Asklemmy

Did you really... Did you just jump around hoping to find something... anything... To confirm your bias?

The charges of mass atrocity and genocide leveled against Belgrade will be treated in the chapters ahead.

It is said that lies have wings while truth feebly slogs behind, destined never to catch up. This is often treated as being the inherent nature of communication. And it may sometimes be the case that truthful but mundane information cannot compete with the broad images repeatedly splashed across the media universe. But this is not sufficient explanation for the way issues are propagated in the global arena. Rather than ascribing reified, self-determining powers to concepts like truth and falsehood, we should note that the lies our leaders tell us succeed so well because they are given repeated and ubiquitous dissemination. The truth seldom catches up because those who rule nations and manage the mass communication universe have no interest in giving it equal currency.

If millions believe the lies again and again, it is because that is all they hear. After a while, it becomes the only thing they want to hear. Truly remarkable are the people throughout the world who remonstrate and demonstrate against these "humanitarian" interventions. The broad public in the United States and other Western countries remained notably lukewarm about the air campaign against Yugoslavia. The Clinton administration seemed acutely aware of this, as manifested by its unwillingness to commit ground troops out of fear that the US public would not tolerate the loss of American lives. A war for which citizens are not willing to make any sacrifices whatsoever is not a war for which the government can claim deep public support.[7]

Of course, Americans did not like what they heard about "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing," but there were no signs of the jingoistic fervor that gripped many people during the Gulf War a decade earlier. If anything, there was a general feeling that they were not being told the whole story.[8] The obviously one-sided character of the air war, the fact that Yugoslavia had not invaded anyone, and the impact of the bombing upon a European civilian population contributed to a general sense of unease. Indeed, in the eleven weeks of NATO's "mission," support dropped from over 65 per cent to barely 50 per cent and promised to continue downward.

State Department Counter-Terrorism Coordinator Michael Sheehan, speaking at a Briefing on the 1999 Annual "Patterns of Global Terrorism" Report, May 1 2000:

SHEEHAN: Our definition of terrorism by the legislation is very explicit. But in general terms, in a war, if military forces are attacking each other, it's not terrorism. But if an armed terrorist organization attacks civilian targets, that's terrorism. So that's generally the breakdown. Or if you attack— it's also . . . a terrorist attack if you attack military people in barracks, such as the Khobar bombings or the Marine barracks in 1982. Those are terrorist acts. Each case is taken on a case-by-case basis.

REPORTER: So, for example, if the United States were to drop—what do you call them?—cruise missiles on people who were in barracks or in tents, as it may be, would that be terrorism? Could that be terrorism?

SHEEHAN: No. [laughter]

The laughter was not included in the transcript of the briefing released by the state department, but could be heard when this segment was played on C-Span radio.

In response, the Clinton administration, with the active complicity of the media, took every opportunity to downplay the death and destruction caused by the bombings and every opportunity to hype images of satanic Serbian atrocities. Still, the wavering support for the onslaught must have played a part in the White House's decision to stop the bombing and settle for something less than the total occupation of Yugoslavia. This should remind us that the struggle against war and aggression begins at home. Thus it is imperative for us to make every effort to look critically at the prevailing orthodoxy, and devote ourselves to a different course.

Basically the Serbs are being portrayed by Parenti as poor innocent victims of NATO

He does nothing of the sort. Before reading I looked around for an audio copy Both in the book and lectures, he outright says Yugoslavia has plenty of blood blame. He suggests an honest inquiry. I'll read the whole book before I rush to give my faulty memory version or accept a Western narrative just because some half-cocked, half-informed yt guy who threatened to help a fascist regime imprison a lib as a commie said something. And you should too.