Johny if we go of your twisted logic it would have been ok if they could have for the serbs to have bombed the BBC in London and all the other western media for broadcasting NATO propaganda.
Kate said:"I rate what you write highly, and I have already thought about this one, but the bottom line is that this act by Nato was still a war crime. "
The Serb government should consider hiring you. You're a great propagandist. NATO bombed any state institution that aided Serbs in their war-machinery. Propaganda machinery was a great weapon to the state of Serbia in its goal to ethnically cleanse Kosova, demonize Albanians and demonize the West. As a matter of fact when NATO was bombing Serbia the Serb state television was showing the movie "Wag the Dog" ( in this movie Albania is bombed by the USA) non-stop. This was of course very comical and tragic at the same time, because at the very moment Serbia was being bombed they were trying to conduct propaganda against the Albanians and further brainwash the Serbs. They have been very successful; just by reading posts from the Serb camp here one can attest to their success. As a matter of fact everyone in the outside world knew that the TV was a target; NATO indeed specified that it would hit the building and that it should be emptied. When Serbia decided that going to war against NATO was a good idea, then I think Serbia had also an idea that all its war machine was a legitimate target, including its propaganda machinery. In fact Serbia was specifically told that its propaganda machinery was a legitimate target, but if you were in Serbia you wouldn't know this because you were watching "Wag the Dog" non-stop. The building was a legitimate target. Those Serbs who told the employees to go to work because it was safe, were the criminals. Although with all the crap that came from the Serb state television at that time to aid Serbian crimes perpetrated against civilians I am not so sure the employees themselves were so innocent either. They sort of chose to do the devil's work, when they could have chosen not to work for Milosevic. There were plenty of people in Serbia that indeed chose not to do Milosevic's bid, yet this people did choose the opposite.
"Slobo could be proud of the comments against NATO written by some participant. It is still a long way to go for Serbia.
(massimo, 23 April 2010 12:19) "
Here's what Amnesty International had to say on this topic 'massimo'. No doubt they also have no credibility in your eyes - probably something to do with your blinkered vision: http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=9DBC353EB0691C16802568DC0036F695
Pertinent extract relevant to the topic at hand is:
"In one instance, the attack on the headquarters of Serbian state radio and television (RTS), NATO launched a direct attack on a civilian object, killing 16 civilians. Such attack breached article 52 (I) of Protocol I and therefore constitutes a war crime. "
NATO's argument was that TV station was broadcasting 'propaganda' & thus constituted a valid target.
Amnesty's report states:
"Under the requirements of Article 52(2) of Protocol I, the RTS headquarters cannot be considered a military objective. As such, the attack on the RTS headquarters violated the prohibition to attack civilian objects contained in Article 52 (I) and therefore constitutes a war crime."
With the definition of a military objective being:
"'military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage."
And as 'Amnesty' notes, this doesn't apply to 'propaganda sources'.
Then goes on to say:
"Article 51(5)(b) prohibits attacks which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life ... which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. The ICRC Commentary specified that the expression 'concrete and direct' was intended to show that the advantage concerned should be substantial and relatively close, and that advantages which are hardly perceptible and those which would only appear in the long term should be disregarded."
Will always be those like 'massimo' attacking the messenger rather than attempting to debate the message.
Small wonder that they support an organisation like NATO - which values it's political skin far more than it values the lives of the innocents it slaughters in the name of the 'war on terror'.
Askush - I read from numerous sources, thank you. But the instability created through the media has far more to do with political influence on journalists and media outlets than reporters like Robert Fisk who do their jobs properly, whether you agree with/ like him or not.
Journalism is not about following what you are told to, and regurgitating press releases, either through laziness or fear of going against the pack.
By the way, Alastair Campbell in London during the Kosovo war used to hand out mock awards and humiliate any journalists who went 'off line' in an open bid to humiliate them. The govt also brought in wartime restrictions for reporting for the first time in decades, even though it was 'not a war'.
So perhaps you don't know as much as you seem to think, maybe you should read more sources/ speak to more journalists who know what they're talking about.
Kate
My sorrow goes to the families of the victims of the tragedy of 11 years ago.
We all must probably know how journalists can fall in political traps and Robert Fisk is a fine example and which i have read many of his articles.
He has contributed actively in instability around the world namely Balkans,Middle East etc....
Kind regards and keep reading from as many sources as posible . The only way to understand the whole picture.
May all those innocent victims killed in this barbaric act and agression on our nation rest in peace.
Not the first time Serbia has been targeted by aggressors and not the last.
This was a disgraceful act, made worse by the failure of international media organisations to recognise or comment about the killing of media workers.
RIP. What a disgraceful war crime.
Some Western presenters had met some of the people killed a matter of hours before the attack, and yet they said nothing. A shameful crime which I really hope will come to light, along with the embarrasing media bias by journalists that Robert Fisk (one of the reporters who actually did his job despite massive pressure) labelled 'sheep' and 'frothers'.
Top: "On the other hand, is it okay to abuse employees as a sacrifice (being used for propaganda purposes, too) if it was already known that there was an attack on this bulding imminent and there was even a warning?"
That is a fair point, and obviously it was unforgivable (criminal) for any official at the time not to warn its employees.
I rate what you write highly, and I have already thought about this one, but the bottom line is that this act by Nato was still a war crime. It doesn't lessen the crime or shift responsibility because of the actions of a few low life managers.
Failing to pass on the warning and targetting a TV station are very different types of crime on totally different levels - they can't be compared.
Although a bitter media war was fought at the time, it is hard to justify the fact that RTS headquarters were declared a “legitimate target” by NATO.
--
This is one of numerous war crimes NATO committed against Serbians. This is another reason why Serbia should never join this immoral killing organisation which continues to spread death and destruction throughout the world because it doesn't have to answer to its crimes.
May all innocent victims of NATO rest in peace, whether they be from Serbia, Afghanistan or anywhere.
"Although a bitter media war was fought at the time, it is hard to justify the fact that RTS headquarters were declared a “legitimate target” by NATO."
Yes, it's a good question. Is it okay to declare state-owned, not independend media which were (ab-)used for propaganda purposes a 'legitimate target' during times of war?
On the other hand, is it okay to abuse employees as a sacrifice (being used for propaganda purposes, too) if it was already known that there was an attack on this bulding imminent and there was even a warning?
Although a bitter media war was fought at the time, it is hard to justify the fact that RTS headquarters were declared a “legitimate target” by NATO.
--
This is one of numerous war crimes NATO committed against Serbians. This is another reason why Serbia should never join this immoral killing organisation which continues to spread death and destruction throughout the world because it doesn't have to answer to its crimes.
May all innocent victims of NATO rest in peace, whether they be from Serbia, Afghanistan or anywhere.
"Slobo could be proud of the comments against NATO written by some participant. It is still a long way to go for Serbia.
(massimo, 23 April 2010 12:19) "
Here's what Amnesty International had to say on this topic 'massimo'. No doubt they also have no credibility in your eyes - probably something to do with your blinkered vision: http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=9DBC353EB0691C16802568DC0036F695
Pertinent extract relevant to the topic at hand is:
"In one instance, the attack on the headquarters of Serbian state radio and television (RTS), NATO launched a direct attack on a civilian object, killing 16 civilians. Such attack breached article 52 (I) of Protocol I and therefore constitutes a war crime. "
NATO's argument was that TV station was broadcasting 'propaganda' & thus constituted a valid target.
Amnesty's report states:
"Under the requirements of Article 52(2) of Protocol I, the RTS headquarters cannot be considered a military objective. As such, the attack on the RTS headquarters violated the prohibition to attack civilian objects contained in Article 52 (I) and therefore constitutes a war crime."
With the definition of a military objective being:
"'military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage."
And as 'Amnesty' notes, this doesn't apply to 'propaganda sources'.
Then goes on to say:
"Article 51(5)(b) prohibits attacks which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life ... which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. The ICRC Commentary specified that the expression 'concrete and direct' was intended to show that the advantage concerned should be substantial and relatively close, and that advantages which are hardly perceptible and those which would only appear in the long term should be disregarded."
Will always be those like 'massimo' attacking the messenger rather than attempting to debate the message.
Small wonder that they support an organisation like NATO - which values it's political skin far more than it values the lives of the innocents it slaughters in the name of the 'war on terror'.
May all those innocent victims killed in this barbaric act and agression on our nation rest in peace.
Not the first time Serbia has been targeted by aggressors and not the last.
This was a disgraceful act, made worse by the failure of international media organisations to recognise or comment about the killing of media workers.
RIP. What a disgraceful war crime.
Some Western presenters had met some of the people killed a matter of hours before the attack, and yet they said nothing. A shameful crime which I really hope will come to light, along with the embarrasing media bias by journalists that Robert Fisk (one of the reporters who actually did his job despite massive pressure) labelled 'sheep' and 'frothers'.
Top: "On the other hand, is it okay to abuse employees as a sacrifice (being used for propaganda purposes, too) if it was already known that there was an attack on this bulding imminent and there was even a warning?"
That is a fair point, and obviously it was unforgivable (criminal) for any official at the time not to warn its employees.
I rate what you write highly, and I have already thought about this one, but the bottom line is that this act by Nato was still a war crime. It doesn't lessen the crime or shift responsibility because of the actions of a few low life managers.
Failing to pass on the warning and targetting a TV station are very different types of crime on totally different levels - they can't be compared.
Askush - I read from numerous sources, thank you. But the instability created through the media has far more to do with political influence on journalists and media outlets than reporters like Robert Fisk who do their jobs properly, whether you agree with/ like him or not.
Journalism is not about following what you are told to, and regurgitating press releases, either through laziness or fear of going against the pack.
By the way, Alastair Campbell in London during the Kosovo war used to hand out mock awards and humiliate any journalists who went 'off line' in an open bid to humiliate them. The govt also brought in wartime restrictions for reporting for the first time in decades, even though it was 'not a war'.
So perhaps you don't know as much as you seem to think, maybe you should read more sources/ speak to more journalists who know what they're talking about.
"Although a bitter media war was fought at the time, it is hard to justify the fact that RTS headquarters were declared a “legitimate target” by NATO."
Yes, it's a good question. Is it okay to declare state-owned, not independend media which were (ab-)used for propaganda purposes a 'legitimate target' during times of war?
On the other hand, is it okay to abuse employees as a sacrifice (being used for propaganda purposes, too) if it was already known that there was an attack on this bulding imminent and there was even a warning?
Kate
My sorrow goes to the families of the victims of the tragedy of 11 years ago.
We all must probably know how journalists can fall in political traps and Robert Fisk is a fine example and which i have read many of his articles.
He has contributed actively in instability around the world namely Balkans,Middle East etc....
Kind regards and keep reading from as many sources as posible . The only way to understand the whole picture.
Kate said:"I rate what you write highly, and I have already thought about this one, but the bottom line is that this act by Nato was still a war crime. "
The Serb government should consider hiring you. You're a great propagandist. NATO bombed any state institution that aided Serbs in their war-machinery. Propaganda machinery was a great weapon to the state of Serbia in its goal to ethnically cleanse Kosova, demonize Albanians and demonize the West. As a matter of fact when NATO was bombing Serbia the Serb state television was showing the movie "Wag the Dog" ( in this movie Albania is bombed by the USA) non-stop. This was of course very comical and tragic at the same time, because at the very moment Serbia was being bombed they were trying to conduct propaganda against the Albanians and further brainwash the Serbs. They have been very successful; just by reading posts from the Serb camp here one can attest to their success. As a matter of fact everyone in the outside world knew that the TV was a target; NATO indeed specified that it would hit the building and that it should be emptied. When Serbia decided that going to war against NATO was a good idea, then I think Serbia had also an idea that all its war machine was a legitimate target, including its propaganda machinery. In fact Serbia was specifically told that its propaganda machinery was a legitimate target, but if you were in Serbia you wouldn't know this because you were watching "Wag the Dog" non-stop. The building was a legitimate target. Those Serbs who told the employees to go to work because it was safe, were the criminals. Although with all the crap that came from the Serb state television at that time to aid Serbian crimes perpetrated against civilians I am not so sure the employees themselves were so innocent either. They sort of chose to do the devil's work, when they could have chosen not to work for Milosevic. There were plenty of people in Serbia that indeed chose not to do Milosevic's bid, yet this people did choose the opposite.
Johny if we go of your twisted logic it would have been ok if they could have for the serbs to have bombed the BBC in London and all the other western media for broadcasting NATO propaganda.
"Although a bitter media war was fought at the time, it is hard to justify the fact that RTS headquarters were declared a “legitimate target” by NATO."
Yes, it's a good question. Is it okay to declare state-owned, not independend media which were (ab-)used for propaganda purposes a 'legitimate target' during times of war?
On the other hand, is it okay to abuse employees as a sacrifice (being used for propaganda purposes, too) if it was already known that there was an attack on this bulding imminent and there was even a warning?
Kate said:"I rate what you write highly, and I have already thought about this one, but the bottom line is that this act by Nato was still a war crime. "
The Serb government should consider hiring you. You're a great propagandist. NATO bombed any state institution that aided Serbs in their war-machinery. Propaganda machinery was a great weapon to the state of Serbia in its goal to ethnically cleanse Kosova, demonize Albanians and demonize the West. As a matter of fact when NATO was bombing Serbia the Serb state television was showing the movie "Wag the Dog" ( in this movie Albania is bombed by the USA) non-stop. This was of course very comical and tragic at the same time, because at the very moment Serbia was being bombed they were trying to conduct propaganda against the Albanians and further brainwash the Serbs. They have been very successful; just by reading posts from the Serb camp here one can attest to their success. As a matter of fact everyone in the outside world knew that the TV was a target; NATO indeed specified that it would hit the building and that it should be emptied. When Serbia decided that going to war against NATO was a good idea, then I think Serbia had also an idea that all its war machine was a legitimate target, including its propaganda machinery. In fact Serbia was specifically told that its propaganda machinery was a legitimate target, but if you were in Serbia you wouldn't know this because you were watching "Wag the Dog" non-stop. The building was a legitimate target. Those Serbs who told the employees to go to work because it was safe, were the criminals. Although with all the crap that came from the Serb state television at that time to aid Serbian crimes perpetrated against civilians I am not so sure the employees themselves were so innocent either. They sort of chose to do the devil's work, when they could have chosen not to work for Milosevic. There were plenty of people in Serbia that indeed chose not to do Milosevic's bid, yet this people did choose the opposite.
May all those innocent victims killed in this barbaric act and agression on our nation rest in peace.
Not the first time Serbia has been targeted by aggressors and not the last.
This was a disgraceful act, made worse by the failure of international media organisations to recognise or comment about the killing of media workers.
RIP. What a disgraceful war crime.
Some Western presenters had met some of the people killed a matter of hours before the attack, and yet they said nothing. A shameful crime which I really hope will come to light, along with the embarrasing media bias by journalists that Robert Fisk (one of the reporters who actually did his job despite massive pressure) labelled 'sheep' and 'frothers'.
Although a bitter media war was fought at the time, it is hard to justify the fact that RTS headquarters were declared a “legitimate target” by NATO.
--
This is one of numerous war crimes NATO committed against Serbians. This is another reason why Serbia should never join this immoral killing organisation which continues to spread death and destruction throughout the world because it doesn't have to answer to its crimes.
May all innocent victims of NATO rest in peace, whether they be from Serbia, Afghanistan or anywhere.
Top: "On the other hand, is it okay to abuse employees as a sacrifice (being used for propaganda purposes, too) if it was already known that there was an attack on this bulding imminent and there was even a warning?"
That is a fair point, and obviously it was unforgivable (criminal) for any official at the time not to warn its employees.
I rate what you write highly, and I have already thought about this one, but the bottom line is that this act by Nato was still a war crime. It doesn't lessen the crime or shift responsibility because of the actions of a few low life managers.
Failing to pass on the warning and targetting a TV station are very different types of crime on totally different levels - they can't be compared.
Askush - I read from numerous sources, thank you. But the instability created through the media has far more to do with political influence on journalists and media outlets than reporters like Robert Fisk who do their jobs properly, whether you agree with/ like him or not.
Journalism is not about following what you are told to, and regurgitating press releases, either through laziness or fear of going against the pack.
By the way, Alastair Campbell in London during the Kosovo war used to hand out mock awards and humiliate any journalists who went 'off line' in an open bid to humiliate them. The govt also brought in wartime restrictions for reporting for the first time in decades, even though it was 'not a war'.
So perhaps you don't know as much as you seem to think, maybe you should read more sources/ speak to more journalists who know what they're talking about.
Kate
My sorrow goes to the families of the victims of the tragedy of 11 years ago.
We all must probably know how journalists can fall in political traps and Robert Fisk is a fine example and which i have read many of his articles.
He has contributed actively in instability around the world namely Balkans,Middle East etc....
Kind regards and keep reading from as many sources as posible . The only way to understand the whole picture.
"Slobo could be proud of the comments against NATO written by some participant. It is still a long way to go for Serbia.
(massimo, 23 April 2010 12:19) "
Here's what Amnesty International had to say on this topic 'massimo'. No doubt they also have no credibility in your eyes - probably something to do with your blinkered vision: http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=9DBC353EB0691C16802568DC0036F695
Pertinent extract relevant to the topic at hand is:
"In one instance, the attack on the headquarters of Serbian state radio and television (RTS), NATO launched a direct attack on a civilian object, killing 16 civilians. Such attack breached article 52 (I) of Protocol I and therefore constitutes a war crime. "
NATO's argument was that TV station was broadcasting 'propaganda' & thus constituted a valid target.
Amnesty's report states:
"Under the requirements of Article 52(2) of Protocol I, the RTS headquarters cannot be considered a military objective. As such, the attack on the RTS headquarters violated the prohibition to attack civilian objects contained in Article 52 (I) and therefore constitutes a war crime."
With the definition of a military objective being:
"'military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage."
And as 'Amnesty' notes, this doesn't apply to 'propaganda sources'.
Then goes on to say:
"Article 51(5)(b) prohibits attacks which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life ... which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. The ICRC Commentary specified that the expression 'concrete and direct' was intended to show that the advantage concerned should be substantial and relatively close, and that advantages which are hardly perceptible and those which would only appear in the long term should be disregarded."
Will always be those like 'massimo' attacking the messenger rather than attempting to debate the message.
Small wonder that they support an organisation like NATO - which values it's political skin far more than it values the lives of the innocents it slaughters in the name of the 'war on terror'.
Johny if we go of your twisted logic it would have been ok if they could have for the serbs to have bombed the BBC in London and all the other western media for broadcasting NATO propaganda.
IMAGE SOURCE
13 Komentari
Sortiraj po: