• culpritus [any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Oh ya, that makes more sense. I forgot that the bombing campaign was based on a ‘we have to bomb them to stop the genocide’ narrative. From my vague memories of hearing news stories about it, ‘ethnic cleansing’ was the term used most often around that time. Quite a reach to label someone opposed to a mass bombing campaign as a ‘genocide denier’.

    e: NATOpedia even acknowledges that the ‘humanitarian crisis’ was mostly precipitated by the bombing campaign itself. agony-deep

    On the 10th anniversary of the bombing campaign, Ian Bancroft wrote in The Guardian: “Though justified by apparently humanitarian considerations, NATO’s bombing of Serbia succeeded only in escalating the Kosovo crisis into a full-scale humanitarian catastrophe”; citing a post-war report released by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe he concluded that it is “widely acknowledged that the bulk of the ethnic cleansing and war crimes occurred after the start of [NATO]'s campaign”.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_of_the_NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia#Humanitarian_reasoning

    • PolandIsAStateOfMind
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      4 months ago

      Not to mention when you look at the map of nationalities in Kosovo, it’s pretty obvious that heavy ethnic cleansing did indeed happened, but the cleansing and cleansed was opposite to what US said.

      • ShimmeringKoi [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        You could say the same thing if you were living in Kuwait in the early 90 or Iran in the 80s. Doesn’t make what we did to Iraq anything less than one big genocidal war crime. I’m glad you’re safe, but never mistake that for a sincere desire to help anything on the part of the empire. They ran the numbers and found that doing what they did would be the most profitable course of action. If the numbers said any different, you would not be safe, and there would be a different person in here explaining why that’s okay.

        • tarmarbar@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          I’m inclined to agree with you. I just added the other side of the coin to your comment, which portrayed a filtered, single-sided story. However, the mods don’t seem to like it.

          Could I get a message from the mods as for the reason of removal?

          • TimeTravel_0@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            4 months ago

            not a mod was just skimming the modlog. It reads “van der Leyen’s personal account NATOposting”

          • ShimmeringKoi [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            We have all spent our entire lives passively marinating in the side of the story you’re adding, the removal was probably because in the context of discussing the deliberately under-discussed massive humanitarian disaster, choosing that moment to reassert the same hegemonic narrative creates a result identical to deliberate apologia. It reads as a defense and justification for what was done.

            • tarmarbar@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              That’s a well written, logical statement that I can agree with. The comment I replied to originally contained definitive statements that stated the ONLY thing NATO did was worsen a specific situation. When I objected to that radical simplification, many words, even speeches and foreign identities (a mod called me “van der Leyem”) were stapled on me/put into my mouth and completely discarded my comment. And the comment is as true as the truth gets, in the terms of, it actually happened hahaha. That way of discussion, communication and treatment of people can not possibly yield any useful information, conclusions or anything good.