-----Original Message-----
From: Martin William Smith <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
>
>What should I assume? Should I adopt the assumption that is opposite
>to the one you challenge vigorously? Should I only base my assumptions
>on what is published on ZNet?
Actually, what I was originally trying to convey was the idea that one
should not chime in with militarist action based upon assumptions.
>Go back to the week, month, six months, or year immediately before the
>bombing began. Kosovo was occupied by the same army, police, and
>paramilitary that were involved in mass, sorry, many killings in the
>Bosnia war.
Who, at the time, was the legitimate government of Yugoslavia, which was at
the time, and, under international law, still is, part of said Yugoslavia.
>They were being commanded by the same leader who
>commanded them in that war. Mass graves from that war had been
>documented. An armed rebellion had begun in Kosovo and was >building.
I'm curious to know how, exactly, you would treat an armed rebellion in the
US by indigenous peoples, or African Americans, or working people. Should
the US government, in such cases, step back and let some "peacekeepers"
secure the position of the rebellion?
>Based on these facts, I was inclined to assume it was probable that I
>was seeing the same thing beginning again. You are saying you
>vigorously oppose that assumption. You did not vigorously oppose the
>opposite assumption, namely that the Serb army, police and
>paramilitary, under the command of Milosevic, were *not* misbehaving
>in a way that required intervention, which is at least a less likely
>assumption than the one you vigorously oppose.
>
>I started my participation in this group by saying there was something
>else going on here besides legitimate criticism of the NATO action.
>I make that point again.
Me too.
>martin
>
>Martin Smith Email: [log in to unmask]
>P.O. Box 1034 Bekkajordet Tel. : +47 330 35700
>N-3194 HORTEN, Norway Fax. : +47 330 35701
>
|
