--snip ---
Goebbels is credited with saying that a thousand words is more effective than a thousand guns. Although he got it mixed up, he should have said that a thousand words is more effective when backed by a thousand guns, he correctly saw propaganda as in important instrument of war.
It is truly amazing to see how otherwise intelligent and critical people shed their crtical thinking and jump on the bandwagon as soon as shots are being fired and bombs are being dropped -- even though the official casus belli behind the Yugoslav adventure raises more doubts that brings assurances.
We are told of attrocities committed by the military and paramilitary forces as the reason of the NATO invasion. Cognizant of the attrocities committed in South Africa, Chile, El Salvador, Indonesia, etc. the bleeding hearts start pounding and say "yeah, bomb them" while failing to listen to reason.
A moment of critical reflection reveals that there is a fundamental difference between South Africas and El Salvadors on the one hand and Yugoslavia on the other. The stories of attrocities in the foremer were told by independent international human rights organizations that had no stakes in the ongoing conflicts, while the latter are blasted by the propaganda machine of governments and armies that _are the combatants_.
Wars are nasty business, and I have no doubts that innocent people are being killed in Kosovo. That is truly reprehensible and no sane person will condone it. But before we blame anyone for these death, determining the circumstances under which those deaths occurred can make quite a big difference. And there is plenty of reasonable doubt that raise serious questions about the official casus belli of the Kosovo invasion. Here are some of them.
1. We do not know what share of the civilian loss of life is "collateral damage" of the guerilla war (by NATO military's own admission, a "legitmate" form of killing civilians), what share is a provocation staged to outrage foreign public opinion, and what share results from deliberate pacification campaigns.
2. There have been reports in the European press that some of the massacres (cf. Racak) were in fact, deaths directly resulting from a combat between guerillas and the government forces (i.e. the combatants themselves being killed) or collateral damage resulting from that combat. Such reports are not a proof, but they at least raise a reasonable doubt about the official story.
3. There have been reports of the combatants in the Yugoslav conflict staging spectatcular attacks against their own population (especially the Muslims) to outrage the international public opinion and draw foreign powers to the war on their side.
Such provocations are nothing unusual in the history of modern war - the Nazis first torched the Reichstag and blamed that on Communists to justify their assault on democratic institutions of Weimar Germany, and later staged attacks against German population in Poland as well as an assault on a radio station in Gleiwitz to fabricate their causus belli againts Poland and start 2nd World War. American staged an attack on their own navy vessel in the Tonkin Gulf to justfy their escalation of Vietnam war, etc. etc.
Again, these are not proofs that all the civilian death toll in Yugoslavia is all but fabrication, but they raise reasonable suspcion that at least some of them might be.
3. Even if some of the civilian casualties are the victims of deliberate killings, it is important to know the precise circumstances under those deaths occurred.
No one in his right mind called for the bombing of Washington, DC for the My Lai massacre even though it was known from beginning that it was committed by the US military forces. In Yugoslavia, we do not even know who the killers are and what is their motivation. Are they regular units executing orders? If so, whose orders? Or are they armed mobs or "militias" acting on their own? And if so, for what ends? political gains? Revenge? Robbery?
That raises enough reasonable doubt to refrain from blaming the Yugoslav government for the supposed "ethnic cleansing" - at least until some convincing evidence is produced.
4. Furthermore, the NATO propaganda machine claims that military action is necessary because negotiations failed, since the Belgrade regime broke its promises. Yet a moment of critical reflection reveals the absurdity of this claim.
No state in the world will ever negotiate its own dissolution or dismemberment. The independence of Ulster, the Palestinian state within Israel, the separation of the Basque region from Spain, or the separation of the Native Americans from the US (which under the US law are considered separate nations) are NOT negotiable issues. Period.
So the fact that the Yugoslav government agreed to even negotiate the Kosovo issue shows that it is much more flexible on the issue of sepratism taht the governments of the UK, Israel, Spain, or the US. (the same, BTW, can be said of x-USSR). But the NATO propaganda machine twists that around and blames them for not being flexible enough. That is absurd.
5. Finally, how is the campaign of terror bombing supposed to achieve its stated objective of stopping the violence. There is not single shred of evidence that aerial bombardment has even achieved that, but plenty of evidence that armed conflicts lead to an increase in civilian violence.
Again, these are reasonable doubts that that any critically thinking person should have regarding this conflict. Doubts are not exonerations - they simply tell that the government is yet to make its case against the Yugoslav government as weall as the case for its proposed solution of the problem. The propaganda blitz waged by the NATO with the help of the mainstream media has provided neither. In fact, NATO is acting as the prosecutor, the judge, and the executioner on issues that are to the international tribunals to decide.
regards,
Wojtek