding no bodies to report. Indeed, the
Spanish forensic experts left Kosovo early, in disgust.

As Gwyn's Star article points out, this means the whole "genocide"
justification for bombing Serbia was false. And Gwyn raises - as a real
possibility - that the mass murder stories "may have been a grotesque lie
concocted to justify a war."

So far, good for him.

Now you, dear reader, might think Mr. Gwyn would take the next step. You
might expect him to suggest, at least as a possibility, that other media
stories of Serbian atrocities might also "have been a grotesque lie concocted
to justify a war." For instance, you might expect him to suggest that maybe
it was NATO's bombs (and the KLA's orders) and not Serbian atrocities that
caused Albanians to leave Kosovo during the bombing.

After all, the charge that Serbian atrocities drove the Albanians out comes
from the same folks who gave us the mass graves stories, which Mr. Gwyn now
says are false, and possibly "a grotesque lie concocted to justify a war."

If a witness gives testimony; if he offers his testimony to justify terrible
acts; if he trumpets his testimony from every TV station and newspaper,
insisting it is absolutely true; if we then examine half of said testimony
and if we find that the half of his testimony which we have examined is false
- shouldn't we doubt the truthfulness of the half which we have not yet
examined?

Gwyn says NATO and the media were either honestly or, perhaps, dishonestly
("grotesquely") spreading lies (how do you honestly spread lies?) about mass
graves.

Shouldn't he take the next step and suggest that the rest of the anti-Serb
stories may be "grotesque lies" too?

Mr. Gwyn does not take the next step. Instead, he asserts, as an article of
faith, that the forced-exodus stories are true. Having asserted, on faith,
that the ethnic Albanians were driven out by Serbian forces, he adds,
"obviously, these forces, [were] acting on Milosevic's explicit orders."

"Obviously"? Why "obviously"? Remember all we have to go on here is the word
of the mass media which Mr. Gwyn admits has lied ("honestly or "grotesquely")
about Serbian forces. Not only are we supposed to accept, based on the word
of that mass media, that crimes have occurred - but we are to blame these
"crimes" on Milosevich.

This is amazing stuff.

And now comes the coup de grace. Mr. Gwyn adds: "Acts like these are
inexcusable."

One could say: writing like this is inexcusable. Really, why must Mr. Gwyn
mix honest reporting and vicious trash? Why?

Silly question. It's obligatory.

*****

"War Crimes" Tribunal Chief Carla del Ponte recently issued a  statement.  It
dealt with the "progress" of hunt for evidence of Serbian atrocities in
Kosovo.  In sum: No progress.  But she promised "brighter" reports in the
future....For the Emperor-sClothes critique of her statement, please go to
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/analysis/spin.htm
or if you are using AOL just     <A
HREF="http://www.emperors-clothes.com/analysis/spin.htm">Click here: Spinning
the Kill - Albright's Tribunal makes haste to save a lie</A>


















More information about the Marxism mailing list