Anniversary of NATO's attack on state TV premises

NATO won't do that again now that its obvious to the world they did this for organ harvesters.

But Serbian tanks (and I'm sure even those aren't necessary) will roll through Pristina for eventual liberation.

You can take that to the bank ;)

The statement concludes that the attack established a practice in subsequent wars of the use of military force against media outlets, despite the fact that civilian structures cannot be considered military targets.
--
That is the bigger problem we are dealing with. NATO has no accountability as it only answers to itself and as such, has continued to spread terror around the world. It has essentially exempted itself from committing war crimes.

It was NATO's crime in any case, regardless of any actions or their absent of YU officials.

I feel sorry that those individuals lost their lives. The criminals responsible for this were from NATO. There is nobody else to blame. It's as if a hunter blames a doe for not telling the buck to look out for hunters. The hunter is the one pulling the trigger. Bill and Hillary Clinton, and Madeline Albright and Wesley Clark are the real war criminals here. Imagine their mindset...Let's take out a media building today, an electric plant tomorrow, why not? If they were really interested in the issue at hand, they would have focused on troops instead of civilian targets.

NATO sets the standards, murdering journalists and free speech with guaranteed immunity. Supporters still applaud loudly. Others worldwide follow. Brevik=NATO blowback. The blowback from Afghanistan and Iraq will be felt for years.

This news is a story that has been twisted out of context from the day it occurred. I worked at RTS in 1994 to help re-organize the Belgrade Evening report satellite program along more common public broadcasting standards. The resistance to removing pointless Milosevic-praising news items that were not newsworthy came from the middle management and certainly not from President Milosevic who we now know from NATO intercepts was furious at the sycophantic way "his" inherited Titoist-style media were behaving.

NATO does not have the right to declare a media outlet to be a legitimate military target, and as a media outlet, RTS had every right to continue broadcasting as normal on that day in the expectation that the USA and its assorted European colonies that make up the facade called NATO would respect international law.

The subsequent prosecution of the RTS director for refusing to budge in the face of threats of a possible but not guaranteed illegal attack by countries that had been talking against "war crimes" for over a decade was merely a NATO-ordered cover-up designed to shift the guilt for NATO's war crimes onto the victims. We international journalists who worked in the building or who brought news material there daily to uplift to satellite were shocked by the NATO war crime, even though we should have known better after their bombings elsewhere of civilian sites.

After the murders from the air, I was present a day or two later at a memorial service of journalists that took place in front of a packed hall of more than a hundred of us but was directed by Western journalists mainly from Germany, England and the USA. When we other journalists called for a unanimous resolution condemning the murder of our colleagues, a group that we non-state-controlled media called the "Amanpour team" of CNN, BBC, Deutsche Welle and VOA, joined by ABC of Australia all disgraced themselves by walking out of the hall and saying the meeting was over because they had booked the room.

I have never come into contact with a more foul group of hypocrites (who had sold their souls to their war-mongering governments) than the "journalists" that I met covering the 1999 bombing of Serbia. Disgusting.

It must be noted that few if any of my colleagues even found any conflict of interest in the fact that State Department spokesman James Rubin was making statements being endorsed on a daily basis by his wife/sex partner Christiane Amanpour on CNN. At least when U.S. Emperor G. W. Bush's State Department later introduced the concept of having the US military provide escort, food and shelter to so-called "embedded" journalists in Iraq, I knew that the original of that word was "in-bed" from the days of Emperor Billy Clinton's war of aggression on Serbia, his bedding of Monica and James bedding of Christian. As the French would say: Quel bordel! (What a bordello!)... A place in which the press-titutes of the Western media fit in quite nicely!

I lost colleagues in that NATO murder and I deeply regret that the NATO-installed quisling government that runs Serbia today never took NATO to court to seek compensation for the families and other relatives...

Murder is murder, whether you warn that you are going to do it or not!

John Bosnitch
Journalist
Belgrade

People from Prishtina will hardly welcome Serbian tanks, since there hardly are any Serbs left in Prishtina, but people from North and South Serbian enclaves probably will.

RTS was a hate mongering propaganda mean of Milosevic. It was systemically broadcasting lies and inciting hate.."

Much like albanian media or the serbophobic racism broadcast 24/7 for years by the patriotic 'free' western media comparing the serbs to nazis and running concentration camp and death camps like Auschwitz. Funny how some people preach freedom of speech for themselves but not for others, especially certain regular commenters on this site.

Oh yes Ari, I'm sure the people of Prishtina will welcome those Serbian tanks with flowers and kisses!

NATO warned days ahead that it was a legitimate target and that it must be evacuated, because it was about to be removed from the surface.
(Berk., 23 April 2012 12:59)
--
Really, who did they warn? Maybe some western journalists so they didn't kill them also but that's about it. According to Amnesty International "NATO officials confirmed that no specific warning of this particular attack was given, even though they knew many civilians would be in the RTS building."

Check -> http://tinyurl.com/bw9kyyg

Also from the report "NATO officials confirmed to Amnesty International in early 2000 that they targeted RTS, because of its propaganda function, in order to undermine the morale of the population and the armed forces."

Doesn't that make practically all media outlets a military target, especially CNN, ABC and the BBC?

Of course people like Berk will continue to justify this war crime with lies and hate as their version of "facts" simply don't add up.

"Amnesty International’s documentation of serious violations of international humanitarian law by NATO forces is based, to a large extent, on NATO’s own accounts of attacks."

Straight from the horses mouth!

RTS was a hate mongering propaganda mean of Milosevic. It was systemically broadcasting lies and inciting hate. NATO warned days ahead that it was a legitimate target and that it must be evacuated, because it was about to be removed from the surface. Serbs refused it, and continued to send more lies and hate. And nobody there can claim that he or she did not know about that. Everyone knew that they were working actively for the devil and his dispicable regime. The rest is known.

NATO won't do that again now that its obvious to the world they did this for organ harvesters.

But Serbian tanks (and I'm sure even those aren't necessary) will roll through Pristina for eventual liberation.

You can take that to the bank ;)
(Ari Gold, 23 April 2012 10:04)


Ari Gold,

The world is not convinced of any organ harvesting. Thus far, no proof has been forthcoming, only irrational accusations. When there is proof, then the world might take notice. However, since the cry of wolf has occurred so often, it is highly doubtful that these wild claims have any legs. And, that you can take to the bank. As for Serbian tanks, the world has seen your tanks only have reverse gear, therefore, how could they possibly ever get to Prishtina.

By attcking Serbian infrastructure it shortened the war and saved lives. If the bombing campaign lasted for 9 months Kosovo would have probably been Albanian free now.
(pss, 23 April 2012 14:46)
--
Really? Nice bit of spin there. Lets not forget who invited NATO's bombing and lets not forget who was happy with NATO's bombing campaign. It is non other than the troublemakers of the Balkans, the Albanians aided by the troublemakers of Europe, the Germans further aided by the troublemakers of the world, the US of A.

If memory serves me right, the OSCE observer mission claimed about 30 deaths due to conflicts prior to the bombing with the K*-Albanians being the main instigators. It is fairly obvious that negotiations and peace were not in there interest if they could get a whole country illegally bombed.

BTW, the war ended when the two unacceptable terms in Rambouillet were dropped in UNSCR1244, being the complete occupation of the then Yugoslavia and the granting of independence to KiM after 3 years.

Sorry, but NATO didn't win the war for if it had, there wouldn't be UNSCR1244. NATO had to resort to war crimes to pressure Serbs but even that failed.

All the talk and attempt at reasoning cannot whitewash what this bombing of a media station was, murder. How in the world can a TV station ever be considered a military target? America also uses its media outlets as tools to spread their government propaganda, should people that disagree with them consider CNN, ABC, MSNBC, CBS, etc., as military targets? No, you cannot, this particular bombing was murder, and whoever ordered this war crime should be held accountable.

You really have to explain that one. The goal of NATO was to stop the Serbian oppression and violence in Kosovo. UNSC 1244 enforces that. while some here may have to opinion that the goal of NATO was to make Kosovo independent that would have happened immediately not 9 years later. Read the Rambouillet accords, the goal in there was for Kosovo to be an autonomous region in the former Yugoslavia, with equal rights to Serbia and Montenegro.
Do not show foolishness by trying to imply that Serbia created UNSC 1244, really read it and it is obvious that is not even a remote possibility.
As a Serb you will always have the opinion that it was the Albanians to blame for everything, THAT, is the reason independence became the only plausible result.
(pss, 23 April 2012 17:20)
--
Rambouillet was to grant KiM Albanians independence after 3 years so it couldn't be accepted.

Chapter 5, Article V-- `The Chief of the Implementation Mission (CIM) shall be the final authority in theater regarding interpretation of the civilian aspects of this Agreement, and the Parties agree to abide by his determinations as binding on all Parties and persons."

Chapter 7, Article XV-- "The KFOR [NATO] commander is the final authority in theater regarding interpretation of this Chapter and his determinations are binding on all Parties and persons." This chapter refers to all military matters.


APPENDIX B

Section 6b: "NATO personnel, under all circumstances and at all times, shall be immune from the Parties, jurisdiction in respect of any civil, administrative, criminal or disciplinary offenses which may be committed by them in the FRY (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia)."

Section 7: "NATO personnel shall be immune from any form of arrest, investigation, or detention by the authorities in the FRY."

Section 8: "NATO personnel shall enjoy, together with their vehicles, vessels, aircraft, and equipment, free and unrestricted passage and unimpeded access throughout the FRY including associated airspace and territorial waters."

Section 11: "NATO is granted the use of airports, roads, rails, and ports without payment of fees, duties, dues, tolls, or charges occasioned by mere use."

Section 15: "The Parties (Yugoslav government) shall, upon simple request, grant all telecommunications services, including broadcast services, and the right to use all of the electromagnetic spectrum for this purpose, free of cost."

In fact Albright summed it up quite nicely by saying.... "we are not here to negotiate. The best international mediators have drafted the agreement. It is a take-it-or-leave-it deal."

I would say the best international dictators, not mediators...

America is NATO, do as they say or they will destroy your country. Is any country better now because of the war and bombings? NO, the entire former Yugoslavia is in ruin, extreme poverty, and those how are wealthy. A two class system, rich and poor, with no hope in the future. If you find a job the employer doesn't pay you for weeks even sometimes months, mentality find somthing better. The entire region has become corrupt , creating only heartless people, even the Priest who probably live the best there do nothing for the poor. All are fat and eat very well and drink wine all day , how do they have no shame when pepole come to pray and they see they are dying from stravation.

There was the 1389, then 1999. Keep celebrating the losses.

Condolences go to iniscent people who died for nothing.

RTS was a hate mongering propaganda mean of Milosevic. It was systemically broadcasting lies and inciting hate. NATO warned days ahead that it was a legitimate target and that it must be evacuated, because it was about to be removed from the surface. Serbs refused it, and continued to send more lies and hate. And nobody there can claim that he or she did not know about that. Everyone knew that they were working actively for the devil and his dispicable regime. The rest is known.
(Berk., 23 April 2012 12:59)

bravo no more need to be said

Berk and sdid.

"RTS was a hate mongering propaganda mean of Milosevic. It was systemically broadcasting lies and inciting hate. "

If you compare western media outlets and RTS at the time, you will find much more lies and inciting hate at the western outlets. They repeadatly broadcasted number of 500.000 Alabanians killed to name one lie in the sea of others. Also , screens were full of Biden-like characters saying things like "All Serbs are child rapists..." etc.
Regardless of WW2 I would never call ALL Germans this or that...
Despite of these obvious lies and hate inciting, and the fact that major TV outlets had teams on the ground in Belgrade (like CNN) nobody decided that they should be "removed from the sufrace".
And if they were there would be a huge outcry how gross war crime that was...
With or without warning, it makes no difference. Targeting certain targets is a war crime. You can't just warn about future bombing of hospitals and schools (to give example) and then pretend that bombing of those is not a war crime.

Nikolle.

I really can't understand logic of Europeans. Of course, people of Pristina won't wait for them with flowers and kisses any more then people of Knin waited for Croatian Army.
But, appearantly that doesn't matter in comparison to integrity of former Yu-republics.
Or does it?
Let me know when you guys make up your mind. Just stop flip-floping.

Hi Danilo,

"Making it" as a journalist is an ambiguous expression, to say the least. The news site my Japanese partner and I created about the NATO bombing was the most heavily viewed Internet news service in Japan, exceeding the page hits on Yugoslavia stories of all existing media, including CNN and BBC. Our previous reporting about the one-sided news coverage on the war in Bosnia was picked up by major media in Japan and elsewhere. In the end, our reporting led to an invitation to serve as foreign policy consultant to the Japanese Prime Minister's office, which invitation I accepted, leading to the first ever Japan-Russia strategic conferences and a lessening of Japan's dependence on its colonial masters in Washington.

We consider our work to have been successful.

John

Sorry, but NATO didn't win the war for if it had, there wouldn't be UNSCR1244. NATO had to resort to war crimes to pressure Serbs but even that failed.
(Zoran, 23 April 2012 15:46)
You really have to explain that one. The goal of NATO was to stop the Serbian oppression and violence in Kosovo. UNSC 1244 enforces that. while some here may have to opinion that the goal of NATO was to make Kosovo independent that would have happened immediately not 9 years later. Read the Rambouillet accords, the goal in there was for Kosovo to be an autonomous region in the former Yugoslavia, with equal rights to Serbia and Montenegro.
Do not show foolishness by trying to imply that Serbia created UNSC 1244, really read it and it is obvious that is not even a remote possibility.
As a Serb you will always have the opinion that it was the Albanians to blame for everything, THAT, is the reason independence became the only plausible result.

You know, John, I wouldn't let never making it as a journalist bother me to much if I were you. Lots of people fail at lots of stuff before they find their "thing".

You know, John, I wouldn't let never making it as a journalist bother me to much if I were you. Lots of people fail at lots of stuff before they find their "thing".
(Danilo, 23 April 2012 18:00)
--
Is that a bit like failing to come up with any good arguments so you just attack the messenger?

Its an anniversary? Where is the celebration? I'll bring chips and dip!

(Nikolle, 23 April 2012 11:33)


Maybee something more humbling like relief and salvation.

feel sorry that those individuals lost their lives. The criminals responsible for this were from NATO. There is nobody else to blame. It's as if a hunter blames a doe for not telling the buck to look out for hunters. The hunter is the one pulling the trigger. Bill and Hillary Clinton, and Madeline Albright and Wesley Clark are the real war criminals here. Imagine their mindset...Let's take out a media building today, an electric plant tomorrow, why not? If they were really interested in the issue at hand, they would have focused on troops instead of civilian targets.
(Daniel, 23 April 2012 12:40)
Do you think devastating the troops in Kosovo would have caused Milosevic to cave so quickly? To people like that military personnel are simply tools of war. Losing 100 troops means you only have to get some more. By attcking Serbian infrastructure it shortened the war and saved lives. If the bombing campaign lasted for 9 months Kosovo would have probably been Albanian free now. If it were only Kosovo land and property being destroyed the Serbs would have not been so quick to stop, afterall every bomb dropped in Kosovo was merely aiding the Serbian goal-destroy everything so there is nothing for the Albanians to come home to.

Do you think devastating the troops in Kosovo would have caused Milosevic to cave so quickly? To people like that military personnel are simply tools of war. Losing 100 troops means you only have to get some more. By attcking Serbian infrastructure it shortened the war and saved lives. If the bombing campaign lasted for 9 months Kosovo would have probably been Albanian free now. If it were only Kosovo land and property being destroyed the Serbs would have not been so quick to stop, afterall every bomb dropped in Kosovo was merely aiding the Serbian goal-destroy everything so there is nothing for the Albanians to come home to.
(pss, 23 April 2012 14:46)
Your excuse sounds like the same BS I hear about my country dropping the A bomb on Japan; it shortened the war and saved lives. So, killing civilians and destroying civilian targets is OK? Milosevic was a greedy dictator. However, by attacking civilian targets in Serbia, these X!#$% are just the same as him. None of your excuses will ever make that different dude.

How old are you - like 12 ???
(truthiness, 24 April 2012 00:47)
--
Well done John, since these people can't come up with good arguments themselves, you've certainly struck a nerve or two with the truth, since all they can do is attack you and call you names.

how dare you speak about MR; clinton like that... watch you mouth boy. MR; clinton in the house... or we send are american COMANDOS, nevy seal. so they deal with you bad serbians...remember operation arrow.1999

In fact Albright summed it up quite nicely by saying.... "we are not here to negotiate. The best international mediators have drafted the agreement. It is a take-it-or-leave-it deal."

I would say the best international dictators, not mediators...
(Zoran, 23 April 2012 18:23)


Zoran,

Do you really think Serbia was in a position to negotiate with NATO after losing the war in such a humiliating fashion. Serbia was very fortunate not to have had the whole country destroyed and hundreds of thousands of casualties. You must understand the intent of the bombing, from the outset, was to bring Serbia to its knees and do as little damage as possible with the fewest number of civilian deaths. That is why it was called Humanitarian Bombing and it succeeded rather nicely.

Rambouillet was to grant KiM Albanians independence after 3 years so it couldn't be accepted.
Zoran,
So if you believe that Rambouillet was to grant Albanians independence after 3 years and you praise the great document of UNSC 1244 which states:
"Facilitating a political process designed to determine Kosovo's future status, taking into account the Rambouillet accords (S/1999/648);"

Then you must also think that 1244 was meant to grant independence also.

@John Bosnitch
Journalist
Belgrade
(John Bosnitch, 23 April 2012 17:19)

Let us be clear now - a journalist you are not.
Because no self respecting journalist would even consider putting their name to the standard and quality of your writing.

" a group that we non-state-controlled media called the "Amanpour team"

"I have never come into contact with a more foul group of hypocrites (who had sold their souls to their war-mongering governments) than the "journalists" that I met covering the 1999 bombing of Serbia. Disgusting."


"It must be noted that few if any of my colleagues even found any conflict of interest in the fact that State Department spokesman James Rubin was making statements being endorsed on a daily basis by his wife/sex partner Christiane Amanpour on CNN"

" Emperor Billy Clinton's"

Seriouslly - where are the objective facts. These are only your own subjective rants.

How old are you - like 12 ???

In an ideal world it would be nice if it were only military targets that could be hit, but in an ideal world there would never be war would there?
Your country(which I do not believe you think of it as your country) is my country and I too believe that dropping the A bomb brought an end to the war and in the end saved lives. A war has to be fought somewhere and I believe it should be on the land of the agressor (this case Serbia) when a country declares war it is the whole country and not just the military. Milosevic was given every chance to prevent it and he chose not. Bringing the war to an end in 78 days did save lives probably hundreds of thousands. Was Milosevic targeting only military targets? He waged a war on an entire people. All of this was preventable it was Milosevic/Serbia's choice.
(pss, 23 April 2012 19:25)

Funny view that, Milosevic was constantly dragged and even enticed into the war. Your argument seems to gloss over all previous actions and seems to be a snapshot of certain JNA counter insurgency actions being dressed up as aggression. Operation Roots a joint CIA-BND action long before causing physical destabilisation does not parrot your assertion of a “chance“, before bombing CIA ceasefire monitors were handing out manuals to KLA on how to fight the JNA in 98-99 (in 98 they were labelled terrorists).

The Pentagon, White House sub committees, NATO commanders all stated bombing would cause an escalation to the human catastrophe and now like your assertion we hear the bombing was to prevent the human catastrophe. Call me a sceptic but somehow I find those “chances” a tad hypocritical.

Just a point of clarification I need, you also state it is the whole country that goes to war, obviously defending the notion that civilians are a legitimate target if it removes the ability to wage war i.e. Atomic bomb/News agencies etc. You do realise the aggressor was the Albanian mafia/clan insurgents who were labelled terrorists by US envoys and Milosevic’s retaliation was against the clan structures supporting them and not all Albanians. You somehow manage to absolve Milosevic for the same crimes you charge against him.

You also do realise NATO member and US ally Turkey has conducted the same operations against it’s Kurdish minority but on a humanitarian scale that dwarfs anything Milosevic could come up with in Kosovo, for decades yet things are a little silent in the US and NATO on that one.

http://hevallo.blogspot.com.au/2011/05/mladic-is-jailed-but-when-will-they.html

C’mon Pss perhaps you should Shh, the time for telling porkies is over there’s an economy to save and a big one to avert.

Well done to NATO for shutting down this propaganda machine who spit hate big time.

(Zoran, 23 April 2012 18:23)

http://www.ambasadasrbije.ch/vesti/?p=218

Some good points here.

I really don't see what the big debate is here. Can we not all agree that civilians should not be targeted, and if they are the perpetrators face severe punishment?

PSS your argument about war does not stack up. Using your logic about 'things happen' then one can understand that in order to win WW II Nazi Germany had no choice but to liquidate their opponents and send them to concentration camps.
I do not support the dropping of not one but two atom bombs on Japan either.
Terrorising them to within an inch of their lives, might make 'them' carry out atrocities on 'your' side. And, frankly if you support barbarism in the first place, this is no less than you deserve.

Realism must be present, but a MINIMUM standard must be observed and punishment of a severe kind should be enforced around the world. Yes, this rarely happens, but the people of the world should support and push for this because its the right thing to do. Yes, one day I hope or believe this will happen, in spite of people condoning the bombing of civilians etc.

John Bosnitch although I agree with you on the point of civilians / journalists not being military targets, I have to question your position on ethics. On the one hand you are quite vocal in not being part of the mainstream media story and proud of that. On the other if you worked for RTS in 1994 then you did work for the Serbian mainstream media, which at the time was a propoganda mouthpiece.

berk, that same argument could also be applied to wtc... from the otherside it is a big tower broadcasting the local's message.
repeated warnings etc don't automatically redefine the meaning of something. a military target has a definition, and since 1990 nato/us have been taking generous steps to redifine the meanings of words, and to play in the grey area of the law.
by your logic, if people are told to leave a "target" be it a radio station, a tv station, a bridge, a hostpital, a market, a city, a state then it is their fault for dying in an attack? it sounds remarkably like a rapist (in NO WAY infering that you are) defense - she dressed so provocitavly there was no other option.

Do you really think Serbia was in a position to negotiate with NATO after losing the war in such a humiliating fashion.
(The Count of Kosova, 23 April 2012 22:14)
--
LOL! If Serbia lost in humiliating fashion, with Albanians wanting to go their separate way and having nothing to do with Serbians, what I'd like to know is why more Albanians frequent this site than Serbians?

So long as that is the case, I know, and you know that we are still in a frozen conflict. No side has won and the reason the West continues to humiliate Serbs is for the very reason that we did not bow and lick their boots, unlike K*-Albanians.

So basically, by going to war we prevented NATO from occupying all of Serbia. We prevented a referendum after 3 years that would allow K*-Albanians to legally obtain and achieve independence.

I'm sorry my friends, but I have to inform you that neither NATO nor Albanians won the war. If you had, there would be no need for UNSCR1244, reconfirming Serbia's sovereignty, nor would any K*-Albanians come to a Serbian site and beg us to recognise this lie about "independence" sold to you for being boot lickers.

Then you must also think that 1244 was meant to grant independence also.
(pss, 23 April 2012 23:15)
--
Who ever said UNSCR1244 was a great document? I certainly didn't but the US and NATO had to make some compromises seeing they didn't expect the bombing to last so long and Germany was have some serious internal issues.

"Considering" a document doesn't mean you have to accept it. Are you trying to say that this resolution has helped the attempt to achieve independence? I don't think so. It has really only helped NATO and the US get a foothold in the Balkans. As a reward, the US helped your mafia bosses build their turbo mansions outside Pristina. Nothing much for the average person though.

pss for me the targeting of civilians is unacceptable. You can justify, place it in context, I reject it. All countries / people who support the killing of civilians have their reasons, some more 'moral' some less. Who is to decide what is moral, when the action of killing civilians is immoral?

The end result is the same however, ordinary people get killed. By the way I don't believe in banding about words such as 'evil' either, as this is utterly subjective and usually designed (mostly its fashionable in the US) to demonise or to create an emotional response getting people to support something they would not otherwise support if one's brain was engaged.

Really do you not understand my position and can you not see why it is the right position to take?

It can be the way if enough people and states supported it. And I believe that one day we will have a system in place which will reduce the killing of civilians - although there will always be 'mistakes' and scope for claiming a 'mistake'.

I really don't see what Milosevic did as justification for the killing of civilians. I cannot see the military value in bombing RTS apart from anything else, never mind the fact that RTS was operating within minutes from another location. In other words those people died pointlessly. I don't know how you can support that. You tell me about evil, do you accept that some may believe that a person who knowingly supports the killing of civilians. in this case the slaughter (there is an emotionally loaded word if you want one) of RTS workers, the majority of whom were not even journalists but technicians, hair stylists etc, is evil? Is the idea of evil fixed, or is it subjective? Does it even exist?

Speak to experts about the criminals you speak of and they will name you conditions that they are suffering from. Those people are sick in some way. Does being a sick / ill criminal make that criminal evil? In the eyes of relatives of victims perhaps, or in the tabloid press that gets a thrill out of this type of labeling. Perhaps the word evil is used by people too frightened to contemplate the reasoning behind certain actions (twisted or not).

A civilian target is a non military installation of any kind. I accept that there might be grounds for argument for the bombardment of a ministry of defence building, as its quite likely that orders for the military command are coming from here and thus it is practically a military installation.

Your excuse sounds like the same BS I hear about my country dropping the A bomb on Japan; it shortened the war and saved lives. So, killing civilians and destroying civilian targets is OK? Milosevic was a greedy dictator. However, by attacking civilian targets in Serbia, these X!#$% are just the same as him. None of your excuses will ever make that different dude.
(Daniel, 23 April 2012 18:02)
In an ideal world it would be nice if it were only military targets that could be hit, but in an ideal world there would never be war would there?
Your country(which I do not believe you think of it as your country) is my country and I too believe that dropping the A bomb brought an end to the war and in the end saved lives. A war has to be fought somewhere and I believe it should be on the land of the agressor (this case Serbia) when a country declares war it is the whole country and not just the military. Milosevic was given every chance to prevent it and he chose not. Bringing the war to an end in 78 days did save lives probably hundreds of thousands. Was Milosevic targeting only military targets? He waged a war on an entire people. All of this was preventable it was Milosevic/Serbia's choice.

Zoran, 23 April 2012 18:23)
Rambouille does not say anything about independence it says that after 3 years a mechanism to determine a final settlement for Kosovo.
Same as UNSC 1244 says
"Facilitating a political process designed to determine Kosovo's future status, taking into account the Rambouillet accords"
So if you believe that the purpose of Rambouillet was to provide independence then the purpose of UNSC 1244 is also to provide independence.

"The statement concludes that the attack established a practice in subsequent wars of the use of military force against media outlets, despite the fact that civilian structures cannot be considered military targets."

Yes, but another question is: Can a TV station that is not independent from the state but broadcasting state/regime propaganda instead be called a 'civilian structure'?

bganon, 24 April 2012 13:07)
Maybe you misunderstood, maybe not. I am not saying that everything is justified in war. Your analogy of Germany is ludicrous. Nazi Germany was evil, nothing they did was justified. To end the war much of Germany was destroyed. We were at war with Germany, to end that evil and save lives, and I agree that we should not target homes, schools, hospitals etc. But infrastructure necessary for a government to work yes. If a media outlet is seen as an aid to the government you are at war(this was a state run enterprise, not a free press outlet) then it is a target.
Milosevic waged war on the Kosovo people to rid the land of Albanians pure and simple and yes this too was evil. NATO intervention in Kosovo was to stop this evil, (you or your peers can paint any picture you want, it was for bondsteel, it was for the pipelines, etc etc but that is all bs) it was to stop the agression and a 2nd cleansing campaign on European soil. Milosevic had sped up his campaign and everyday the war existed the closer he came to fulfilling his mission. 78 days is a short war and it was short due to bombing Serbian targets, it saved lives, those that Serbia was out to destroy, did it cost more Serbian lives yes, but it was Serbia that had to be stopped.

For me to justify a war, I have to believe that it is to either defeat evil or to bring justice. I do not blindly support every military action of the US but I do support its actions in the balkans and in Japan and in Germany.
(pss, 25 April 2012 14:53)
=========================================

Pss, you are so blinded by your own nationalism that you don't even see what you advocate.
By the same reasoning, Serbs had every right to go into Kosovo and start slaughtering indiscriminately. I know you will say that they did and again that is your own bias talking but do you see how you can justify senseless slaughter by saying that what NATO did or what the US did in Japan is fine.
We all have our own truth and we Serbs see what KLA was doing as "evil" as you say. You obviously don't believe that organ harvesting and killing of Serbs even before the war was happening but we know it happened. So then what do you think should have happened to KLA or do you then think that Albanian population deserved extinction like the people of parts of Japan?

The problem with you is that you see yourselves as nothing more than innocent victims and think you can morally judge the Serbs. Think again.

I'm sorry my friends, but I have to inform you that neither NATO nor Albanians won the war. If you had, there would be no need for UNSCR1244, reconfirming Serbia's sovereignty, nor would any K*-Albanians come to a Serbian site and beg us to recognise this lie about "independence" sold to you for being boot lickers.
(Zoran, 24 April 2012 00:02)
Someone sold you a bag of tainted goods and you accepted it. You can believe that Serbia someway crafted 1244 but in reality even you know the apples in your basket are rotting away. But my challenge, show one post here on B92 where an Albanian has "begged" for Serbia to recognize the independence of Kosovo. Many have tried to open your eyes and show the inevitable that if you really plan to join the EU you WILL have to relinguish your claims on Kosovo. But I have never seen a poster BEG you to do it.

pss for me the targeting of civilians is unacceptable. You can justify, place it in context, I reject it. All countries / people who support the killing of civilians have their reasons, some more 'moral' some less. Who is to decide what is moral, when the action of killing civilians is immoral?

The end result is the same however, ordinary people get killed. By the way I don't believe in banding about words such as 'evil' either, as this is utterly subjective and usually designed (mostly its fashionable in the US) to demonise or to create an emotional response getting people to support something they would not otherwise support if one's brain was engaged.

Really do you not understand my position and can you not see why it is the right position to take?
(bganon, 25 April 2012 12:47)
I understand your position and wish that was the way it could be. But I do not think it is possible.
It would be great if we could separate the civilian and military sectors, but in reality is this even civil. I mean really is there any sense to taking your youth and putting them out there and kill or be killed to advance a political agenda. Especially if these "kids" are subjects of drafts and not even volunteers.
But the cold hard facts are Milosevic was killing civilians, he was loading them on trucks and moving them to other lands, he was burning and destroying everything that these people had worked for their entire life leaving them with nothing. How can you say that is different from a bomb hitting a target in Serbia other than it was Serbians being killed or having their property destroyed rather than Albanians. That has been my interest in Kosovo it is the feeling that there is a difference in the value of a Serbian life versus an Albanian one.
Many here say that Milosevic was only reacting to the rebels of Kosovo. That does not add up, why the economic and political situation that targeted the civilians of Kosovo. No jobs, no schools, no representation.
As far as labeling as evil? That one I do not understand. You have a serial killer, a rapist, a pedophile. These can only be elements described as evil. But I go further. If you do harm to me or my family or someone elses family and you get a sense of pleasure out of it, that to me is evil.
If you target everyone who has red hair and say it is ok to torture them or to rape their daughters or to burn their houses because they have red hair, to me you are evil. I chose this because I see no difference in it and the Christian vs Jews, or the Jews vs Muslims, or the Catholics vs Protestants, or the Muslims vs Christians, or the white vs blacks, or the Serbs vs Albanians. You are a person and I am a person and if I hate you without even knowing you because you are not the same, to me that is also evil, and to further invoke that I am doing it in the name of God is definitely evil.
The other thing is what is a "civilian" target? Like I said if you are targeting hospitals, schools, private houses (by the way was many of the targets of Milosevic) that is wrong. If you are targeting government structures and state own property such as a state own media outlet or a minister of defense building these are not really civilian targets even though there are probably civilians that work there.
For me to justify a war, I have to believe that it is to either defeat evil or to bring justice. I do not blindly support every military action of the US but I do support its actions in the balkans and in Japan and in Germany.

bganon, 25 April 2012 19:23),
You print interesting ideas for discussion. But whether you wish to call them evil or not, those who put others in danger do you ignore them because you consider them insane or do you stop them? I ocnsider the thinkings of Milosevic to be of sick mind, but do you allow him to continue because he is not of sound mind.
Do the people of a nation not bear the responsibility of their leaders? I think we agree in philosophy that civilian targets should not be chosen but we disagree with what is classified as a civilian target. Would you consider the home of the head of state a civilian or military target?
I dream of the day that we can settle disputes without the shed of blood but I have become pessimistic in the belief it will happen. And I still believe that if you have an agressor, who is destroying lives and targeting them militarily is not stopping the slaughter of innocent people that measures may have to be escalated.
But I go back to, I think we disagree to what would be considered civilian. Also I consider Serbia the agressor that had to be stopped and you do not, you see Serbia as innocent, so we could never agree on what would be acceptable and what not.

Peggy, 25 April 2012 23:05
Answering bganon is different from you. He uses logic and although he has a different opinion from mine, I can respect that. For you to criticize anyone for their "bias" or nationalism is beyond belief, there is not a poster that can come close to your bias and hate filled comments, or your view that Serbs are beyond reproach.
But you are right I do not believe the organ harvesting claims. There has been lots of rumors and "I have evidence" but no one ever produces it. In his report Dick Marty said that IF it happened it was in the tens of victims and not the hundreds that Serbia claims, also he has said that they have not collaborated ANY witness testimony. Should credible evidence come to light I will believe it then and persons responsible should be punished as severely as Serbs that have been convicted of war crimes.
The hype can only carry itself so far, but sooner or later someone has to show some proof to validate the claims. It seemed easy enough for proof to come out over the Medicus case?

RTS was a hate mongering propaganda mean of Milosevic. It was systemically broadcasting lies and inciting hate. NATO warned days ahead that it was a legitimate target and that it must be evacuated, because it was about to be removed from the surface. Serbs refused it, and continued to send more lies and hate. And nobody there can claim that he or she did not know about that. Everyone knew that they were working actively for the devil and his dispicable regime. The rest is known.

NATO won't do that again now that its obvious to the world they did this for organ harvesters.

But Serbian tanks (and I'm sure even those aren't necessary) will roll through Pristina for eventual liberation.

You can take that to the bank ;)
(Ari Gold, 23 April 2012 10:04)


Ari Gold,

The world is not convinced of any organ harvesting. Thus far, no proof has been forthcoming, only irrational accusations. When there is proof, then the world might take notice. However, since the cry of wolf has occurred so often, it is highly doubtful that these wild claims have any legs. And, that you can take to the bank. As for Serbian tanks, the world has seen your tanks only have reverse gear, therefore, how could they possibly ever get to Prishtina.

There was the 1389, then 1999. Keep celebrating the losses.

Condolences go to iniscent people who died for nothing.

Oh yes Ari, I'm sure the people of Prishtina will welcome those Serbian tanks with flowers and kisses!

RTS was a hate mongering propaganda mean of Milosevic. It was systemically broadcasting lies and inciting hate. NATO warned days ahead that it was a legitimate target and that it must be evacuated, because it was about to be removed from the surface. Serbs refused it, and continued to send more lies and hate. And nobody there can claim that he or she did not know about that. Everyone knew that they were working actively for the devil and his dispicable regime. The rest is known.
(Berk., 23 April 2012 12:59)

bravo no more need to be said

NATO won't do that again now that its obvious to the world they did this for organ harvesters.

But Serbian tanks (and I'm sure even those aren't necessary) will roll through Pristina for eventual liberation.

You can take that to the bank ;)

Its an anniversary? Where is the celebration? I'll bring chips and dip!

feel sorry that those individuals lost their lives. The criminals responsible for this were from NATO. There is nobody else to blame. It's as if a hunter blames a doe for not telling the buck to look out for hunters. The hunter is the one pulling the trigger. Bill and Hillary Clinton, and Madeline Albright and Wesley Clark are the real war criminals here. Imagine their mindset...Let's take out a media building today, an electric plant tomorrow, why not? If they were really interested in the issue at hand, they would have focused on troops instead of civilian targets.
(Daniel, 23 April 2012 12:40)
Do you think devastating the troops in Kosovo would have caused Milosevic to cave so quickly? To people like that military personnel are simply tools of war. Losing 100 troops means you only have to get some more. By attcking Serbian infrastructure it shortened the war and saved lives. If the bombing campaign lasted for 9 months Kosovo would have probably been Albanian free now. If it were only Kosovo land and property being destroyed the Serbs would have not been so quick to stop, afterall every bomb dropped in Kosovo was merely aiding the Serbian goal-destroy everything so there is nothing for the Albanians to come home to.

It was NATO's crime in any case, regardless of any actions or their absent of YU officials.

Sorry, but NATO didn't win the war for if it had, there wouldn't be UNSCR1244. NATO had to resort to war crimes to pressure Serbs but even that failed.
(Zoran, 23 April 2012 15:46)
You really have to explain that one. The goal of NATO was to stop the Serbian oppression and violence in Kosovo. UNSC 1244 enforces that. while some here may have to opinion that the goal of NATO was to make Kosovo independent that would have happened immediately not 9 years later. Read the Rambouillet accords, the goal in there was for Kosovo to be an autonomous region in the former Yugoslavia, with equal rights to Serbia and Montenegro.
Do not show foolishness by trying to imply that Serbia created UNSC 1244, really read it and it is obvious that is not even a remote possibility.
As a Serb you will always have the opinion that it was the Albanians to blame for everything, THAT, is the reason independence became the only plausible result.

You know, John, I wouldn't let never making it as a journalist bother me to much if I were you. Lots of people fail at lots of stuff before they find their "thing".

NATO sets the standards, murdering journalists and free speech with guaranteed immunity. Supporters still applaud loudly. Others worldwide follow. Brevik=NATO blowback. The blowback from Afghanistan and Iraq will be felt for years.

People from Prishtina will hardly welcome Serbian tanks, since there hardly are any Serbs left in Prishtina, but people from North and South Serbian enclaves probably will.

how dare you speak about MR; clinton like that... watch you mouth boy. MR; clinton in the house... or we send are american COMANDOS, nevy seal. so they deal with you bad serbians...remember operation arrow.1999

The statement concludes that the attack established a practice in subsequent wars of the use of military force against media outlets, despite the fact that civilian structures cannot be considered military targets.
--
That is the bigger problem we are dealing with. NATO has no accountability as it only answers to itself and as such, has continued to spread terror around the world. It has essentially exempted itself from committing war crimes.

This news is a story that has been twisted out of context from the day it occurred. I worked at RTS in 1994 to help re-organize the Belgrade Evening report satellite program along more common public broadcasting standards. The resistance to removing pointless Milosevic-praising news items that were not newsworthy came from the middle management and certainly not from President Milosevic who we now know from NATO intercepts was furious at the sycophantic way "his" inherited Titoist-style media were behaving.

NATO does not have the right to declare a media outlet to be a legitimate military target, and as a media outlet, RTS had every right to continue broadcasting as normal on that day in the expectation that the USA and its assorted European colonies that make up the facade called NATO would respect international law.

The subsequent prosecution of the RTS director for refusing to budge in the face of threats of a possible but not guaranteed illegal attack by countries that had been talking against "war crimes" for over a decade was merely a NATO-ordered cover-up designed to shift the guilt for NATO's war crimes onto the victims. We international journalists who worked in the building or who brought news material there daily to uplift to satellite were shocked by the NATO war crime, even though we should have known better after their bombings elsewhere of civilian sites.

After the murders from the air, I was present a day or two later at a memorial service of journalists that took place in front of a packed hall of more than a hundred of us but was directed by Western journalists mainly from Germany, England and the USA. When we other journalists called for a unanimous resolution condemning the murder of our colleagues, a group that we non-state-controlled media called the "Amanpour team" of CNN, BBC, Deutsche Welle and VOA, joined by ABC of Australia all disgraced themselves by walking out of the hall and saying the meeting was over because they had booked the room.

I have never come into contact with a more foul group of hypocrites (who had sold their souls to their war-mongering governments) than the "journalists" that I met covering the 1999 bombing of Serbia. Disgusting.

It must be noted that few if any of my colleagues even found any conflict of interest in the fact that State Department spokesman James Rubin was making statements being endorsed on a daily basis by his wife/sex partner Christiane Amanpour on CNN. At least when U.S. Emperor G. W. Bush's State Department later introduced the concept of having the US military provide escort, food and shelter to so-called "embedded" journalists in Iraq, I knew that the original of that word was "in-bed" from the days of Emperor Billy Clinton's war of aggression on Serbia, his bedding of Monica and James bedding of Christian. As the French would say: Quel bordel! (What a bordello!)... A place in which the press-titutes of the Western media fit in quite nicely!

I lost colleagues in that NATO murder and I deeply regret that the NATO-installed quisling government that runs Serbia today never took NATO to court to seek compensation for the families and other relatives...

Murder is murder, whether you warn that you are going to do it or not!

John Bosnitch
Journalist
Belgrade

In fact Albright summed it up quite nicely by saying.... "we are not here to negotiate. The best international mediators have drafted the agreement. It is a take-it-or-leave-it deal."

I would say the best international dictators, not mediators...
(Zoran, 23 April 2012 18:23)


Zoran,

Do you really think Serbia was in a position to negotiate with NATO after losing the war in such a humiliating fashion. Serbia was very fortunate not to have had the whole country destroyed and hundreds of thousands of casualties. You must understand the intent of the bombing, from the outset, was to bring Serbia to its knees and do as little damage as possible with the fewest number of civilian deaths. That is why it was called Humanitarian Bombing and it succeeded rather nicely.

NATO warned days ahead that it was a legitimate target and that it must be evacuated, because it was about to be removed from the surface.
(Berk., 23 April 2012 12:59)
--
Really, who did they warn? Maybe some western journalists so they didn't kill them also but that's about it. According to Amnesty International "NATO officials confirmed that no specific warning of this particular attack was given, even though they knew many civilians would be in the RTS building."

Check -> http://tinyurl.com/bw9kyyg

Also from the report "NATO officials confirmed to Amnesty International in early 2000 that they targeted RTS, because of its propaganda function, in order to undermine the morale of the population and the armed forces."

Doesn't that make practically all media outlets a military target, especially CNN, ABC and the BBC?

Of course people like Berk will continue to justify this war crime with lies and hate as their version of "facts" simply don't add up.

"Amnesty International’s documentation of serious violations of international humanitarian law by NATO forces is based, to a large extent, on NATO’s own accounts of attacks."

Straight from the horses mouth!

Well done to NATO for shutting down this propaganda machine who spit hate big time.

I feel sorry that those individuals lost their lives. The criminals responsible for this were from NATO. There is nobody else to blame. It's as if a hunter blames a doe for not telling the buck to look out for hunters. The hunter is the one pulling the trigger. Bill and Hillary Clinton, and Madeline Albright and Wesley Clark are the real war criminals here. Imagine their mindset...Let's take out a media building today, an electric plant tomorrow, why not? If they were really interested in the issue at hand, they would have focused on troops instead of civilian targets.

RTS was a hate mongering propaganda mean of Milosevic. It was systemically broadcasting lies and inciting hate.."

Much like albanian media or the serbophobic racism broadcast 24/7 for years by the patriotic 'free' western media comparing the serbs to nazis and running concentration camp and death camps like Auschwitz. Funny how some people preach freedom of speech for themselves but not for others, especially certain regular commenters on this site.

By attcking Serbian infrastructure it shortened the war and saved lives. If the bombing campaign lasted for 9 months Kosovo would have probably been Albanian free now.
(pss, 23 April 2012 14:46)
--
Really? Nice bit of spin there. Lets not forget who invited NATO's bombing and lets not forget who was happy with NATO's bombing campaign. It is non other than the troublemakers of the Balkans, the Albanians aided by the troublemakers of Europe, the Germans further aided by the troublemakers of the world, the US of A.

If memory serves me right, the OSCE observer mission claimed about 30 deaths due to conflicts prior to the bombing with the K*-Albanians being the main instigators. It is fairly obvious that negotiations and peace were not in there interest if they could get a whole country illegally bombed.

BTW, the war ended when the two unacceptable terms in Rambouillet were dropped in UNSCR1244, being the complete occupation of the then Yugoslavia and the granting of independence to KiM after 3 years.

Sorry, but NATO didn't win the war for if it had, there wouldn't be UNSCR1244. NATO had to resort to war crimes to pressure Serbs but even that failed.

America is NATO, do as they say or they will destroy your country. Is any country better now because of the war and bombings? NO, the entire former Yugoslavia is in ruin, extreme poverty, and those how are wealthy. A two class system, rich and poor, with no hope in the future. If you find a job the employer doesn't pay you for weeks even sometimes months, mentality find somthing better. The entire region has become corrupt , creating only heartless people, even the Priest who probably live the best there do nothing for the poor. All are fat and eat very well and drink wine all day , how do they have no shame when pepole come to pray and they see they are dying from stravation.

You really have to explain that one. The goal of NATO was to stop the Serbian oppression and violence in Kosovo. UNSC 1244 enforces that. while some here may have to opinion that the goal of NATO was to make Kosovo independent that would have happened immediately not 9 years later. Read the Rambouillet accords, the goal in there was for Kosovo to be an autonomous region in the former Yugoslavia, with equal rights to Serbia and Montenegro.
Do not show foolishness by trying to imply that Serbia created UNSC 1244, really read it and it is obvious that is not even a remote possibility.
As a Serb you will always have the opinion that it was the Albanians to blame for everything, THAT, is the reason independence became the only plausible result.
(pss, 23 April 2012 17:20)
--
Rambouillet was to grant KiM Albanians independence after 3 years so it couldn't be accepted.

Chapter 5, Article V-- `The Chief of the Implementation Mission (CIM) shall be the final authority in theater regarding interpretation of the civilian aspects of this Agreement, and the Parties agree to abide by his determinations as binding on all Parties and persons."

Chapter 7, Article XV-- "The KFOR [NATO] commander is the final authority in theater regarding interpretation of this Chapter and his determinations are binding on all Parties and persons." This chapter refers to all military matters.


APPENDIX B

Section 6b: "NATO personnel, under all circumstances and at all times, shall be immune from the Parties, jurisdiction in respect of any civil, administrative, criminal or disciplinary offenses which may be committed by them in the FRY (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia)."

Section 7: "NATO personnel shall be immune from any form of arrest, investigation, or detention by the authorities in the FRY."

Section 8: "NATO personnel shall enjoy, together with their vehicles, vessels, aircraft, and equipment, free and unrestricted passage and unimpeded access throughout the FRY including associated airspace and territorial waters."

Section 11: "NATO is granted the use of airports, roads, rails, and ports without payment of fees, duties, dues, tolls, or charges occasioned by mere use."

Section 15: "The Parties (Yugoslav government) shall, upon simple request, grant all telecommunications services, including broadcast services, and the right to use all of the electromagnetic spectrum for this purpose, free of cost."

In fact Albright summed it up quite nicely by saying.... "we are not here to negotiate. The best international mediators have drafted the agreement. It is a take-it-or-leave-it deal."

I would say the best international dictators, not mediators...

@John Bosnitch
Journalist
Belgrade
(John Bosnitch, 23 April 2012 17:19)

Let us be clear now - a journalist you are not.
Because no self respecting journalist would even consider putting their name to the standard and quality of your writing.

" a group that we non-state-controlled media called the "Amanpour team"

"I have never come into contact with a more foul group of hypocrites (who had sold their souls to their war-mongering governments) than the "journalists" that I met covering the 1999 bombing of Serbia. Disgusting."


"It must be noted that few if any of my colleagues even found any conflict of interest in the fact that State Department spokesman James Rubin was making statements being endorsed on a daily basis by his wife/sex partner Christiane Amanpour on CNN"

" Emperor Billy Clinton's"

Seriouslly - where are the objective facts. These are only your own subjective rants.

How old are you - like 12 ???

bganon, 24 April 2012 13:07)
Maybe you misunderstood, maybe not. I am not saying that everything is justified in war. Your analogy of Germany is ludicrous. Nazi Germany was evil, nothing they did was justified. To end the war much of Germany was destroyed. We were at war with Germany, to end that evil and save lives, and I agree that we should not target homes, schools, hospitals etc. But infrastructure necessary for a government to work yes. If a media outlet is seen as an aid to the government you are at war(this was a state run enterprise, not a free press outlet) then it is a target.
Milosevic waged war on the Kosovo people to rid the land of Albanians pure and simple and yes this too was evil. NATO intervention in Kosovo was to stop this evil, (you or your peers can paint any picture you want, it was for bondsteel, it was for the pipelines, etc etc but that is all bs) it was to stop the agression and a 2nd cleansing campaign on European soil. Milosevic had sped up his campaign and everyday the war existed the closer he came to fulfilling his mission. 78 days is a short war and it was short due to bombing Serbian targets, it saved lives, those that Serbia was out to destroy, did it cost more Serbian lives yes, but it was Serbia that had to be stopped.

All the talk and attempt at reasoning cannot whitewash what this bombing of a media station was, murder. How in the world can a TV station ever be considered a military target? America also uses its media outlets as tools to spread their government propaganda, should people that disagree with them consider CNN, ABC, MSNBC, CBS, etc., as military targets? No, you cannot, this particular bombing was murder, and whoever ordered this war crime should be held accountable.

Your excuse sounds like the same BS I hear about my country dropping the A bomb on Japan; it shortened the war and saved lives. So, killing civilians and destroying civilian targets is OK? Milosevic was a greedy dictator. However, by attacking civilian targets in Serbia, these X!#$% are just the same as him. None of your excuses will ever make that different dude.
(Daniel, 23 April 2012 18:02)
In an ideal world it would be nice if it were only military targets that could be hit, but in an ideal world there would never be war would there?
Your country(which I do not believe you think of it as your country) is my country and I too believe that dropping the A bomb brought an end to the war and in the end saved lives. A war has to be fought somewhere and I believe it should be on the land of the agressor (this case Serbia) when a country declares war it is the whole country and not just the military. Milosevic was given every chance to prevent it and he chose not. Bringing the war to an end in 78 days did save lives probably hundreds of thousands. Was Milosevic targeting only military targets? He waged a war on an entire people. All of this was preventable it was Milosevic/Serbia's choice.

Rambouillet was to grant KiM Albanians independence after 3 years so it couldn't be accepted.
Zoran,
So if you believe that Rambouillet was to grant Albanians independence after 3 years and you praise the great document of UNSC 1244 which states:
"Facilitating a political process designed to determine Kosovo's future status, taking into account the Rambouillet accords (S/1999/648);"

Then you must also think that 1244 was meant to grant independence also.

I'm sorry my friends, but I have to inform you that neither NATO nor Albanians won the war. If you had, there would be no need for UNSCR1244, reconfirming Serbia's sovereignty, nor would any K*-Albanians come to a Serbian site and beg us to recognise this lie about "independence" sold to you for being boot lickers.
(Zoran, 24 April 2012 00:02)
Someone sold you a bag of tainted goods and you accepted it. You can believe that Serbia someway crafted 1244 but in reality even you know the apples in your basket are rotting away. But my challenge, show one post here on B92 where an Albanian has "begged" for Serbia to recognize the independence of Kosovo. Many have tried to open your eyes and show the inevitable that if you really plan to join the EU you WILL have to relinguish your claims on Kosovo. But I have never seen a poster BEG you to do it.

Berk and sdid.

"RTS was a hate mongering propaganda mean of Milosevic. It was systemically broadcasting lies and inciting hate. "

If you compare western media outlets and RTS at the time, you will find much more lies and inciting hate at the western outlets. They repeadatly broadcasted number of 500.000 Alabanians killed to name one lie in the sea of others. Also , screens were full of Biden-like characters saying things like "All Serbs are child rapists..." etc.
Regardless of WW2 I would never call ALL Germans this or that...
Despite of these obvious lies and hate inciting, and the fact that major TV outlets had teams on the ground in Belgrade (like CNN) nobody decided that they should be "removed from the sufrace".
And if they were there would be a huge outcry how gross war crime that was...
With or without warning, it makes no difference. Targeting certain targets is a war crime. You can't just warn about future bombing of hospitals and schools (to give example) and then pretend that bombing of those is not a war crime.

Nikolle.

I really can't understand logic of Europeans. Of course, people of Pristina won't wait for them with flowers and kisses any more then people of Knin waited for Croatian Army.
But, appearantly that doesn't matter in comparison to integrity of former Yu-republics.
Or does it?
Let me know when you guys make up your mind. Just stop flip-floping.

Do you think devastating the troops in Kosovo would have caused Milosevic to cave so quickly? To people like that military personnel are simply tools of war. Losing 100 troops means you only have to get some more. By attcking Serbian infrastructure it shortened the war and saved lives. If the bombing campaign lasted for 9 months Kosovo would have probably been Albanian free now. If it were only Kosovo land and property being destroyed the Serbs would have not been so quick to stop, afterall every bomb dropped in Kosovo was merely aiding the Serbian goal-destroy everything so there is nothing for the Albanians to come home to.
(pss, 23 April 2012 14:46)
Your excuse sounds like the same BS I hear about my country dropping the A bomb on Japan; it shortened the war and saved lives. So, killing civilians and destroying civilian targets is OK? Milosevic was a greedy dictator. However, by attacking civilian targets in Serbia, these X!#$% are just the same as him. None of your excuses will ever make that different dude.

You know, John, I wouldn't let never making it as a journalist bother me to much if I were you. Lots of people fail at lots of stuff before they find their "thing".
(Danilo, 23 April 2012 18:00)
--
Is that a bit like failing to come up with any good arguments so you just attack the messenger?

Zoran, 23 April 2012 18:23)
Rambouille does not say anything about independence it says that after 3 years a mechanism to determine a final settlement for Kosovo.
Same as UNSC 1244 says
"Facilitating a political process designed to determine Kosovo's future status, taking into account the Rambouillet accords"
So if you believe that the purpose of Rambouillet was to provide independence then the purpose of UNSC 1244 is also to provide independence.

I really don't see what the big debate is here. Can we not all agree that civilians should not be targeted, and if they are the perpetrators face severe punishment?

PSS your argument about war does not stack up. Using your logic about 'things happen' then one can understand that in order to win WW II Nazi Germany had no choice but to liquidate their opponents and send them to concentration camps.
I do not support the dropping of not one but two atom bombs on Japan either.
Terrorising them to within an inch of their lives, might make 'them' carry out atrocities on 'your' side. And, frankly if you support barbarism in the first place, this is no less than you deserve.

Realism must be present, but a MINIMUM standard must be observed and punishment of a severe kind should be enforced around the world. Yes, this rarely happens, but the people of the world should support and push for this because its the right thing to do. Yes, one day I hope or believe this will happen, in spite of people condoning the bombing of civilians etc.

John Bosnitch although I agree with you on the point of civilians / journalists not being military targets, I have to question your position on ethics. On the one hand you are quite vocal in not being part of the mainstream media story and proud of that. On the other if you worked for RTS in 1994 then you did work for the Serbian mainstream media, which at the time was a propoganda mouthpiece.

pss for me the targeting of civilians is unacceptable. You can justify, place it in context, I reject it. All countries / people who support the killing of civilians have their reasons, some more 'moral' some less. Who is to decide what is moral, when the action of killing civilians is immoral?

The end result is the same however, ordinary people get killed. By the way I don't believe in banding about words such as 'evil' either, as this is utterly subjective and usually designed (mostly its fashionable in the US) to demonise or to create an emotional response getting people to support something they would not otherwise support if one's brain was engaged.

Really do you not understand my position and can you not see why it is the right position to take?
(bganon, 25 April 2012 12:47)
I understand your position and wish that was the way it could be. But I do not think it is possible.
It would be great if we could separate the civilian and military sectors, but in reality is this even civil. I mean really is there any sense to taking your youth and putting them out there and kill or be killed to advance a political agenda. Especially if these "kids" are subjects of drafts and not even volunteers.
But the cold hard facts are Milosevic was killing civilians, he was loading them on trucks and moving them to other lands, he was burning and destroying everything that these people had worked for their entire life leaving them with nothing. How can you say that is different from a bomb hitting a target in Serbia other than it was Serbians being killed or having their property destroyed rather than Albanians. That has been my interest in Kosovo it is the feeling that there is a difference in the value of a Serbian life versus an Albanian one.
Many here say that Milosevic was only reacting to the rebels of Kosovo. That does not add up, why the economic and political situation that targeted the civilians of Kosovo. No jobs, no schools, no representation.
As far as labeling as evil? That one I do not understand. You have a serial killer, a rapist, a pedophile. These can only be elements described as evil. But I go further. If you do harm to me or my family or someone elses family and you get a sense of pleasure out of it, that to me is evil.
If you target everyone who has red hair and say it is ok to torture them or to rape their daughters or to burn their houses because they have red hair, to me you are evil. I chose this because I see no difference in it and the Christian vs Jews, or the Jews vs Muslims, or the Catholics vs Protestants, or the Muslims vs Christians, or the white vs blacks, or the Serbs vs Albanians. You are a person and I am a person and if I hate you without even knowing you because you are not the same, to me that is also evil, and to further invoke that I am doing it in the name of God is definitely evil.
The other thing is what is a "civilian" target? Like I said if you are targeting hospitals, schools, private houses (by the way was many of the targets of Milosevic) that is wrong. If you are targeting government structures and state own property such as a state own media outlet or a minister of defense building these are not really civilian targets even though there are probably civilians that work there.
For me to justify a war, I have to believe that it is to either defeat evil or to bring justice. I do not blindly support every military action of the US but I do support its actions in the balkans and in Japan and in Germany.

Hi Danilo,

"Making it" as a journalist is an ambiguous expression, to say the least. The news site my Japanese partner and I created about the NATO bombing was the most heavily viewed Internet news service in Japan, exceeding the page hits on Yugoslavia stories of all existing media, including CNN and BBC. Our previous reporting about the one-sided news coverage on the war in Bosnia was picked up by major media in Japan and elsewhere. In the end, our reporting led to an invitation to serve as foreign policy consultant to the Japanese Prime Minister's office, which invitation I accepted, leading to the first ever Japan-Russia strategic conferences and a lessening of Japan's dependence on its colonial masters in Washington.

We consider our work to have been successful.

John

"The statement concludes that the attack established a practice in subsequent wars of the use of military force against media outlets, despite the fact that civilian structures cannot be considered military targets."

Yes, but another question is: Can a TV station that is not independent from the state but broadcasting state/regime propaganda instead be called a 'civilian structure'?

berk, that same argument could also be applied to wtc... from the otherside it is a big tower broadcasting the local's message.
repeated warnings etc don't automatically redefine the meaning of something. a military target has a definition, and since 1990 nato/us have been taking generous steps to redifine the meanings of words, and to play in the grey area of the law.
by your logic, if people are told to leave a "target" be it a radio station, a tv station, a bridge, a hostpital, a market, a city, a state then it is their fault for dying in an attack? it sounds remarkably like a rapist (in NO WAY infering that you are) defense - she dressed so provocitavly there was no other option.

How old are you - like 12 ???
(truthiness, 24 April 2012 00:47)
--
Well done John, since these people can't come up with good arguments themselves, you've certainly struck a nerve or two with the truth, since all they can do is attack you and call you names.

(Nikolle, 23 April 2012 11:33)


Maybee something more humbling like relief and salvation.

Do you really think Serbia was in a position to negotiate with NATO after losing the war in such a humiliating fashion.
(The Count of Kosova, 23 April 2012 22:14)
--
LOL! If Serbia lost in humiliating fashion, with Albanians wanting to go their separate way and having nothing to do with Serbians, what I'd like to know is why more Albanians frequent this site than Serbians?

So long as that is the case, I know, and you know that we are still in a frozen conflict. No side has won and the reason the West continues to humiliate Serbs is for the very reason that we did not bow and lick their boots, unlike K*-Albanians.

So basically, by going to war we prevented NATO from occupying all of Serbia. We prevented a referendum after 3 years that would allow K*-Albanians to legally obtain and achieve independence.

I'm sorry my friends, but I have to inform you that neither NATO nor Albanians won the war. If you had, there would be no need for UNSCR1244, reconfirming Serbia's sovereignty, nor would any K*-Albanians come to a Serbian site and beg us to recognise this lie about "independence" sold to you for being boot lickers.

Then you must also think that 1244 was meant to grant independence also.
(pss, 23 April 2012 23:15)
--
Who ever said UNSCR1244 was a great document? I certainly didn't but the US and NATO had to make some compromises seeing they didn't expect the bombing to last so long and Germany was have some serious internal issues.

"Considering" a document doesn't mean you have to accept it. Are you trying to say that this resolution has helped the attempt to achieve independence? I don't think so. It has really only helped NATO and the US get a foothold in the Balkans. As a reward, the US helped your mafia bosses build their turbo mansions outside Pristina. Nothing much for the average person though.

In an ideal world it would be nice if it were only military targets that could be hit, but in an ideal world there would never be war would there?
Your country(which I do not believe you think of it as your country) is my country and I too believe that dropping the A bomb brought an end to the war and in the end saved lives. A war has to be fought somewhere and I believe it should be on the land of the agressor (this case Serbia) when a country declares war it is the whole country and not just the military. Milosevic was given every chance to prevent it and he chose not. Bringing the war to an end in 78 days did save lives probably hundreds of thousands. Was Milosevic targeting only military targets? He waged a war on an entire people. All of this was preventable it was Milosevic/Serbia's choice.
(pss, 23 April 2012 19:25)

Funny view that, Milosevic was constantly dragged and even enticed into the war. Your argument seems to gloss over all previous actions and seems to be a snapshot of certain JNA counter insurgency actions being dressed up as aggression. Operation Roots a joint CIA-BND action long before causing physical destabilisation does not parrot your assertion of a “chance“, before bombing CIA ceasefire monitors were handing out manuals to KLA on how to fight the JNA in 98-99 (in 98 they were labelled terrorists).

The Pentagon, White House sub committees, NATO commanders all stated bombing would cause an escalation to the human catastrophe and now like your assertion we hear the bombing was to prevent the human catastrophe. Call me a sceptic but somehow I find those “chances” a tad hypocritical.

Just a point of clarification I need, you also state it is the whole country that goes to war, obviously defending the notion that civilians are a legitimate target if it removes the ability to wage war i.e. Atomic bomb/News agencies etc. You do realise the aggressor was the Albanian mafia/clan insurgents who were labelled terrorists by US envoys and Milosevic’s retaliation was against the clan structures supporting them and not all Albanians. You somehow manage to absolve Milosevic for the same crimes you charge against him.

You also do realise NATO member and US ally Turkey has conducted the same operations against it’s Kurdish minority but on a humanitarian scale that dwarfs anything Milosevic could come up with in Kosovo, for decades yet things are a little silent in the US and NATO on that one.

http://hevallo.blogspot.com.au/2011/05/mladic-is-jailed-but-when-will-they.html

C’mon Pss perhaps you should Shh, the time for telling porkies is over there’s an economy to save and a big one to avert.

(Zoran, 23 April 2012 18:23)

http://www.ambasadasrbije.ch/vesti/?p=218

Some good points here.

Peggy, 25 April 2012 23:05
Answering bganon is different from you. He uses logic and although he has a different opinion from mine, I can respect that. For you to criticize anyone for their "bias" or nationalism is beyond belief, there is not a poster that can come close to your bias and hate filled comments, or your view that Serbs are beyond reproach.
But you are right I do not believe the organ harvesting claims. There has been lots of rumors and "I have evidence" but no one ever produces it. In his report Dick Marty said that IF it happened it was in the tens of victims and not the hundreds that Serbia claims, also he has said that they have not collaborated ANY witness testimony. Should credible evidence come to light I will believe it then and persons responsible should be punished as severely as Serbs that have been convicted of war crimes.
The hype can only carry itself so far, but sooner or later someone has to show some proof to validate the claims. It seemed easy enough for proof to come out over the Medicus case?

pss for me the targeting of civilians is unacceptable. You can justify, place it in context, I reject it. All countries / people who support the killing of civilians have their reasons, some more 'moral' some less. Who is to decide what is moral, when the action of killing civilians is immoral?

The end result is the same however, ordinary people get killed. By the way I don't believe in banding about words such as 'evil' either, as this is utterly subjective and usually designed (mostly its fashionable in the US) to demonise or to create an emotional response getting people to support something they would not otherwise support if one's brain was engaged.

Really do you not understand my position and can you not see why it is the right position to take?

It can be the way if enough people and states supported it. And I believe that one day we will have a system in place which will reduce the killing of civilians - although there will always be 'mistakes' and scope for claiming a 'mistake'.

I really don't see what Milosevic did as justification for the killing of civilians. I cannot see the military value in bombing RTS apart from anything else, never mind the fact that RTS was operating within minutes from another location. In other words those people died pointlessly. I don't know how you can support that. You tell me about evil, do you accept that some may believe that a person who knowingly supports the killing of civilians. in this case the slaughter (there is an emotionally loaded word if you want one) of RTS workers, the majority of whom were not even journalists but technicians, hair stylists etc, is evil? Is the idea of evil fixed, or is it subjective? Does it even exist?

Speak to experts about the criminals you speak of and they will name you conditions that they are suffering from. Those people are sick in some way. Does being a sick / ill criminal make that criminal evil? In the eyes of relatives of victims perhaps, or in the tabloid press that gets a thrill out of this type of labeling. Perhaps the word evil is used by people too frightened to contemplate the reasoning behind certain actions (twisted or not).

A civilian target is a non military installation of any kind. I accept that there might be grounds for argument for the bombardment of a ministry of defence building, as its quite likely that orders for the military command are coming from here and thus it is practically a military installation.

bganon, 25 April 2012 19:23),
You print interesting ideas for discussion. But whether you wish to call them evil or not, those who put others in danger do you ignore them because you consider them insane or do you stop them? I ocnsider the thinkings of Milosevic to be of sick mind, but do you allow him to continue because he is not of sound mind.
Do the people of a nation not bear the responsibility of their leaders? I think we agree in philosophy that civilian targets should not be chosen but we disagree with what is classified as a civilian target. Would you consider the home of the head of state a civilian or military target?
I dream of the day that we can settle disputes without the shed of blood but I have become pessimistic in the belief it will happen. And I still believe that if you have an agressor, who is destroying lives and targeting them militarily is not stopping the slaughter of innocent people that measures may have to be escalated.
But I go back to, I think we disagree to what would be considered civilian. Also I consider Serbia the agressor that had to be stopped and you do not, you see Serbia as innocent, so we could never agree on what would be acceptable and what not.

For me to justify a war, I have to believe that it is to either defeat evil or to bring justice. I do not blindly support every military action of the US but I do support its actions in the balkans and in Japan and in Germany.
(pss, 25 April 2012 14:53)
=========================================

Pss, you are so blinded by your own nationalism that you don't even see what you advocate.
By the same reasoning, Serbs had every right to go into Kosovo and start slaughtering indiscriminately. I know you will say that they did and again that is your own bias talking but do you see how you can justify senseless slaughter by saying that what NATO did or what the US did in Japan is fine.
We all have our own truth and we Serbs see what KLA was doing as "evil" as you say. You obviously don't believe that organ harvesting and killing of Serbs even before the war was happening but we know it happened. So then what do you think should have happened to KLA or do you then think that Albanian population deserved extinction like the people of parts of Japan?

The problem with you is that you see yourselves as nothing more than innocent victims and think you can morally judge the Serbs. Think again.