Did Clark save the lives of millions, or did he further the PNAC plot?

[AP]

After reading this debate with which of these statements do you agree?

[DuctapeFatwa]

1. 9 out of 10 dead Albanian refugees and Chinese embassy workers agree

It depends on how you define "good things"

[AP]

4. Too bad you can only vote once.

Are you talking about the Dutch who walked away from guarding the refugees? You're blaming Clark for that?

[DuctapeFatwa]

8. They'd be late lamented Dutch guards if they hadn't

I assume that Clark would say he was only following orders.

Nuremberg says otherwise, but many people disagree.

The people who can make the best argument in favor of always obeying orders are those who include orders to harm their own families.

Everybody has their own values.

[AP]

9. I believe that once things started being done Clark's way, the Dutch guard

problem didn't reoccur.

[DuctapeFatwa]

10. Well they must have taken their time, since refugees were killed

All the way through the thing, and if you'll google Kosovar today, or better yet, talk to people, you will find that Clark did in fact make a very significant contribution to adding yet another Muslim land to the growing list of those under varying degrees of Crusader occupation, and we won't even talk about the ones who were dumped in Macedonia to freeze and starve and get beaten to death.

On the positive side, the Kosovo operation did a terrific job of impacting Serbian civilians, most of whose only thoughts about Albanians consisted of "yo, cool hat," while doing almost no damage to the Serbian army or interfering with the activities of the Muslim-hating street gangs on the ground in Kosovo, as the Pentagon's own Kevin "bow tie" Bacon proudly informed us at at one memorable press conference, not a single act of brutality against Kosovars had been prevented.

[The Magistrate]

18. You Are A Pistol, Mr. Fatwa

It is abundantly clear the Moslem Albanians of Kossovo are better off today than they would have been had Butcher Slobo been allowed to continue the course of genocidal explusion he was resolved on, to make room for Serb refugees from Croatia. The Crusader reference is baffling in the extreme, as these people were already within a jurisdiction wherein Christians were a majority, and that is unlikely to change in any way. It has been, after all, more than a century since the conquering Ottoman ruled those lands, and he is unlikely to return. In some parts of the world, Moslems are simply going to have to accept being a minority population, as the tide of Islamic conquest commenced some fourteen hundred years ago continues to recede.

Your reference to the Dutch soldiery is unfortunate: those men had guns in their hands, and ought to have fought and died to delay the murder of persons they were charged to protect. The Dutch government seems to agree with that assessment.

Your reference to the attitude of Serbs towards Albanians is risible. Not "cool hat!" but "Damned critters killed grampa, breed like rats and think of nothing but raping Serb virgins!" is closer to the mark. Your otherwordliness, Sir, at times truely astonishes me.

[DuctapeFatwa]

26. You seem conflicted on many aspects of this issue

Perhaps we can agree that the question posed in the original post is a subjective one.

If the goal had been to bring about a speedy end to the hijinks of Arkan and his Tigers and various copycats n wannabes, that could have been achieved in less time and with considerably less loss of life, not to mention actual prevention of acts of brutality against Kosovars, although admittedly that would have resulted in a lower net figure for the companies whose products and services are invaluable in an aerial campaign against civilian targets in an area notably devoid of Arkanoids or attendant felines.

If you are surprised by the Crusade reference, you will be truly astonished to learn that there are many who see a less than causal relationship between the destruction of bridges in Novi Sad and the eventual removal of Slobo to the Hague, where he awaits what I would consider a most interesting if not distinguished selection of cellmates.

It was not I who selected the Crusade theme for the ascendancy of the defense industry as the author of policy in the West; I believe that we are both aware that religion is a tool of architects of war, not the other way around, and I make no claim to psychic powers. I cannot say what religion may become more popular where. While one hears frequently the meme that "Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world," there are also those who make some very good arguments that the Academy will be awarding that particular statuette to Fundamentalist Christianity.

[ShaneGR]

34. The Chinese embassy that was stealing our radio signals???

And feeding them to the Serbians?

[annxburns]

2. Clark bashing ....

Wow, more opportunity to bash Clark. What a surprise ....

[AP]

5. Not bashing. It's an opportunity to prove that the Clark bashers are a...

...minority -- a vocal minority, but a minority nonetheless.

[RandomUser]

7. The results will be interesting

I'm inclined to agree with you that it's a vocal minority.

[saoirse]

17. Correct

And not really that vocal, either!

Asking whether Clark did a good thing in ending the genocide in Kosovo is a bit like asking if Eisenhower and the Soviets have any second thoughts about defeating Hitler.

Ludicrous - anyone who'll countenance the war crimes of Milosevic and friends should have had the opportunity of being on the receiving end of their bayonets.

[IndianaGreen]

88. Do you include Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch?

They are the ones that have been most critical about NATO's bombing of the former Yugoslavia.

How about the Brits? Should we condemn the Brits because they have a different point of view about Clark's role in the Pristina incident with General Jackson?

[Selwynn]

85. Why is every critical questions about anything called "bashing?"

I'm sick to fucking death of people calling every instace of asking critical questoins about their sacred cow "bashing." In the totalitarian world of BUSH, yes, any time you asked a critical question about a perosn's record or political beliefs it would not be tolerated and named "bashing."

But guess fucking what, we're supposed to be fighting AGAINST that world and fighting for a world where thinking is encouraged, where tough questions are freely asked, where people are not threatened by debate and where people don't idolize their cherished narrow what of looking at things so much that the harass and persecute everyone else who may think differently.

I swear some of you people would fit right in in Brave new world neo-cons are trying to create. Hell, you could be part of the "Information Ministry" team - making sure all dissent is crushed and the dogma is maintained exclusively.

[AP]

3. I love the polls because

a few people can post dozens of posts, but they can only vote once.l

[RandomUser]

6. Good point. n/t

no text

[RichM]

11. The either/or of the subject line is inflammatory, while the either/or of

the poll itself is subdued. (You ratcheted down the rhetoric to "did good things" vs "didn't do good things.") Yet, having seen the subject line, some respondents may be answering THAT formulation more than what literally appears in the poll lines. This may muddy the waters a bit.

Clearly, the language of the subject line is way too hot. There are a zillion shades of grey in between "saving millions" and PNAC'ing.

[AP]

13. No wagering please. This is only an exhibition.

But, yes, I went over a dozen formulation of the question before posting it, but I didn't change my subject line.

[Code_Name_D]

14. Indeed.

It implies that millions were in jeperdey to begine with. From what I have read so far, a majority of thoes who were killed by "ethnic clensing" were killed by US bombs or by US allies.

[AP]

15. It's a reference to the 100+ post thread, so people knew which debate I'm

trying to score.

[WillyBrandt]

12. kick

But...the anti-Clarkians...seemed so convinced...that the pro-Clarkians were the minority...but???

[Devils Advocate NZ]

16. Even if I put aside my belief...

that there was no organised campaign of genocide in Kosovo, I still have to vote that Clark did not do good things.

The fact is, that Clark's bombing campaign was an abysmal failure, in that it did practically nothing to the Serbian military. For example after the cease fire, over 40,000 troops and a few hundred tanks and armoured vehicles evacuated Kosovo over undamaged bridges and roads.

In fact even 13 MiG fighters that had been hidden from NATO surveillance flew out.

Once NATO got on the ground they found only a handful of destroyed armoured vehicles, with the Serbs admitting a dozen or so more had been salvaged.

SAM missiles were still being fired on the last day of the campaign, and more troops left Kosovo than NATO even knew were there in the first place.

The point I am trying to make is that Clark's air campaign failed to even damage Serbian war figthing capability, while killing hundreds of innocent civillians both in Serbia and Kosovo.

The reason no Americans were killed is because they flew so high, they couldn't tell a real tank from a dummy, or a civillian convoy from a military one. In fact some of the deception tactics that worked against the US bombers were so simple yet so effective, that I believe the US military was shocked by how poorly they had performed.

One trick was to lay tarpaulins across empty fields to simulate roads, thus getting US bombers to waste their payloads on dummy vehicles on dummy roads, well away from the carefully camouflaged real thing.

On paper Clark looks good - a war won without loss of US troops. Is usually missed is that there was very little loss to Serb troops either, and the main casualties were civillian. That was why the Serbs gave up, not because their military was defeated, but because their civillians were being slaughtered.

[FrenchieCat]

19. Try again, thus far you are not putting aside your beliefs....

Devils Advocate says......that there was no organised campaign of genocide in Kosovo, I still have to vote that Clark did not do good things.

THE UNAPPRECIATED GENERAL
The General Who Did Too Good a Job
International Herald Tribune
By Patrick B. Pexton
Tuesday, May 2, 2000; Page A23

When Clark became the Supreme Allied Commander for Europe in July 1997, NATO was already present in the former Yugoslavia. In Bosnia, allied troops were enforcing the 1995 American-brokered Dayton peace accords. But unrest simmered in the Albanian-populated Serbian province of Kosovo. An Albanian guerrilla army known as the Kosovo Liberation Army attacked Serb police and military installations. Reprisals against Albanian civilians were often brutal.
------------------
James O'Brien, a special presidential envoy to the Balkans and former senior advisor to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, recalls: "There was an ongoing debate over the role the Balkans should play in United States policy. There was a strong group arguing that NATO's purpose was to guarantee a Europe whole and free, and we couldn't leave the Balkans out of that. Clark was on that side. Others felt that after stabilizing Bosnia, we should leave."
-------------------
According to O'Brien, the interventionists had won the debate by 1998. But if the civilian leadership had settled on muscular involvement in the Yugoslav wars, the Pentagon had not.

"The military is always skeptical of humanitarian intervention and nation building," says Stephen Walt, academic dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. "Clark was responsive to the priorities of the civilian leadership and more supportive of the war than the officers were."
---------------------
Georgie Anne Geyer
July 30, 1999
GEN. WESLEY CLARK WAS RIGHT -- AND SO HE MUST GO
The problem with Gen. Clark was simple: It was that he was right. Although his public posture was meticulously unrevealing of his own feelings, it was known, and certainly appropriately so when many lives were at risk, that from the beginning he did warn both the Pentagon and the White House privately that, in order to win in Kosovo, more aggressive actions would need to be taken. He began planning for a ground invasion before anybody here would think of it. He warned them of the terrible consequences of failure, such as the destruction of a humiliated NATO.

As British writer Michael Ignatieff explains in the present New Yorker: "Clark had wanted a different approach from the outset. He and his air commanders ... had wanted to 'go downtown' on the first night, hitting power, telephone, command-and-control sites and Milosevic's bunkers."

The simple truth right now is that nobody says that Clark was wrong. In fact, the respected German Gen. Klaus Naumann, just-retired head of the NATO military committee, told a group of us here recently, in his review of the still-unresolved conflict, that "the reluctance to use overwhelming force allowed Slobodan Milosevic to calculate his risks. ... I would press harder for visible preparations and visible planning."

But it was the "go-slow" guys, the "they'll give in with a just little more punishment" chaps (in fact, the very same mentality that gave us Vietnam!), the ones who would rewrite all of the dictums of von Clausewitz and Sun Tzu about the need to strike hard, fast and unrelentingly, who were unquestionably and provably wrong -- and whose political caution cost tens of thousands of lives and came close to losing the war for NATO.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

[The Magistrate]

20. A Point Worth Adding, Sir

There are a number of mis-conceptions about how the Kossovo War worked.

First, there is the idea that fire which does not destroy has no useful effect. This is not so. The purpose of fire is suppression of enemy activity. Few Serbian armor vehicles were destroyed by the air campaign, but once it had begun by neutralizing anti-aircraft capability, Serb armor vehicles could not be used. They survived only by remaining concealed, and hence had no combat power whatever. This left Serb infantry on its own, and even this was forced to operate in small groups in its depredations on the Albanian populace. Albanian partisan fighters, as their numbers grew, became able to engage these small groups of Serb infantry, and on somewhat equal terms owing to the latter's lack of heavy equipment, all of which was sheltering from the aircraft. This forced the Serb infantry to operate in larger groups, which in turn were vulnerable to air attack. Once sizeable bodies of Serb infantry began to be caught by heavy air attack, the Serb soldiers were unwilling to continue fighting at all.

Second, the attacks against Belgrade and other places in Serbia did not kill a great number of people, but they did destroy a great quantity of assets from which Butcher Slobo and his clique extracted great profit, and which they used as patronage to reward the loyalty of their supporters. This damage to the purse of that corrupt and murderous clique, and the threat such damage posed to their retaining the bought loyalties on which their power rested, exerted a tremendous pressure on Butcher Slobo to end the thing while there might still be something of value to save.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

28. Totally and utterly wrong.

As I said in my earlier post, the Serb air defences were operating until the ceasefire, and had NOT been surpressed. Serb armoured vehicles WERE operating, and even if they had not been, Serb infantry far outnumbered the KLA, and were far more highly trained and equipped.

In fact, isn't it true that what was a trickle of refugees before the bombing, turned into a flood after the bombing began and throught the duration of tha war?

The pro-NATO people like to have it both ways. They say "Milosevic was chasing these people out of Kosovo" but when you then point out that the NATO war plan was ineffective because the Serbs were still able to chase people out of Kosovo, the pro-NATO people then try to say "No, the Serb military lost all effectiveness because they were pinned down".

Sorry Magistrate you can't have it both ways. Either the Serbs were chasing people out and the war was a failure, or the war was a success and the Serbs weren't chasing people out.

Secondly, the attacks against Belgrade etc resulted in nearly as many civillian deaths as the supposed campaign of genocide caused in Kosovo. Once again you can't have it both ways. Either a couple thousand civillian deaths is horrendous, or a couple thousand civillian deaths is collateral damage from a war. Double standards are the refuge of scoundrels.

As for the "damage to the purse" I think you better change your mind on that. Iraq suffered such damage, then a decade of sanctions, and was still able to put up a fight, so the damage to Serbia was NOT the cause of the Serbs surrendering.

The Serbs said, and there is no reason not to believe them, that they surrendered because the loss of civillian life was too excessive, and was accelerating as the US went after more and more borderline targets.

[TLM]

30. I'm still waiting for an answer to this...

We supposedly went after this genocidal mad man because, at that point, there'd been about 2000 deaths.

Clark's campaign of bombing civilians killed 1500 civilians.


So how is it that 2000 dead civilians is a genocide so horrific that it warrants international intervention to stop the horrific slaughter... yet killing 1500 MORE civilians with a bombing campaign that they admitted targeted civilians, is a heroic act?

Clark... murdered 1500 civilians so he's a hero.
Slobo... murdered 2000 civilians so he's a genocidal madman.

Where's the logic behind this? So if Clark killed another 500, would that make him a genocidal mad man too, or would he still be a hero?

This is the same shit going on in Iraq... sure we are there to stop a mad man who kills his own people, and we do so by KILLING IRAQIS. But at least the attacks in Iraq were effective… Clark’s bombing did nothing but blow up schools and churches and hospitals… 20,000 bombs and they took out 13 fucking tanks, some decoys, and a bunch of microwaves. %80 of the people killed by the serbs were killed AFTER the bombing started.

[The Magistrate]

35. No, Fellow, Not Wrong, Merely Concise

Your views on this matter are well known, and it is not my intention to reprise at any length your earlier follies concerning it, however much amusement they provided at the time.

As you will be casting a vote in neither any Democratic primary, nor in the '04 general election, what your view of a Democratic candidate is is of no more moment than a shout up a rainspout in the interior of Baluchistan, and so can be disregarded as utterly as a kitten's prefernce for remaining on the kitchen table come dinnertime.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Magistrate]

39. If That Is the Way You Want It, Dear

"It is a mistake to divide people into good and bad. People are either charming or tedious."

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Magistrate]

42. Did You Actually Hunt This Thing Up After Twenty-Four Hours, Dear?

And for that little squib, too?

Ah well, probably a better use for your hand than some other endeavors it must have available.

[wyldwolf]

43. He probably hoped some of us wouldn't be around to respond...

...so he could have the last word.

[The Magistrate]

46. He Is An Energetic Lad, Sir

He was an energetic defender of state murder at the time trial in The Hague of Butcher Slobo commenced February before last, denouncing it as the greatest mis-carriage of justice in the twentieth century that that innocent lamb was being accused of mis-deeds, and stating he bore no responsibility whatever for what was done by Serb state agencies, and Serb militias armed and directed by Serb state agencies.

His perseverence provided a great deal of amusement for many, through display of naivite and a tendency to talk himself into circles.

He used, too, to pursue his chosen role of jester down in the old Military forum, maintaining among other things that it was easier to land an airplane than to fly it into a tall building.

It is always good to have a fellow about to break the tension with a bit of levity....

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wyldwolf]

52. People have your record here to compare...

...and it doesn't look good for your position.

[The Magistrate]

55. It Should Hardly Need Pointing Out, Dear

The distinction between defending state murder, and denying it did in face of conclusive evidence to the contrary, is a distinction without a difference, to put it mildly.

For the rest, others are free to judge, and to chuckle, as they may be moved to do, even now.


"Kill one, warn one hundred."

[Devils Advocate NZ]

60. Ok, so show me the CONCLUSIVE evidence!

I have asked over and over again to see this CONCLUSIVE evidence, but neither you nor wyldwolf has done so. You present allegations, but no evidence.

You should really change your DU name. You obviously have no idea what constitutes evidence vs allegations, and you certainly don't live up to the word "Magistrate".

[wyldwolf]

62. hee hee! Devils Advocate is accusing us of only presenting "allegations."

bwahahahahahahahaha...

[Devils Advocate NZ]

67. Yes, I am.

Of course, I shouldn't need to remind you that allegations need to be supported by evidence - like mine are - in order to carry any weight.

Here is an allegation I have made:

"There is no evidence of a sytematic campaign of genocide in Kosovo."

Here is some supporting evidence:

There have only been around 2000 bodies found, and none of the supposed "mass graves" alledged to contain hundreds of bodies have ever been found.

Witnesses consistently talk of having seen mass murders, yet somehow managed to NOT be killed as well. When cross examined by Milosevic during his trial, the majority of them have made contradictory statements that call into question their testimony. Others have admitted to being KLA members or supporters.

The vast majority of refugees did not leave their homes until AFTER the NATO bombing campaign began, and many of them claim to have been fleeing the NATO bombs which were raining down on them, some of them narrowly missed being hit by bombs, while others were killed. In fact many Kosovar Albanians fled into Serbia when the bombing campaign began. Why would people being systematically killed by Serbs flee into the territory of their alledged killers?

Another allegation I have made is:

"NATO commited war crimes during the bombing campaign, and the court ostensibly set up to investigate and prosecute war crimes refused to even investigate these acts"

The evidence for this allegation is contained within the report I have linked to many times on this thread. This report clearly states that no investigation, meaning the examination of evidence and statements relating to an allegation, was carried out, and that the report was based solely on the press statements of the organisation accused of commiting these crimes.

It also admits that NATO was not cooperative with this review of statements, and did not specifically adddress any concerns raised by the committee, and yet this committee does not take these actions as indicative of an attempt to hide something, and accepts that NATO ALWAYS tells the truth, without ever attemtping to verify that this is so.

So, why don't you present the evidence that supports your allegations?

[The Magistrate]

66. Try Consulting Proceedings At The Hague, Dear

"There was a distinct oder of brimstone. Letters appeared on the paper; all charred brown like Boy Scout secrets in lemon juice:

"'Your services are no longer required in any advocacy for which Hell foots the bill. It ill suits the dignity of that Being who would sooner reign Here than serve in some other place, to risk evading charge by counsel's incompetence. Per the irrevocable clauses of our contract, a suite remains prepared for you, and your occupancy is eagerly awaited. Vile day, worm!

"'Signed:

"Beelzebub, Recording secretary for the Exchequer, and Member for Nether Furnace.'"

[Devils Advocate NZ]

68. I have been. Have you?

I have been reading the transcripts of the Milosevic trial, where I have found that at least one witness has admitted being coerced to falsely accuse Milsoevic, and the judge ruled that this was irrelevant to the case.

I have seen another witness break down and exclaim that the "psychological processing" the prosecution was putting him through was going to drive him "crazy", and that he refused to say the things the prosecution wanted him to say. I saw the judge at that time breach the rules of the court by allowing the prosecution to "speak" to the witness during a recess in order to gain his compliance, even though all witnesses are admonished against speaking to anyone about the trial, including prosecutors, during recesses while they are giving testimony.

I saw that same man come back to the stand, and upon refusing once again to say what the prosecution wanted him to say, be charged with contempt of court. Never once was Milosevic allowed to cross examine the witness in order to ascertain if this witness was also being coerced into giving false testimony.

I have seen a witness claim to be able to hear a cellphone conversation from ten metres away, yet not be heard moving around in the attic in which he was hiding as he went from window to window in an attempt to see what he alledged was a mass murder. He also claimed to be able to see an area not even visible from the attic. During this entire time, Serb soldiers were supposedly mere feet away occupying the house in which he was hidden.

I have seen another witness admit to being a KLA member, in other words a terrorist, and claim that he witnessed a massacre that it was shown to be impossible for him to have witnessed during cross examination. When confronted with this, he went off into a KLA propaganda rant, sounding like a madman.

I have seen numerous occasions when Milosevic had managed to show a witness was lying, only to be cut off and have any further cross examination prevented.

The entire ICTY is biased beyond repair, and thus I do not believe ANY convictions it has passed down, even though I have no doubt that at least some of the people accused of crimes did in fact commit crimes.

The court is tainted, and as such, so is every decision it makes, including correct ones. The ends (justice) do not justify the means (injustice) and thus the entire court needs to be disbanded, all of its decisions vacated, and a new UNBIASED court created to hear these cases again.

But of course YOU know what happened and is happening because you read the Washington Post, right?

[wyldwolf]

75. yeah... uh huh...

have found that at least one witness has admitted being coerced to falsely accuse Milsoevic, and the judge ruled that this was irrelevant to the case.

Really? Source? Or is this just another expert conclusion you're reached on your own?

I have seen another witness break down...
I have seen a witness claim...
I have seen another witness admit...
I have seen numerous occasions when Milosevic had managed to show a witness was lying...
The entire ICTY is biased beyond repair...
The court is tainted...

All of these ravings pretty much speak for themselves.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

76. You should know by now to quit while you are behind...

have found that at least one witness has admitted being coerced to falsely accuse Milsoevic, and the judge ruled that this was irrelevant to the case.

Really? Source? Or is this just another expert conclusion you're reached on your own?

You should know by now to quit while you are behind and certainly not to challenge my sources. As I have said, I read the trial transcripts, so a smart person would suspect I would have a source for this claim, and that smart person would be right:

25 Q. Is it true that they offered on that occasion to you certain
1 protective measures? They told you you would be in prison for six months
2 and would be tried if you don't agree to charge me falsely, to level false
3 allegations against me? Is that true or not?

4 A. They spoke to me about the difficult position I was in. They
5 warned me against the possible consequences and offered me an option in
6 the form of accusing Milosevic, as the person who issued orders for those
7 criminal offences, which would relieve me of liability before a criminal
8 court.

9 Q. Is it true that they offered you a new identity, money, and
10 sustenance for you and your family only so that you would falsely accuse
11 me? Is that correct?

12 A. Yes, that's correct.

13 Q. Do you know that in 1998 -- sorry. 1988, the General Assembly of
14 the United Nations adopted by consensus a declaration against torture, and
15 that such treatment that you were subjected to is explicitly forbidden by
16 this declaration, as well as forcing --

17 MR. NICE: Your Honour --

18 MR. MILOSEVIC:
19 Q. -- statements from detainees, extortion and such things?

20 JUDGE MAY: This doesn't appear to have any relevance to the
21 evidence the witness has given here, none at all. He's been agreeing with
22 you, he's been agreeing to the matters you've put to him, and we're not
23 certainly going to litigate here what happened in Yugoslavia when he was
24 arrested. What we're concerned with, as you know, is events in Kosovo.

25 THE ACCUSED: Mr. May, the conduct of a puppet
1 regime in Belgrade is completely identical to the false indictment --

2 JUDGE MAY: Precisely the sort of point which we're not going to
3 consider. Now, have you got any more relevant questions for this witness?
4 Or we'll move on.

5 Mr. Tapuskovic, have you got any questions of this witness?

6 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: Yes.

7 THE ACCUSED: Of course I have more questions. I
8 have many more questions.

9 JUDGE MAY: How long do you think you'll need, Mr. Tapuskovic?

10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: Your Honours, I will try to do
11 what I have to do within 15 minutes.

12 JUDGE MAY: Thank you.

13 Yes, Mr. Milosevic. Move on to some other topic.

14 MR. MILOSEVIC:
15 Q. All right. Is it true that inciting somebody to false testimony
16 and false accusations is a criminal act under our law?

17 JUDGE MAY: That is precisely the point that has been ruled
18 against. Now, you'll have to deal with his evidence. Do you challenge,
19 for instance, the meeting at which it was said you were at and there was
20 talking of the cleaning up of the terrain? If so, you should put that?

21 THE ACCUSED: Mr. May, I am asking precisely that
22 question: Is it true that this statement that has been presented about
23 the mopping up of the terrain was drafted precisely by the same people and
24 under the sponsorship of those people who exerted pressure on you and who
25 have been torturing you for one year and a half now?

1 A. Yes, it's an interview with the same people.
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/020726IT.htm

For those who have not been informed of the trial by the media, here is a rundown on the people involved in this transcript.

The witness is Radomir Markovic, and he is being cross examined by Milosevic after havbing given his direct testimony. When Milosevic extracts the admission that Markovic was coerced into giving false testimony, he then asks the witness if he knows that the treatment he was subjected to is banned by the UN declaration against torture, at which point the prosecutor, Geoffrey Nice, interjects, but without having said a word as to the reason for his objection, the presiding Judge, Richard May, himself calls a halt to proceedings.

He tells Milosevic that the fact that the witness admitted having been coerced to give false testimony is irrelevent, and to change the subject or be prevented from further cross examination. Milosevic again tries to ask the witness whether it is true that inciting someone to provide false testimony and false accusations is illegal under Yugoslavian law, at which point Judge may once again interjects and says that this has been ruled against, and then goes on to describe what kind of question he would allow - basically any kind of question that does not refer to the witness being coerced to give false testimony.

So Milosevic asks the witness whether the meeting he was testifying about was with the same people who had been torturing him (except this time not refering to WHY he was being tortured), and the witness once again agrees.

The point is, at least one prosecution witness has admitted being coerced to give FALSE testimony for the prosecution. How many others were also coerced, but did not admit it in court? As I said in my previous post, at least one other witness made references to the treatment he was receiving at the hands of the prosecutors and that he was being driven mad, and that he refused to say what they wanted him to say. Was this man also being tortured? There is no way to know, because he was taken away, charged with contempt of court, and has not returned to the trial.

Sorry to make you look like a fool wyldwolf, but as you can see, I do not make allegations rashly. I always ensure that I can back up my claims with evidence.

Now, where is YOUR evidence? I'm still waiting...

[wyldwolf]

79. Let's break it down then...

First of all, everyone be clear on this. This is Milosevic examining Radomir Markovic, a former member of Milosevic's inner circle. According to lawyer Rajko Danilovic, Radomir Markovic was head of Milosevic's Red Berets or Special Operations Unit - a combined military and police unit whose purpose was to "liquidate" Milosevic's political opponents. They were close. Buddies.

http://www.rferl.org/southslavic/2003/06/18-260603.html

So what we have here is Milosevic, representing himself, examining a witness who isn't credible. And we'll see more of that in a bit...

Milosevic: Is it true that they offered on that occasion to you certain protective measures? They told you you would be in prison for six months and would be tried if you don't agree to charge me falsely, to level false allegations against me? Is that true or not?

Markovic: They spoke to me about the difficult position I was in. They warned me against the possible consequences and offered me an option in the form of accusing Milosevic, as the person who issued orders for those criminal offences, which would relieve me of liability before a criminal court.

This is called a plea bargain arrangement - very common in the legal world and nothing sinister about it. Essentially, Markovic was offered more lenient punishment for "turning state's evidence" on Milosevic.

Also, notice Markovic's carefully chosen words. While he confirmed the plea bargain, he in no way confirmed Milosevic's charge of leveling false accusations.

Milosevic: Is it true that they offered you a new identity, money, and sustenance for you and your family only so that you would falsely accuse me? Is that correct?

Markovic: Yes, that's correct.

You left out most of Markovic's answer here. This is the rest:

I was told that in that case I would not be the one who would be held accountable but that I could choose a country where I would live and that I could get a new identity and that it was indispensable to accuse you so that you would be tried in the country

Again, Markovic does not confirm Milosevic's false accusations charge. In fact, he only fills in the details of what his "plea bargain" arrangement is and that he must implicate Milosevic to get it.

Here is another part of the transcript you posted:

Milosevic: ...is it true that this statement that has been presented about the mopping up of the terrain was drafted precisely by the same people and under the sponsorship of those people who exerted pressure on you and who have been torturing you for one year and a half now?

Markovic: Yes, it's an interview with the same people.

Again, no denial of the "mopping up" charge, just a confirmation that the way a question was presented was done so by Markovic's interrogators.

A very telling quote on the "mopping up of the terrian" charge is this:

When asked by the prosecutor whether he confirmed his words said to the investigators in June 2001, that the Yugoslavian army and police had carried out "cleansings" on the territory of Kosovo and afterwards a truck with several dozens of killed Albanians had been found in the Danube, Markovic answered negatively.

The tribunal's investigator allowed himself "a too free interpretation of his words, completing them with other people's inventions" while taking down the interrogation, he said.

From the whole transcript of interrogation Markovic only confirmed his words about "cleansings" conducted on the territory of Kosovo.

http://english.pravda.ru/world/2002/07/26/33260.html

So, we see, though Markovic denied the existance of a truck, he didn't deny the cleansings conducted on Kosovo.

Now I see where you get your knack for extreme supposition.

Slobodan Milosevic!

Sorry to make you look like a fool, but as everyone can see, you make allegations rashly.

[The Magistrate]

82. In Addition, Mr. Wolf

It is worth pointing out explicitly there is neither credible allegation nor confirmation in this extract concerning torture. The witness makes no allegation of electric shock to the genitals, of beatings, deprivation of food or sleep, or any other thing generally viewed as torture. The only statement even alleging torture comes from Butcher Slobo, saying "the persons who had been torturing you for one year and a half now," but of course, that statement is not evidence, as Butcher Slobo has no personal knowledge whatever concerning this fellow's confinement. It would seem that simple confinement to jail is being equated here with torture, and that is, of course, simply ludicrous. Jailing is an unpleasant experience, certainly, and deliberately so, but not even the gentle souls of Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch are prepared to view it as torture in and of itself.

[Selwynn]

87. They do if its illegal or unjustified. :)

And they also do depending on the "conditions" of the "prison" in question.

[The Magistrate]

99. Well, Then, Out With It, Mr. Selwyn

Do you believe this man was tortured?

Do you believe there was no real reason to arrest him?

Serbia under Butcher Slobo was a murder state; this fellow was a principal prop of that murderous order.

If recollection serves, we were last engaged over whether anyone in the West might dare venture to criticize Shia'ra law as dis-favoring women, since in your view the West was no better at that than a pack of Islamic fundamentalists?

[Devils Advocate NZ]

89. I had thought you could be reasonable Magistrate...

and that you were merely misled. But it appears that you are actively engaging in an attempt to mislead others.

The witness makes no allegation of electric shock to the genitals, of beatings, deprivation of food or sleep, or any other thing generally viewed as torture.

The witness describes being falsely arrested, and threatened with imprisonment (I assume for many years based on the seriousness of the charges involved) in order to pressure him to falsely accuse Milosevic.

Here is the relevent definition from the Convention Against Torture:

Article 1

1) For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

So tell me, do you think threats of a long prison sentence on false charges could be considered to cause mental suffering, especially after the person has already been imprisoned for six months on these same false charges? I do.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

104. Whatever... It seems I might have to fight fire with fire...

My posts keep getting deleted, while posts like this are allowed to stand, so I shall be alerting this message.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wyldwolf]

100. You must have missed something...

I'll repeat it for you...

The Serbian government has disbanded the police special operations unit known as the Red Berets, after the latest breakthroughs in the investigation into the murder of Serbian premier Zoran Djindjic, the government said late on March 25.

http://www.mfa.gov.yu/Bilteni/Engleski/b260303_e.html

And I'll add these:

The witnesses in the disclosure of this most hideous crime have
spoken of strong ties the alleged national interest protectors of
the Serb people had with dismissed Special Operation Unit ('Red
Berets') commander Milorad Lukovic 'Legija' and some 'Red
Berets.' The bogus patriots have been cooperating with criminal
gangs, foremost the 'Zemunski klan' (directed by Lukovic),
killing political opponents and maltreating the resisting
citizens on behalf of the Milosevic-Markovic couple.

and

Serbian Vice Premier Zarko Korac on Sunday said the
investigation into a string of murders and abductions had shown
(former) political leadership to have been behind them. "There
are indications that the assassins even employed a military
helicopter and detailed documents on who issued the orders. I
believe the investigation will reach the married couple of
Milosevics as Slobodan Milosevic himself appears to have given
the go-ahead for the helicopter use. The least he should know is
who was inside the helicopter," Korac said on BK TV. The
kidnapping and murder of (former Serbian President) Ivan
Stambolic was a warning to the people who think Slobodan
Milosevic and his wife patriots, "best-wishing politicians whom
international community crushed." "Obviously, this was a
political, paid-for murder by members of 'Red Berets' on orders
issued by (their colonel Milorad Lukovic) 'Legija.' As then
headof the unit Rade Markovic was the pawn in the hands of the
married couple, it is logical and justified to assume the order
to have came from the Milosevics," Korac said. It would be no
surprise if they are found by the investigation to have been
behind the murder of Ser bian Premier Djindjic, he said.

http://www.mamba.co.yu/politika/mart_arhiva.asp

I'll also add a link on the general atrocities of the red berets so people will get an idea of what YOU are defending:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/tribunals/yugo/2003/testimony.htm

As I pointed out to Magistrate, threats of false imprisonment on the basis of trumped up charges constitute the intentional infliction of mental suffering, and thus are deemed torture under the UN Convention Against Torture.

First, prove the charges are "trumped up."

Then, show me where the UN Convention Against Torture says intentional infliction of mental suffering based on "trumped up" charges constitutes torture.

The prosecution's witness admitted under oath that he had been coerced in to giving false testimony.

No he didn't. A deal was struck for him to testify. The false testimony charge was Milosevic's.

Is it a credible allegation? Of course it is.

No it isn't. It comes from a man on trial for war crimes, speaking to one of his buddies.

The Prosecution considered him credible when they called him (despite your claims otherwise) so they can't just rescind his credibility when he says soemthing they don't like.

As I've said, he has not stated he was coerced into giving false testimony, so that portion of your point is moot.

However, there is proof that Markovic was in prison, and the fact that he is appearing as a prosecution witness shows that he agreed to give testimony, and the fact that he admitted his testimony is false are pretty good indicators that something untoward had happened.

he didn't admit this. he admitted giving testimony so that in that case I would not be the one who would be held accountable but that I could choose a country where I would live and that I could get a new identity and that it was indispensable to accuse you so that you would be tried in the country

He was offered a deal to incriminate Milosevic. And he took it.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

105. Try again...

I'll repeat it for you...

The Serbian government has disbanded the police special operations unit known as the Red Berets, after the latest breakthroughs in the investigation into the murder of Serbian premier Zoran Djindjic, the government said late on March 25.

Zoran Djindjic was murdered TWO YEARS after Milosevic was imprisoned in the Hague. I suppose you are going to tell me that he has been orchestrating murders from prison?

If not, what possible relevence does events in Serbia TWO YEARS after a NATO puppet government took over Serbia have to this discussion?

You go on to state that this puppet government has found "evidence" of crimes alledgedly perpetrated by Milosevic. Well, that is hardly a surprise. In fact it is standard operating procedure when the CIA overthrows a legitimate government.

I believe that the fact that the only person to tie Milosevic to these alledged crimes admitted that he had been coerced into giving false testimony by this very puppet government speaks volumes as to the reliability of these claims.


As I pointed out to Magistrate, threats of false imprisonment on the basis of trumped up charges constitute the intentional infliction of mental suffering, and thus are deemed torture under the UN Convention Against Torture.

First, prove the charges are "trumped up."

Then, show me where the UN Convention Against Torture says intentional infliction of mental suffering based on "trumped up" charges constitutes torture.

Here is the relevent definition from the Convention Against Torture:

Article 1

1) For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

As to whether the charges are "trumped up", that is the claim of the witness, who was deemed credible by the ICTY Prosecutor. Obviously this does not constitute "proof", but it does provide grounds for an investigation. Will the ICTY investigate? Not very likely.

The prosecution's witness admitted under oath that he had been coerced in to giving false testimony.

No he didn't. A deal was struck for him to testify. The false testimony charge was Milosevic's.

I am now seriously starting to doubt either your reading comprehension skills, or your sanity. I have quoted the relevant section of the transcript multiple times, and yet you continue to refuse to READ WHAT IT SAYS. Here try again:

9 Q. Is it true that they offered you a new identity, money, and
10 sustenance for you and your family only so that you would falsely accuse
11 me? Is that correct?

12 A. Yes, that's correct.

Is that so hard to understand? He is directly asked whether he was being coerced to falsely accuse Milsoevic, and he says "Yes, that's correct."

Is it a credible allegation? Of course it is.

No it isn't. It comes from a man on trial for war crimes, speaking to one of his buddies.

Funny that the ICTY prosecutor considered him credible, which is why they called him as one of THEIR witnesses.

As I've said, he has not stated he was coerced into giving false testimony, so that portion of your point is moot.

And as I have PROVED multiple times now, yes he did state that he had been coerced into giving false testimony, and thus not only is my point not moot, but I begin to see why you are REFUSING to accept what the trial transcript says in PLAIN ENGLISH. You can't justify a prosecution witness being coerced to LIE, so instead you try to pretend it never happened. Sorry, pal, it won't work. Every time you deny what is written in the transcript I will just quote it again, to show just how wrong you are. Here it is again:

9 Q. Is it true that they offered you a new identity, money, and
10 sustenance for you and your family only so that you would falsely accuse
11 me? Is that correct?

12 A. Yes, that's correct.

he didn't admit this. he admitted giving testimony so that in that case I would not be the one who would be held accountable but that I could choose a country where I would live and that I could get a new identity and that it was indispensable to accuse you so that you would be tried in the country

He was offered a deal to incriminate Milosevic. And he took it.

Yes, he did. Read it again:

9 Q. Is it true that they offered you a new identity, money, and
10 sustenance for you and your family only so that you would falsely accuse
11 me? Is that correct?

12 A. Yes, that's correct.

The words FALSELY ACCUSE appear prominently in the question, and the answer is YES.

Of course you can dig up an answer to another question, and try to manipulate it's context to give it meaning it doesn't have in the transcript, but it won't work. You can't spin your way out of this one. The witness lied. He admitted he lied. He admitted he had been offered bribes to cooperate, and threatened with prison if he didn't, in order to FALSELY ACCUSE Milsoevic.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

111. Still at it I see...

9 Q. Is it true that they offered you a new identity, money, and
10 sustenance for you and your family only so that you would falsely accuse
11 me? Is that correct?

12 A. Yes, that's correct.

There is a solid hard FACT that you can't spin your way out of. I appreciate you proving my point in regards to the alerts though...

[wyldwolf]

114. Have you addressed you concerns with the mods?

... I'm sure they'll be receptive of your concerns over how much power I have over their post deletions.

C'mon! Go to the "Ask The Admins" forum. Good luck!

[Devils Advocate NZ]

116. Don't need to. I know what is happening and why.

You alert the post, the mod looks at it, and if there is even a hint of a breach of the rules, deletes it. Everyone on DU knows how this works.

Of course, I don't need to hit alert on your posts, because there is nothing in them that I am trying to hide, unlike you. The more people who see your ridiculous arguments the better.

By the way, do you care to address this:

9 Q. Is it true that they offered you a new identity, money, and
10 sustenance for you and your family only so that you would falsely accuse
11 me? Is that correct?

12 A. Yes, that's correct.

Or are you still going to claim it never happened?

[wyldwolf]

118. Well, DU... do all of you know this is how it works?

:tinfoilhat:

That is how you arrive at all your beliefs, huh? A feeling that "everyone knows it."

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wyldwolf]

24. Watch out! I've had this discussion with Devils Advocate before...

He's gonna say, "How do we KNOW any of that is true? We weren't there! It could have been anybody!" :eyes:

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wyldwolf]

45. The thread speaks for itself...

"What if's" and rationalizations to reach the conclusion you want.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

27. So, let me get this right...

Clark deserves to get acclaim for running a war without casualties, but he can't be blamed for running a war that failed to defeat the enemy militarily?

Am I understanding you correctly?

Either Clark was running the war, or he wasn't. If the stategy and tactics involved were not Clark's, then Clark does not deserve the acclaim he has been getting for the war in Kosovo, because he wasn't really running it.

If the strategy and tactics WERE Clark's, then he doesn't deserve the acclaim he has been getting because militarily it was a failure. Only the high Serbian civillian casualties caused the Serbs to surrender, and I am pretty sure that NO ONE would want to heap praise on any General who killed many times more civillians than enemy soldiers with his war plan.

After all, isn't that what Milosevic is being tried for?

[Justice]

21. Most Duers Agree, Clark Did Good Things

This poll highlights the folks that are dead set against Clark no matter what. These folks are in a distinct minority, yet the negative Clark Threads represent a significant percentage of thread each day.

This tells me that the folks who are against Clark are purposely throwing up negative Clark threads to make it look like many more folks are negative on Clark. Then those folks populate the threads with lots of vague dark statements like - I just don't trust clark, there is something about Clark I just can't explain it, but I can't support him.

I see this going one of two ways:

People start posting positives about their candidate (please!)

We all start copying the anti-Clark folks in an effort to get the board balanced and bring the level of discussion down for everyone.

[RandomUser]

23. Interesting analysis...insightful too. (eom)

End of message.

[Padraig18]

22. Two things I *know* settled the question for me:

1.) The chief prosecutor for the IWCT at The Hague told the UN Security Council that her investigation led her to believe that while some mistaked were made in NATO's 38K bombing missions, there was no evidence whatsoever to indicate that either NATO or Gen. Clark had done anything in contravention of international law, i.e., committed a war crime.

2.) I attend school with several Serbian students who believe that NATO actually helped the Serbian people to throw off a brutal dictator, and they genereally view gen. Clark in a positive light.

Edited for typos.

[wyldwolf]

25. Of course, last month Clinton visited Kosovo and was given a very...

...receptive welcome... like a rock star...by serbians. Tell THEM it was all a lie!

The question to me had already been settled. This just tightened it.

[TLM]

29. Sorry I go right to Clark's mouth.... he admited/defended a war crime

He openly admited that he targeted journalists and civilians.

Extra! July/August 1999 Legitimate Targets? How U.S. Media Supported War Crimes in Yugoslavia - By Jim Naureckas
NATO justified the bombing of the Belgrade TV station, saying it was a legitimate military target. "We've struck at his TV stations and transmitters because they're as much a part of his military machine prolonging and promoting this conflict as his army and security forces," U.S. General Wesley Clark explained--"his," of course, referring to Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic. It wasn't Milosevic, however, who was killed when the Belgrade studios were bombed on April 23, but rather 20 journalists, technicians and other civilians.

Convicted or not... that is a war crime. I will not vote for Clark. If he gets the nomination my choice will be to vote for one war ciminal or another war criminal... I will write in a non-war criminal.

[Padraig18]

32. Pretty cool how...

... you skip over this part of the statement YOU posted:

"..."We've struck at his TV stations and transmitters because they're as much a part of his military machine prolonging and promoting this conflict as his army and security forces," ...."

As if that's not possible? Give me a freakin' BREAK!

[JackRiddler]

84. hmm, sounds like CNN qualified in February 2003...

among other times.

[wyldwolf]

33. You cannot be legally guilty of a crime unless you are convicted...

...further, the very definition of "war crime" hinges on a conviction by the entity that tries such cases.

Though there are certainly events that we know would be classified as war crimes if they were investigated, this isn't one of them.

Some say it was a legitimate target because RTS facilities were "being used as radio relay stations and transmitters to support the activities of the FRY military and special police forces."

[Devils Advocate NZ]

37. The RTS bombing was a war crime that the ICTY refused to investigate...

Although it is clear that if investigated a war crimes charge may have resulted, the ICTY refused to investigate on the grounds that NATO insisted that it was a legitimate target. That is like a murderer not being investigated (note the word "investigated", not "charged") because he claims he killed the person in self defence.

The refusal to even INVESTIGATE proves that the ICTY is biased, and thus NONE of it's rulings are just. Here is a quote from an ICTY committee report to the OTP (Office of The Prosecutor):

The committee has conducted its review relying essentially upon public documents, including statements made by NATO and NATO countries at press conferences and public documents produced by the FRY. It has tended to assume that the NATO and NATO countries’ press statements are generally reliable and that explanations have been honestly given. The committee must note, however, that when the OTP requested NATO to answer specific questions about specific incidents, the NATO reply was couched in general terms and failed to address the specific incidents. The committee has not spoken to those involved in directing or carrying out the bombing campaign.
http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/nato061300.htm

Uh huh. Now if only all police officers were as trusting, we could get away with ANY crime by merely releasing a statement that our actions were totally justified!

Notice also that NATO did NOT cooperate with the review. It failed to address specific issues when asked, and yet the committee STILL assumes that NATO had nothing to hide and was being totally honest.

Justice? Not even close.

[Zhade]

38. Agreed. There should have been an investigation.

NT!

[wyldwolf]

41. Where does this say the ICTY refused to investigate it?

To me, this reads that they investigated it.

Perhaps not to your satifaction, though.


Again, you're adding your own commentary and "what if's" to reach the conclusion you want.

[The Magistrate]

44. Indeed, Sir

Frivolous and vexatious claims are thrown out of court by judges by the hundreds every day.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

49. Are you defending state murder? It sure sounds like it!

How does it feel to be called a war crimes apologist? You seem to love throwing that charge around, so it is time for you to take a little of your own medicine.

If you read the report, you will see that this ICTY review admits that in the case of the RTS bombing that under existing laws the bombing was a breach and thus a war crime. It is only by inventing a new criteria - that an act carried out as part of a legitimate campaign can not be considered illegal by itself - can the ICTY justify this bombing.

Under the Geneva conventions, an attack on a target that is likely to cause civilian deaths or destruction of civilian property can only be carried out if there is a "concrete and direct" military advantage gained by its destruction, and that civilian casualties be proportionate to this advantage. In this report they admit that the affect of this attack was neither proportionate, nor the advantage gained concrete and direct, thus admiting a war crime was carried out.

So how do they justify refusing to even investigate this attack? By inventing a new criteria that appears no where in international law: that the attack not be part of an otherwise legal campaign against legitimate targets. In other words although this individual attack was a war crime, the fact that it was part of a legitimate campaign to take out communications facilities confers on it a level of legitimacy.

Consider what that means: If a military unit enters a village in search of terrorists, and while killing said terrorists also intentionally kills civilians, then their deaths are not a war crime. It would only be a war crime if the unit entered the village knowing that no terrorists are present, and with the express intention of killing civilians only. If they kill even one terrorist, then no war crimes occur, at least by the ICTY findings in relation to the RTS bombing.

[wyldwolf]

51. Murder is a legal term. To meet the qualifications of that term..

...one must be convicted.

Further, to meet the qualifications of a Geneva convention violation, one must be convicted.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

53. So when was Milosevic convicted? Or are you just being hypocritical?

You sure seem to have no problem calling Milosevic a murderer even though he has not been convicted. So why don't you live by your own rules?

[wyldwolf]

54. Milosevic is on trial. Is Clark? Is Clinton? Is anyone from NATO?

Even though I believe Milosevic is a mass murderer, refresh my memory as to where I called him one.

You are really grasping.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

58. No, because...

the NATO funded, NATO controlled, ICTY refused to even investigate, let alone prosecute, NATO war crimes. Does that mean that no war crimes were committed, or does it merely mean that the criminals are bribing the Court and Prosecutors office?

Even though I believe Milosevic is a mass murderer, refresh my memory as to where I called him one.

You just did it directly, and you have been doing it indirectly throughout both this thread and the other one we argued on. However, if it makes you feel better I will amend my statement to "you implied that Milosevic was a mass murderer".

[wyldwolf]

59. Why thank you for admitting you were wrong...

And again, for you...

[Devils Advocate NZ]

61. No, I didn't admit I was wrong, I proved I was right.

Of course if this is the sort of pathetic, mindless argument you have to make in order to feel superior, go right ahead.

[wyldwolf]

63. Oh no! He's gettin' mad!

Did you not just "ammend" a statement about me after I called you on the inaccuracy of it?

Now go whine and pout some more.

It's really funny.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

69. No, I "amended" the statement because you were throwing a tantrum about it

You confirmed that the statement was true, but your whining was becoming tiresome, so I "amended" it to make you feel better.

Now would you prefer to keep acting childish, or would you rather address the topic of the argument?

[wyldwolf]

74. Yeah... I say "you whine"... then it's monkey time...

...just repeat after me.

The topic has already been addressed. Continuously. You just keep getting called on your shoddy research from dubious sources and then storm away pouting.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

77. You call the ICTY trial transcripts "dubious sources"?????

Or the report for the OTP of the ICTY a "dubious source"???

What exactly are YOUR sources? Reports from the same media that lied about Iraq, that lied about the 2000 election, and that lie on a daily basis of the ongoing situations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the ICTY?

Whose sources are dubious? I think you better rethink this particular line of argument!

[wyldwolf]

80. Where did I call OTP and ICTY transcripts dubious?

Better check the post numbers for when you posted the transcripts.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

90. You said I used dubious sources. My sources were the report and transcript

Hence you were saying the report and transcript were dubious...

I made it clear, even in the other thread where we got into this, that I was using the above sources for my information.

You claimed I used "dubious sources" in post #74 on Oct-24-03.

I first quoted from and linked to the report in post #37 on Oct-22-03, two days before your post, and in fact at the beginning of this sub-thread.

I also refered to the transcripts in two other posts that have now been deleted.

By the way, I ask any person who reads this thread to take note of the number of deleted messages. All of them are mine, and all of them included important information. Someone "alerted" on them because I seemingly broke the rules. Yet I have seen many such breaches of the rules from both Wyldwolf and The Magistrate, but none of their posts have been deleted. I wonder why this is?

Could it be that someone does not like being proven wrong, and thus needs to suppress my posts by complaining about them? I wonder who that could be?

It would seem it is not a third party, because they have selectively alerted on MY posts, yet left Wyldwolf's and Magistrates. So it was not done out of an interest to have the rules upheld, or the offending posts from those two DUers would also be gone.

So, I wonder...

[wyldwolf]

94. Oh, I see...

Whining about your posts being deleted when no one else's are.

Boo hoo!

More of your conspiratorial rantings. What, the mods are out to suppress the truth? DU is persecuting you?

bwhahahahahahahahaha

I never called the reports dubious, but rather, sources you used in the past in your deleted messages.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

97. The only source I have used are the report and the transcripts...

specifically because people like you call anything else dubious, while posting quotes from PRAVDA!

So have you just given me your motive for having my posts deleted? So that you can claim what you were refering to was in those deleted posts? If you were, why did you not say so on the sub-threads where those alledged sources appeared? Why did you do it on the sub-thread where I quoted solely from the ICTY report?

Or is this yet another lie?

As for the mods, no I don't blame them, they only delete posts where someone alerts on them. I am questioning the motive of the person who used the alert feature in such an obviously biased way.

[wyldwolf]

101. Funny how you keep throwing that "lie" charge around...

I distinctly recall other sources in your deleted posts.

As for your posts deleted, god this is so funny.

NO ONE can have posts deleted but the mods and admins.

They delete posts regularly that HAVE NOT been alerted. Don't believe me? Go to the admin forum and ask them.

I don't give a rat's ass whether your posts get deleted or not. I'd rather everyone see how conspiratorial minds work.

Your charges of mod bias and persecution against your "truth" is hysterical.

Did you ever think people are reading your posts? Do you think some might be mods? Do you not think personal attacks are rule violations? How about openly questioning mods in forums other that the admin forum?

:eyes:

[Devils Advocate NZ]

107. Is that so? Then how come every time I PROVE YOU WRONG...

My post gets deleted?

I tested it out with a post from Magistrate, and soon after I complained the post was deleted.

Yet it had not been deleted for some time BEFORE I complained. I am not blaming the mods, although some notification as to the reasons would be nice, but the fact remains, and anyone can see it for themselves, that my posts that prove you wrong get alerted on and subsequently deleted.

If personal attacks are rule violations that get deleted without an alert, how come YOUR personal attacks against me (remember those thorazine posts?) don't get deleted? Could it be because I didn't hit alert?

I will continue to "throw the lie charge around" every time you lie. You see it is a simple cause and effect: You lie, I call it a lie.

Take for example your claim that Markovic never admitted to having been coerced to give false testimony. To say this without knowledge of the transcript is an error born of ignorance. To continue to say it even though I have posted his admission many times, is a LIE.

Here it is again, just so you can't do it again:

9 Q. Is it true that they offered you a new identity, money, and
10 sustenance for you and your family only so that you would falsely accuse
11 me? Is that correct?

12 A. Yes, that's correct.

[wyldwolf]

108. yeah, that's so....

Go to "Ask The Admins" and ask if the mods if the only time posts get deleted is when they are alerted. You might not like the answer.

And WHEN you prove me wrong on something - I'll admit it.

Is this the part where you stomp your feet, pound your desk, and pout some more?

[Devils Advocate NZ]

110. Hahaha! False claims of victory are so amusing.

Especially when they are as patently untrue as yours.

I do not claim that the ONLY time posts get deleted anywhere on DU is when they get alerted, I am claiming that ON THIS THREAD, the only time posts have been deleted is when they got alerted, as I confirmed with the post from Magistrate above in this thread.

It sat there for some time, without anyone deleting it, until I hit alert and within minutes it was gone. The fact that other such posts from Magistrate and yourself still exist on the thread shows that in the case of THIS THREAD posts are only being deleted when alerted.

I could prove this by going through and alerting on all the rest, but then people would not see what I mean. By the way, I wouldn't be surprised if those posts now start getting deleted because someone doesn't want them to be seen...

I have proved you wrong time and time again and you can't admit even the most OBVIOUS times. So I wouldn't take you at your word if my life depended on it. Your word is worthless.

[wyldwolf]

112. And it is wonderful that you can amuse yourself that way!

...I'll bet your parents were amazed you could do that when they sat you down with the Delux JFK Conspiracy Playset when you were 5 years old!

Were you bad again in post #109?

[Devils Advocate NZ]

115. Thank you for confirming that you can't win an argument...

without lying and censoring the posts that prove you wrong.

In return, I will NOT alert this post of yours, just to force you to do it yourself, or look like a fool.

[wyldwolf]

117. You're welcome...

...I was always told to humor certain personality types.

I asked a Psychologist friend of mine about people who subscribe to conspiracy theories. She said some people who experience paranoid conspiratorial thoughts were abused when they were young by teachers. I didn't get the connection but I'm not a shrink. Whatever.

I hope that isn't the case with you and you arrived at your beliefs through diligent research.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

122. Well, I can read English, such as the court transcripts.

Unlike someone I could mention.

Having said that, I have to ask, were YOU abused by your teacher? After all you believe the "Kosovo Genocide" conspiracy theory as promulgated by the media...

[wyldwolf]

123. Sure you can read English. It is your interpretation that hinders you...

I hope you defied the teachers in question. Is this where your distrust for authority comes from?

[Devils Advocate NZ]

125. I am glad to see that you have given up all pretense of trying to argue...

and have resorted to pure ad hominem attacks. It shows that you can not win this argument. Thanks for playing, better luck next time!

[wyldwolf]

126. Oh look! Another misuse of the term "ad hominem."

..and another cutesy phrase to compensate for ... well...

"Thanks for playing, better luck next time!"

bwahahahahahahahaha!

[spaniard]

128. wyldwolf, why bother with such fringe conspiracy purveyors?

Their mantra has been disproven countless times and they basically have the credibility of the old "the end it near" sign carriers.

I don't think many here pay too close attention to them.

Unless you just like rattling their cages.

[wyldwolf]

130. yeah! It's their little temper tantrums that I find hysterical...

..consider it sociology study.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

133. If your sociological study is as good as your comprehension...

of the English language, I won't hold my breath waiting for anything meaningful to come out of it.

On edit: By the way, did you know that by supporting the KLA and NATO, you are supporting the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo? Because over 250,000 non-Albanian Kosovars have been driven out of Kosovo since the KLA took over.

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

131. When you refer to my supposed "distrust for authority" then...

you are perpetrating an ad hominem attack. Try sticking to the argument, rather than trying to psychoanalyse me.

Wake me up when you do, I wouldn't want to miss another good laugh. :-)

[wyldwolf]

136. perpetrating an ad hominem attack...

..for pointing out the obvious - your distrust for authority - which is obvious and relevent to your approach in this thread.

Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrring! Alarm clock! Wake up!

[Devils Advocate NZ]

139. Yes, or a "circumstantial ad hominem" to be precise.

You are claiming that my "distrust for authority" somehow negates my arguments. This is called a circumstantial ad hominem attack:

A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). The fallacy has the following forms:


Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X.
Therefore claim X is false.

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on A's circumstances.
Therefore X is false.

A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person's interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person's interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. It is also the case that a person's circumstances (religion, political affiliation, etc.) do not affect the truth or falsity of the claim. This is made quite clear by the following example: "Bill claims that 1+1=2. But he is a Republican, so his claim is false."
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html

So, therefore, even if I did have a "distrust for authority" that in no way negates my argument, and as such attempting to use it as your argument is an ad hominem attack.

Perhaps YOU need to wake up, and try arguing the message, rather than the messenger.

[wyldwolf]

143. Well, your distrust of authority certainly makes you very bias and...

...unqualified to make evenhanded accessments of events related to government actions. To you, it's ALL a dark plot.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

144. Any bias I might have would not change the words written in ICTY documents

So your argument is fallacious. Keep it up though, this is fun!

[wyldwolf]

145. Actually, your interpretation of the ICTY documents...

and specifically, one accused war criminal questioning another.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

147. No need for interpretation, the transcript says it in plain English:

9 Q. Is it true that they offered you a new identity, money, and
10 sustenance for you and your family only so that you would falsely accuse
11 me? Is that correct?

12 A. Yes, that's correct.

I don't need to "interpret" that, I let the transcript speak for itself! You however DO need to "interpret" this tarnscript, because you claim this never happened even though it is in plain English.

[wyldwolf]

148. One accused war criminal questioning another...

[Devils Advocate NZ]

150. Prosecution witness being cross-examined by the defence...

Interpret it any way you want, the plain English tells the tale.

[wyldwolf]

152. Yeah, one war criminal examining another...

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wyldwolf]

50. Yes I did.

investigate: To observe or inquire into in detail; examine systematically.

analyze: To examine methodically by separating into parts and studying their interrelations

source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language

On the basis of the analysis it was deemed unworthy of further investigation.

See, people don't keep investigating the evidence over and over trying to come up with the conclusion they want. They investigate - or analyze - and then reach the conclusion.

Further, in post #37, you said the ICTY refused to investigate. But then we see that they did analyze the data and recommended that the OTP not continue the investigation.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

56. You prove yourself WRONG again!

Further, in post #37, you said the ICTY refused to investigate. But then we see that they did analyze the data and recommended that the OTP not continue the investigation.

That is right, I said they refused to investigate. You admit that they did not investigate, but try to play word games in order to dodge the issue.

Sorry pal, but as I said they refused to investigate after reviewing what NATO said. In other words they said to NATO "You have been accused of a war crime", NATO said "we didn't commit a crime" and the ICTY said "Oh, OK then, we won't bother to investigate because you are obviously telling the truth".

They NEVER investigated the EVIDENCE, as they clearly said in the report. All they analysed was NATO's public statements. This is clearly stated in the report.

In other words when NATO said there was a military transmitter in the TV station, they just assumed that that was so, rather then investigating the actual station to see if there was indeed a military transmitter there.

Like I said on another thread, I sure hope you never end up on a jury, becuase if a police officer says "Well, that protestor was a terrorist" you would not require evidence that the protestor was indeed a terrorist, you would convict merely on the say so of the officer.

You obviously have no idea what an investigation is, what evidence is, and what unsupported allegations are.

Here once again is the proof (seeing as my other post was deleted - I wonder why?):

79. On the basis of the above analysis and on the information currently available to it, the committee recommends that the OTP not commence an investigation related to the bombing of the Serbian TV and Radio Station.

<SNIP>

90. The committee has conducted its review relying essentially upon public documents, including statements made by NATO and NATO countries at press conferences and public documents produced by the FRY. It has tended to assume that the NATO and NATO countries’ press statements are generally reliable and that explanations have been honestly given. The committee must note, however, that when the OTP requested NATO to answer specific questions about specific incidents, the NATO reply was couched in general terms and failed to address the specific incidents. The committee has not spoken to those involved in directing or carrying out the bombing campaign.
http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/nato061300.htm

In other words, they read press releases. They did not interview the people involved, they did not inspect the crime scenes, they did nothing but read NATO propaganda in order to counter the allegations.

Is that what you consider an adequate investigation? Don't make me laugh!

Here is a hypothetical situation that puts this into terms we can all understand:

You and I get into an argument. I pull out a gun and shoot you. Magistrate calls the police and tells them I murdered you. The police officer comes to me and asks "Did you murder Wyldwolf?", and I say "No, he attacked me and I shot him in self defence". The police officer then says "Based on your statement, and without looking at the evidence, I find that there is no reason for further investigation. Case closed."

Would you call that justice? I highly doubt it.

[wyldwolf]

57. You whine again!

investigate: To observe or inquire into in detail; examine systematically.

analyze: To examine methodically by separating into parts and studying their interrelations

source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language

On the basis of the analysis it was deemed unworthy of further investigation.

See, people don't keep investigating the evidence over and over trying to come up with the conclusion they want. They investigate - or analyze - and then reach the conclusion.

Further, in post #37, you said the ICTY refused to investigate. But then we see that they did analyze the data and recommended that the OTP not continue the investigation.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

64. Ha ha ha! When you get out of kindergarten, come back and we'll try again.

Your immature rantings do not need to be posted twice to prove how mindless they are, my friend, they were sufficiently inane the first time. When you are losing an argument, it is far better to slink off into the darkness, than to continue to babble like a two year old.

At least TRY to save some of your dignity.

[wyldwolf]

65. Look! He melts into a slush of ad hominum attacks!

Typical.

[thebigidea]

70. the repetition does not make it funnier

It looks desperate.

That thorazine thing is incredibly tacky and completely classless. Good job, huh?

[Devils Advocate NZ]

71. Well, that didn't last long did it?

I should have placed a bet on how soon you would once again prove your hypocrisy, for if I had, I would have been wealthier after that post.

You started the ad hominem attacks, and you are still continuing them, one presumes because you are unable to effectively argue your case. When you are ready to continue the discussion of the topic of this sub-thread, rather than playing childish games, let me know.

Until then, I don't mind watching the children at play, it is mildly amusing, after all.

[Code_Name_D]

72. Its fun to watch them defend Clark, for what Bush is doing now. N/T

:P

[wyldwolf]

73. No, what's fun is..

watching the desperate attempts at smearing Clark with conspiratorial allegations and innuendo.

But that can be cured.

It's also funny to see polls like this posted because you think more people agree with you, only to see your side lose again and again.

Almost 3 times as many people on DU disagree with you.

Even these:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=478777

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=578303&mesg_id=578303

You all come across as paranoid.

Sad. But funny.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

78. And 70% of the US public believe that WMD were found in Iraq...

Popular fiction does not become fact just because of it's popularity.

Clark presided over a failed campaign that did not destroy the Serb ability to fight, but managed to kill almost as many civilians as the Serbs alledgedly killed in Kosovo.

And for this failure, he is praised by his supporters? Why? Because no Americans were killed due to his failure? Well, I suppose that is something.

[wyldwolf]

81. They believe that because of conspiracy theories...

Isn't it amazing how conspiracy theories can influence otherwise intelligent people?

Even here on DU!

[Devils Advocate NZ]

91. WHAT???? Are you serious?

Everyone here knows that the reason so many Americans believe this patently untrue assertion (that WMD have been found) is because they have believed the MEDIA!!!

You are really grasping at straws if you think that DUers are going to fall for that line of bullshit.

[wyldwolf]

95. The media are chief instigators of the conspiracy theories...

That Iraq had WMDs and was connected to Al-Queda.

But I understand those who are prone to believing conspiracy theories have difficulty recognizing them as such.

They'll even throw around words like "grasping at straws."

Line of bullshit. Now THAT is funny!

[Devils Advocate NZ]

98. You mean like: "Serbian forces are committing genocide in Kosovo"?

That kind of "conspiracy theory"?

Or are they only "conspiracy theories" when you don't fall for them?

What does PRAVDA tell you to think about this? After all, you trust them over and above the actual court transcripts (see post #76)!

[wyldwolf]

102. hey! You're the one who denied the media pushed conspiracy theories...

...take it up with yourself.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

113. I did no such thing. Prove your assertion...

You can't can you?

In fact I have been saying ALL ALONG that the media LIES, including about Kosovo. Of course accusing me of something I never did, may make you feel better, but it won't work. Try again.

[wyldwolf]

119. ok

Everyone here knows that the reason so many Americans believe this patently untrue assertion (that WMD have been found) is because they have believed the MEDIA!!!

WMD and Iraq-Al-Queda link are conspiracy theories, and you denied that the media was pushing them.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

120. Huh? Can't you read?

I clearly say that the resaon people believe these lies is because they believed the media! What part of that do you not understand? That is NOT EVEN CLOSE to "denying that the media was pushing them".

Seriously, you do speak English, right?

[wyldwolf]

124. But they're not lies.... what you say is the dishonest part...

..and the conspiracy theory...

How many slaps on the palms would the nuns have given you for calling someone a liar?

[Devils Advocate NZ]

127. So now YOUR the one saying the media doesn't push conspiracy theories?

The logical consistency of your arguments fall apart from post to post. One minute you say the media lies, the next minute you say the media doesn't lie. First you accuse me of denying the media pushes conspiracy theories, then you deny that very thing yourself!

How many more times are you going to contradict yourself before you give up?

In fact do you even know what logical consistency is?

[wyldwolf]

129. Did they restore your internet privileges at the boarding school?

[Devils Advocate NZ]

135. Very mature.

You must feel like such big boy to be able to throw kindergarten insults with such ease. Of course, as a mature adult, that insult ws rather meaningless to me, and in fact is rather amusing.

Kids, say the darndest things :-)

[wyldwolf]

137. Nah! I just caught wind of your posting history and reputation on DU...

...you provide a lot of the ammo.

"rather amusing."

Another cutesy phrase.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

140. I assume Magistrate has been playing his schoolyard games again...

In the past he found it necessary to PM people I was discussing this issue with in order to argue against me in an arena in which I would not be given the opportunity to respond. Unluckily for him, one of the recipients informed me of what was happening, and I was able to publically confront him on it.

I would not be surprised to find out it had occured again.

Nor am I surprised that you would engage in such schoolyard antics. I am sure it made you feel real important to be let in on the big secret behind my back.

Now run along, I have better things to do than play games with children. When you want to get back to the actual argument, let me know. Not that I would blame you if you didn't, because it hasn't gone well for you so far.

[wyldwolf]

142. bwahhaha! "Now run along" - your cutesy lines just crack me up!

The old DU archives still exist... and are searchable...

In fact, a simple search of Google brings up some "interesting" references to you and some DU posts of yours - for example, a thread on five Iraqi women and children being shot in Iraq when they didn't stop their van at a checkpoint garnered this response from you: ""After all, it is not uncommon to hear of American servicemen raping women in countries they are posted to."

(snicker)

[Devils Advocate NZ]

146. Is that untrue?

Here is a short list of some recent cases from Okinawa:

OKINAWA, Japan (CNN) -- Prosecutors Monday demanded sentences of 10 years in jail with forced labor for each of three U.S. servicemen accused of raping a 12-year-old girl on Okinawa, an incident that has clouded the future of U.S. military bases on the island.
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9601/japan_rape/

A Japanese court Friday sentenced a U.S. marine to 3 1/2 years in jail for raping a woman on the southern island of Okinawa in a case that stirred resentment against the U.S. military presence.
http://www1.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-09/12/content_263740.htm

That event followed within four days allegations of a second rape of a minor by a U.S. serviceman on Okinawa. Even though the victim is a 14-year-old American girl and the alleged attack occurred on a U.S. base — which means that the case is being handled entirely by U.S. authorities — some Japanese citizen groups seized on the new case as further evidence that the American military "culture" nurtures and condones sexual crimes.
http://www.jei.org/Archive/JEIR96/9604w3.html

A U.S. Air Force sergeant's rape of a Japanese woman in a parking lot in Okinawa's Chatan Town fueled Okinawans' anger at atrocious crimes repeatedly committed by U.S. soldiers.
http://www.japan-press.co.jp/2243/us.html

The Okinawa Police have accused a U.S. Marine major stationed at Camp Courtney for the attempted rape of a foreign woman inside her car early morning 2 November in central Okinawa. Police obtained an arrest warrant and requested custody of the major, who has been under the watch of U.S. military authorities, through the US/Japanese Joint Committee on Thursday. However, the U.S. authorities rejected the request.
http://www.okinawatimes.co.jp/eng/20021207.html

Laugh all you want my friend, because it just shows how WRONG you are.

[wyldwolf]

149. Yes it is untrue because out of all the conflicts the US has been in..

...in over 200 years, you found 5 instances. So this is the EXCEPTION and not the rule, and thus, very uncommon.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

151. I quickly found 5 instances in the last decade in ONE nation...

The US has bases in dozens of nations, and they have all had such stories, even ones in the US (The Airforce Academy springs to mind, as does "Tailhook"...)

How about the sex-slave scandals involving Dynacorp contractors on US bases in Kosovo?

[wyldwolf]

153. Right. Instances in one decade. But still uncommon...

...considering the sheer number of US forces in the world.

Sex-slave scandals involving Dynacorp contractors on US bases in Kosovo? Qualified proof from credible source?

Or more of your conspiratorial rantings?

[Devils Advocate NZ]

154. You're right, my mistake...

The company is called DynCorp, not DynaCorp, and the location was Bosnia, not Kosovo.

June 26, 2002 | Ben Johnston recoiled in horror when he heard one of his fellow helicopter mechanics at a U.S. Army base near Tuzla, Bosnia, brag one day in early 2000: "My girl's not a day over 12."

The man who uttered the statement -- a man in his 60s, by Johnston's estimate -- was not talking fondly about his granddaughter or daughter or another relative. He was bragging about the preteen he had purchased from a local brothel. Johnston, who'd gone to work as a civilian contractor mechanic for DynCorp Inc. after a six-year stint in the Army, had worked on helicopters for years, and he'd heard a lot of hangar talk. But never anything like this.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/06/26/bosnia/index.html

Perhaps Salon is not a credible enough source for you, so how about this:

There were, however, several instances of sexual misconduct among officers who deployed prior to the institution of these trafficking briefings. When these instances occurred, the Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs followed through with its zero tolerance policy and the individuals were terminated. INL also referred several cases of serious misconduct by U.S. CIVPOL officers to the Justice Department for possible prosecution.
http://www.state.gov/p/io/rls/rm/2002/9777.htm

You don't seem to know much about what your military does overseas. You must watch Fox News!

[wyldwolf]

155. Unfortunate to be sure. even disgusting... but...

...STILL not common. After 200 years of US military actions, you've yet to show how "American servicemen raping women in countries they are posted to" is not "uncommon."

[The Magistrate]

83. And Yet, Dear

That campaign imposed the will of NATO on Serbia, which at its end did what it was told. That is the point of war, after all, and the very definition of success in it.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

93. And Hitler's campaign against the Jews was successful...

After all, he imposed his will upon them, didn't he?

To me, a successful military campaign is one where you kill more enemy SOLDIERS than CIVILIANS, and where those SOLDIERS are no longer able to fight because their means to do so have been compromised.

Winning a war by killing too many civilians for the enemy to stomach continuing the fight, seems to fit the definition of a WAR CRIME.

[Padraig18]

134. Damned odd

This thread got kicked again, right after tonight's debate. Hmmmm...

[wyldwolf]

138. This topic is all some people have to feed their conspiratorial hunger...

..

[SahaleArm]

141. X-Files causes brain rot.

I feel like I've been sucked into an Indymedia time-warp. Where people are protesting Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright for war crimes. I thought they only existed in Seattle:).