The curse of two oceans

Commentary :: Activism : Civil & Human Rights : Culture

The curse of two oceans

Wikipedia makes new inroads (in censorship, thought police, oppression, and other forms of not allowing dissent from the overtly flawed pro-mainstream media)
March 24th, 2009 marked a 10 anniversary since NATO’s illegal bombing raid on Yugoslavia. Due to other (similar and equally unsavory) activities, that country no longer exists.

A fairly benign review of NATO’s losses was posted on Wikipedia and removed immediately by the „moderators“. This Nazi type of censorship is cloaked into the wording of „balanced, non-confrontational, even handed“ requirements. In other words – if your contribution does not conform to the existing thought – it gets deleted (censored, expunged).

Are we really such a society that now fears the truth? I’d like to think not.

Seems that some segment of our collective psyche is using the vastness of the two oceans to keep us separated from truth, which I have confirmed in numerous blogs, user posts and similar – where majority of Americans seems convinced that NATO’s action was humanitarian and the U.S. deployed its military for good cause.

In truth, anything but. Our Constitution allows the use of military only by an Act of Congress, and in accordance with the U.N. charter, while NATO’s own charter defines that union as a strictly defensive organization.

It’s more than likely that we (the United States) have trampled on our own laws as much as internationally accepted legal norms. This wouldn’t have come out in the open so easily, and the only reason we have this knowledge is the Wikipedia’s Nazi censorship which prevents any alternative news from being presented.

Here is a more condensed version of that article, listing sources that have opposed the war, and list a far greater casualties than those reported to us.

It has been exactly 10 years since NATO (a defense military organization) has committed an offensive military aggression against a sovereign European country (Yugoslavia – as it was known in 1999). The NATO’s air strikes were explained as an action to suppress the ethnic cleansing actions of the Slobodan Milosevic regime. Slight problem in consistency of this postulate can be found in the fact the Albanian/Kosovar KLA (so called Kosovo Liberation Army) was listed as a terrorist organization by the Department of State (www.geocities.com/Heartland/7006/KLA-drugs.html), furthermore strong Al Qaida ties were found with a slew of illicit activities.

If the goal of this NATO action were indeed the reduction in loss of life by the disclosed and alleged ethnic cleansing by the Milosevic regime, then the goal was poorly chosen. Claims by numerous Western (United Kingdom, Canada) sources (as evidenced by this Russian made documentary (www.youtube.com/watch) openly state that the loss of life wouldn’t have been nearly as great as it was in the aftermath of the NATO airstrike. Same video clip shows that soon after the beginning of the NATO’s bombing raids the targets were elevated from strictly military to many that comprised of civilian and/or infrastructure (under the mask of viable military support system). Many of the poetic explanations – similar to the name of the entire action “Just cause/Noble Anvil” – were a dreadful parody on the very truth within these actions. Military losses on both sides seem to be contested as per (www.youtube.com/watch) clearly indicating that (now retired) AAA (anti-aircraft artillery) officers of VJ (vojska Jugoslavije) claim that NATO losses were between 30 (thirty) to 70 (seventy) times greater than previously reported. It is equally questionable how many Yugoslav army assets were truly destroyed (or double, triple counted). The use of decoys as reported by BBC (news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2872171.stm) made the true count next to impossible.

After the signing of the Kumanovo (Macedonia) cease fire agreement, the above video shows much of the Yugoslav Army withdrawing in an orderly fashion inside undamaged personel carriers, clean shaved and in good spirits which is somewhat inconsistent with the NATO claims of so many assets destroyed equally at: www.youtube.com/watch

It is equally worth mentioning that Yugoslavia was placed under severe sanctions for almost 10 years prior to this military engagement (www.ndu.edu/inss/Books/Books_1997/Imposing%20International%20Sanctions%20-%20March%2097/chapter3.html) . This inability to resupply, repair and finance the war effort on the part of the Yugoslav army made it even more vulnerable. Since NATO’s primary target of forcing the Yugoslav Army out of Kosovo was somewhat unsuccessful, new targets were introduced (mainly civilian). It is, thereby quite possible that NATO action was aimed at the people of Yugoslavia. Forthcoming military targets included bridges, electrical substations, use of cluster bombs – many listed as “regrettable collateral damage”. Office of the High Commissioner and EU special representative lists some of the confirmed and needless civilian losses at (www.ohr.int/ohr-dept/presso/bh-media-rep/summaries-tv/rtrs/default.asp). This press release attests to many of the civilian losses of life which couldn’t have had anything to do with either the military intervention against Yugoslav Army, or were quite remote from Kosovo, or both. Canadian Ambassador James Bissett lists numerous infractions and legal obstacles to the entire action, claiming that the UN charter was violated, NATO’s charter of being a strictly defensive military organization, as well as following subchapters:
a) Article 2[4] of the United Nations Charter includes territorial integrity as one of the principles that prohibits the threat or use of force in the resolution of international disputes. Territorial integrity is included in the Declaration of Principles of International Law concerning friendly relations among states. The United Nations Charter regards it as one of the paramount elements included in the concept of sovereign equality.
b) SECTION III: INVIOABILITY OF FRONTIERS
c) SECTION IV: TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY OF STATES
d) PRESSURE ON SERBIA
e) A PRECEDENT FOR RUSSIA ? and finally
f) A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT
Entire view in detail available at: www.deltax.net/bissett/a-consequences1.htm) being one of several sources from the NATO countries that opposed this military action.

David N. Gibbs Author of the soon-to-be-released book First Do No Harm: Humanitarian Intervention and the Destruction of Yugoslavia, Gibbs is an associate professor of history and political science at the University of Arizona and his criticism of the NATO’s action can be found at: (www.accuracy.org/newsrelease.php)
Professor Gibbs states in his opening paragraph ““The NATO states could have achieved a negotiated settlement of the Kosovo problem and resolved the humanitarian crisis — without war. However, the Clinton administration blocked a negotiated settlement at the Rambouillet conference, leading directly to the NATO bombing campaign. The U.S. government sought to use the Kosovo war as a means to reaffirm NATO’s function in the post-Cold War era. It was this NATO factor — rather than human rights — that was the main reason for the war.”

Kommentar verfassen

Trage deine Daten unten ein oder klicke ein Icon um dich einzuloggen:

WordPress.com-Logo

Du kommentierst mit Deinem WordPress.com-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )

Twitter-Bild

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Twitter-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )

Facebook-Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Facebook-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )

Verbinde mit %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d Bloggern gefällt das: