Fwd: Obligatory Serb-Bashing

Macdonald Stainsby mstainsby at SPAMhotmail.com
Mon Nov 8 17:41:54 MST 1999






>From: rrozoff at webtv.net (Rick Rozoff)
>Reply-To: "STOP NATO: ¡NO PASARAN!" <STOPNATO at listbot.com>
>To: stopnato at listbot.com
>Subject: Obligatory Serb-Bashing
>Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 07:04:25 -0600 (CST)
>
>STOP NATO: ¡NO PASARAN! - HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.HOME-PAGE.ORG
>
>The Obligatory Bash
>Etiquette for a brave new world
>by Jared Israel (revised 11-8-99)
>[Note from http://www.emperors-clothes.com - please feel free to copy
>and distribute this article, but in full, including this note.]
>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 prejudice, as some maintain. Nor, as Jared Israel and
>others insist, 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 (German and now US) Imperial domination.
>No sir.
>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?
>Silly question. It's obligatory.
>Similiarly, with the Serbs. Even if a newspaper, let us say the Toronto
>Star, should happen to report that there is overhwelming evidence that
>there is no evidence that Serbian troops committed atrocities in Kosovo
>- even if said newsaper 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 have
>been shown to be based on misinformation (that is, lies) one must add,
>without restriction of evidence: the other half of the charges are true.
>Giving Serbs the benefit of normal reasoning is just not done.
>So it comes 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 shows 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 at
>least question the claim that it was Serbian troops (not NATO bombs and
>KLA orders) which caused Albanians to leave Kosovo during the bombing.
>After all, the charge that Serbian atrocities drove them out comes from
>the same sources that told us the Serbs had definitely killed
>10,000-100,000 Albanians.
>If a witness gives testimony and we examine half of his statements and
>find they are false, shouldn't we doubt the truthfulness of the half we
>have not yet examined? Gwyn says NATO and the media were honestly or
>dishonestly ("grotesquely") spreading lies (how do you honestly spread
>lies?) about mass graves. Shouldn't he take the next step and suggest
>that other 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 they are true, 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 the mass media, that crimes have occured - 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 write such vicious trash? Why?
>Silly question. It's obligatory.
>***
>You can read Gwyn's article by  going to the following:
>www.thestar.com/back_issues/ED19991103/opinion/991103NEW02_OP-GWYN3.html
>

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com









More information about the Marxism mailing list