Why is there a Guardian?

David Quarter davidquarter at sympatico.ca
Fri Mar 14 17:18:52 MST 2003

 Throughout the imperialist conquest of Yugoslavia, the Guardian
maintained the very pro-western position that Milosevic, not the
west, was the mastermind behind the break up of the republic, not
least that he devised the systemic cleansing policy against the
Kosovo Albanians, including ordering the slaugther of civilians
elements of the population. These charges have all being proven
false by our zionist friends at the emperos-clothes. The reference
within the Guardian article to "autocratic" Milosevic suggests that
their position on the matter hasn't much altered.

While I agree that the British papers are for the most part more
open than the American dailies, on the matter of Yugoslavia at
least they are still arguing a variation of the same theme.


> Reading the Neil Clark column on Djindjic (the "Quisling of
> prompts me to ask if anyone on the list can explain, "What is
there about
> the British media market that accounts for the fact that there IS a
> mass-market daily that can print such things, whereas here in
the US the NY
> Times is the farthest left [*gag* *choke*], or least far right, major
> newspaper, and pieces of the truth like the Clark column are
found only in
> little 4-sheet weeklies that people like me hawk on street
corners?"  Every
> night now, I find myself looking up the guardian.co.uk and
> websites in the hope of finding something new and different that I
> never read in the Chicago Tribune.  Are they partly owned by a
> Engels, or what?  Or is it just that "everything is farther left over
> there"?

PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.

More information about the Marxism mailing list