Michael Strutt responded to Martin Smith:
>> >> >An opinion by Bogdan Denitch and Ian Williams
>> >> >-------------------------------
>> >> >The Nation, April 26, 1999
>> >> >
>> >> > The Case Against Inaction
>> >> >
>> >> > Sadly, some on the left are angrier about NATO's bombing
>> >> > than they are about the Serbian forces' atrocities, even though
>> >> > Milosevic's men have killed more in one Kosovan village than
>> >> > have all the airstrikes.
>> >>
>> >> Nato airstrikes have killed over 100 civilians in the past
>> >> two weeks. That's 2500 per year. A higher rate than the
>> >> estimated combined death rate caused by the Serbian military
>> >> and the KLA over the previous year.
>>
>> >And yet they continue, even though they know their killing results in
>> >bombing that kills their own people.
>>
>> And if I point a gun at your head and demand your wallet, my shooting
>> of you when you refuse to hand it over is your fault because you
>> *knew* the likely result of a refusal, right?
>But I wouldn't refuse to hand you my wallet. If you put a gun to my
>head and demand my wallet, and then NATO puts a gun to your head and
>demands that you drop the gun, do you mean you are suddenly a victim?
>The Serbs can stop the bombing by pulling out of Kosovo and allowing
>an international *force* to come in. They have chosen not to do
>that.
Cool.
I'd certainly know who to go to *next* time I wanted someone's wallet.
Your NATO point is irrelevent, the point I was trying to make is that by
your logic, anyone who fails to give in to the demands of someone
threatening violence is then to blame when the threat is carried out.
Serbian 'negotiators' (more like hostages) at Ramboiullet were prepared to
agree to Kosovan autonomy, what they weren't prepared to agree to were
NATO demands for full access to all of Yugoslavia by NATO (not UN) troops.
Tell me Martin, how outrageous does a demand have to be before refusal
in the face of violence is justified to you?
>> Those who commit atrocities *always* manage to find justification in
>> the actions of others, usually the victims, and always insist that
>> *other* people must take action before they will stop.
>That's right. You are abstracting the rules of the metamodel that
>generates the system. You have to do that before you change the
>metamodel. If you don't change the metamodel, then your protesting is
>just self-righteous posturing, because you will not change the system,
>and the system will keep generating the same events over and over again.
Exactly.
And part of the metamodel is to get public support for corporate self
interest by whipping up one sided outrage about human rights abuses.
This then neutralises any criticism of such things as NATO bombing of
refugees and a cascade of lies covering it up as 'supporting human
rights abuse'. So you get the Orwellian situation we have now where
bombing civilians is in support of human rights while peace protests
are against them.
IMHO the current US/NATO propaganda is aimed at the most dumbed down US
television audience. It's probably *too* dumb. As such it provides an
opportunity for public deconstruction which might seem quixotic now,but
will come into it's own as the untenable propaganda campaign collapses.
US mishandling of the propaganda war in Vietnam created a situation
which made it very difficult to get public support for US aggression
for over a decade.
There is a good chance that Kosovo will give the same result.
The alternative seems to be that the US will feel absolutely immune to
independent public opinion, i.e. if it succeeds with it's current attempt
to manipulate the dumbed down, and it can go about 'policing democracy'
world wide without having to consider international treaties on human
rights, national sovreignty or public opinion.
>> >> They have also provided cover for accelerating the very
>> >> ethnic cleansing they claim to be preventing.
>>
>> >What do you mean by "providing cover"? They are accused of ethnic
>> >cleansing. People believe they are doing it, so the bombing isn't
>> >covering it.
>>
>> Firstly the international observers who may be able to confirm or
>> deny the stories allegedly reported to NATO have fled the bombing
>> or been expelled.
>Fled the bombing? Believing their presence was necessary to prevent
>the killing, and knowing they would not themselves be targeted by the
>bombing, they fled? That doesn't sound like commitment to peace. Why
>don't they go back in now? Why doesn't some other organization go back
>in now? Amnesty International?
Were the 70+ refugees killed last Wednesday in two separate NATO air
attacks after both British and US pilots had identified the targets
as tractors 'targetted by NATO'?
You seem to go on and on about intentions as if that makes a difference
to the dead, and continue to gullibly accept the stated NATO intentions
at face value.
They may not be *deliberately* targetting refugees, residential suburbs,
civilian trains and monasteries, but their continued insistence on dropping
bombs from the stratosphere has entirely predictable results and they have
obviously decided that Serbian and Kosovar civilian casualties are more
acceptable than NATO ground troop casualties.
>Been expelled? Assuming the Serb army, police and paramilitary are
>*not* committing atrocities, they would expel their alibi? That
>doesn't make sense, does it?
Heard of Steve Pratt from CARE Australia?
There are valid military reasons for not wanting foreign aid workers
in a bombing region when info about targetting is at such a premium.
You may recall the mass internments of Japanese, Italian and German
civilians in Britain, Australia and the US during WWII.
Ever wonder why?
>> Secondly, independent Yugoslav media and political opposition who may
>> have been able to get accurate info to those in Serbia have now been
>> suppressed as the country is on a war footing.
>But media serves elites.
I said "*independent*".
What 'elite' did B92 radio serve?
> Are you now arguing against that
>well-established fact?
No, against it's simplistic blanket application.
> Are there good media and bad media?
There's certainly good & bad reporting, and given that some outlets
have a greater preponderance of one than the other I would suggest
that it is fair to talk about 'good and bad media'.
>Why don't the good media go to the neighbor countries and broadcast into
>Yugoslavia?
Some do, but it can be jammed, it's not easy to get 'strings free' media
resources in the countries around there (most of the now defunct ones
spent years getting their's together) and it hardly works for the most
common independent media in Serbia, i.e. Newspapers & leaflets
So mostly they are using web sites.
Check http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3707/
http://helpB92.xs4all.nl
http://www.b92.net/
http://welcome.to/freeserbia
>Do you mean they aren't doing that because they have
>changed their minds and become patriots, re-fighting the Battle of
>Kosovo?
There are doubtless previously anti-Milosevic Serbs (and Kosovans) who
now 'suppport' him due to the war footing. Either through fear of the
extra power NATO has given him in the FRY (e.g. Rugova) or through a
sense of solidarity based on the idea that no matter how bad Slobbo
is, NATO is probably worse (for Serbs at least).
>> "People believe they are doing it", sure, but what about the facts and
>> details. There seems little doubt that the Serbian paramilitaries were
>> and continue to engage in 'ethnic cleansing', but there is also little
>> doubt that the NATO controlled press (e.g. CNN) is complicit in
>> propagating NATO disinformation and independent reports are few &
>> far between.
>It makes no sense to believe what you hear in the media when it comes
>to justification.
But a lot of people clearly do.
Where's your support for a bombing campaign that has aggravated the
problem coming from if not belief in the media 'justification'.
>You clearly know this, but you keep complaining
>about it as if you expect it to change.
Maybe it will as it's too stupid to be ultimately effective.
But mainly I'm arguing against those who are stupid enough to believe
it. Actually I think that even those like yourself will be awake to
it soon enough (tell the truth, are you starting to feel uneasy already?)
but I want to make them conscious of their own self deception so that
next time it happens some people will spot it from the start before
opening their mouths to commit themselves to moronic actions.
> It makes no sense to believe the government. It makes no sense to believe either
>side. It makes sense to do your own analysis.
Perfectly true.
It also makes no sense to believe CNN.
Yet the only justification for bombing comes from NATO analysis,which
is shown daily to be well leavened with lies.
How do you justify the deaths with unbelievable data?
>> >>
>> >> Seems to me that it's up to those who favour the bombing to show
>> >> that it helps the situation, not those who oppose it to come up
>> >> with an alternative.
>>
>> >NATO does't have to show anything, because there isn't any higher
>> >authority that can stop it.
>>
>> Oh well, so much for the 'democracy' NATO was formed to
>> protect.
>What do you mean? Those democracies are still intact.
Isn't calling them democracies a bit of a joke if they can't
even control their own military?
Under democracy *the_people* are meant to be the 'higher authority'.
> Unless you
>mean that even the published poll results are wrong and most people
>really don't support the NATO action.
No comment on the polling. Learn about push polling and we can start
to discuss it.
The point was in response to your "NATO doesn't have to show anything,
because there isn't any higher authority that can stop it".
You are implying that even if public opinion is shown to be against
the bombing NATO is still unstoppable, quite apart from treaties,
laws and international conventions.
>> >NATO just has to decide to do it and then
>> >do it. Without a higher authority, the only way to stop NATO before
>> >it finishes is to organize a massive protest that literally threatens
>> >the stability of the world economy.
>>
>> Good idea.
>>
>> When do we start?
>>
>> I believe the Greeks & Italians are already well underway.
>You've been duped by the media then.
Certainly not the mainstream media which has reported support from
those countries and ignored the mass protests.
On March 26, 100,000 Greeks marched on the US embassy in Athens.
There have been smaller protests in Aktion, Piraeus, Salonica and
Thessalonika.
There have been too many Italian demos to list here, check the ZNET
documentation at http://www.zmag.org/ZNETTOPnoanimation.html
> But that movement was started
>long ago. In my lifetime, the main effort was begun during the
>Vietnam war.
Yep, mine too.
I'm just young enough to have avoided being called up and sent, and
for that the anti-Vietnam protesters have my personal gratitude, as
well as my ideological gratitude for the part they played in ending
a criminal war (if that's not too tautological).
>That's why we now get very upset when only three of our
>soldiers are captured, not killed, and when only one of our airplanes
>gets shot down. We used to accept that sort of thing.
And we will again if we are really under threat.
Is it so wrong that people are less than enthusiastic about having loved
ones killed in the aid of corporate interests and military industrial
propaganda?
> That's why we
>have not sent in ground troops, even though ground troops are required
>to achieve the military goal.
The people persecuting the war are quite aware that the aims an
objectives are dodgy to say the least and that the FRY army will
inflict *very* heavy casualties on any invading force. That is why
there are no ground troops.
IMHO another reason is that atrocities from the air can be presented as
mistakes ("collateral damage"). That sort of thing doesn't work so well
with My Lai style ground troop atrocities.
>That's why we only target objects of
>military value.
Umm, like monasteries, civilian trains, water treatment plants and
residential suburbs?
And what's this "we" business.
Are you actually a NATO strategist or just one of the world wide
legion of armchair cheerleaders.
Are *you* prepared to kill or die for NATO objectives in the Balkans?
NATO seems prepared tio kill, that's easy enough, it's dying they
have trouble with.
>That's why we destroy those targets with smart bombs
>(but also for economic reasons; they are more cost effective).
Of which less that 30% hit their targets.
I figure the US call them 'smart' because unlike most Americans,
they can at least find Kosovo.
How 'smart' were the bombs that killed the refugees last Wednesday,hit
the train, killed all the miners .....?
Or the cruise missiles Clinton fired at Baghdad about six years ago in
the wee hours. Some hit the unoccupied intelligence building they were
aimed at but the bulk slammed into residential buildings nearby,killing
civilians in their sleep, including Iraq's top poetess who had been
consistently critical of Saddam.
>These are major changes in the way we enforce the rules of the system.But
>it is still the same system. Despite the Vietnam protest, the system
>still relies on the use of force as much as ever.
You may be aware that following public acceptance of the slaughter on
the 'death highway' during Desert Storm, George Bush gleefully declared
that the US had licked the 'Vietnam Syndrome'. Since then the US has
resorted to excessive force far more often.
Does that tell you anything?
>> >That requires an enormous number
>> >of people to actually act against their own economic self-interest.
>> >If there were enough Buddhists in the west, it could be done. But if
>> >there were enough Buddhists in the west, we wouldn't be in this
>> >situation in the first place.
>>
>> IMHO you don't have to be a Buddhist to reject short term
>> individual greed in favour of morality and 'social capital',
>> but it probably helps.
>>
>> >> However, the irrational argument above is exactly the one
>> >> promoted by CNN, the State Department and NATO spokestooges.
>>
>> >But it isn't an irrational argument. When should an organization like
>> >the Serb army led by someone like Milosevic be stopped by force?
>> >Never? If not never, then how close were we to the limit? If we had
>> >waited longer, would he have destabilized the entire region?
>>
>> A good parroting of the irrational CNN line.
>>
>> How does Milosevic 'destabilise the entire region' to the degree
>> that the exodus that started with the bombings does?
>By doing what he has done. By forcing out hundreds of thousands of
>people to become refugees in other economies.
It didn't happen until the bombing started, so how does attempting
to avoid it justify the bombing?
> You keep saying the
>bombing caused that, which implies he had no choice, that he was the
>victim.
What's this 'victim' shit you keep going on about?
If I said that employing a pedophile in a playgroup is an irresponsible
act by the management would you suggest I was painting the
rockspider as a victim?
You don't have to postulate 'victims' in order to criticise an act which
has predictably lead to a humanitarian disaster.
You continue to subscribe to the CNN line that placing blame is the
only thing which is important, actions and their results are irrelevant.
> But he did have choices. He chose the worst one. By forcing
>everybody out, he made it easier for NATO to step up the bombing,
>because he minimized the possibility of bombing Albanians by mistake.
Umm, are you blaming him for forcing people out or for *not* forcing
people out. You sound a lot like NATO, if it's not 'ethnic cleansing'
it's 'human shields'.
>And he could have agreed to the proposed deal, but he didn't.
Could he?
The Ramboullet (sp?) agreement called for NATO troop basing rights
in Kosovo as well as complete, cost free access to barracks,billets,
ports, roads etc in the entire FRY.
IMHO the leader of any independent nation could not possibly agree to
such a document unless s/he had already suffered a massive military
defeat.
> And he
>still has choices. He can capitulate, but he doesn't. The region
>*is* destabilized. NATO will not back down because it would mean
>there is no possibility of enforcement, which democracies depend on
>and which is one of the reasons NATO was created.
So Milosevic is to blame for not backing down to avoid further
bloodshed, but NATO is to be admired for not backing down to
avoid further bloodshed, right?
>> And what sort of argument is "When should an organization like
>> the Serb army led by someone like Milosevic be stopped by
>> force?"?
>It wasn't an argument. It was a question.
Ok. What sort of *question* was it?
>> Stop them from what?
>Stop them from being a cause of the troubles in the region over the
>last ten years.
There's some success there.
NATO is now a major cause of the troubles in the region.
But if you really believe that all of the troubles in the Balkans can
be slated home to Slobbo you are an extremely gullible tool.
IMHO Slobbo could only have come to power in the face of the attempted
annexation of Yugoslavia by international finance institutions.
And I suppose the KLA has nothing to do with the problems either?
> Don't say stop them from what. You know what. Your
>argument is that there was less killing per unit time before the
>bombing. So what? There were n killings per unit time before the
>bombing. Now there are n+m killings per unit time. You weren't doing
>all this protesting when there were only n killings
If by *all* this protesting you mean posting to this list, you're right.
As I explained, I see this list as mainly being about media analysis
and until the spin war started there was nothing to comment on.
But if you count phoning talkback radio to complain about the inclusion
of Slobbo and exclusion of Rugova from the Dayton accords, I was indeed
protesting *before* the NATO bombings.
If I hadn't done it more it's because
(a) My government wasn't implicated in the slaughter before
(b) There are other places, like East Timor and Bougainville, where my
government *is* complicit in slaughter, in ET's case far more serious
than in Kosovo (if not so 'newsworthy', as corporate interests there
have mostly been on the side of ABRI). I have long protested
against these.
>, but n+m killings
>has suddenly become too much for you to bear.
Actually it's the realisation of just how pliable the morality
of my fellow citizens is in the hands of a lowbrow media campaign
that is too much for me to bear.
>> How about "Never" if a way of stopping him without force is
>> possible.
>Is it possible?
Probably.
It's a lot harder now that NATO has allowed the neutralisation of the
Serbian opposition, but it's not too late to fix things, if (a very
big if) the will can be found.
Check out the analysis by Alan Kuperman in the LA Times article "US
Policy was wrong". The Sydney Morning Herald copy is in the
"Kosovo Crisis" section which comes off http://www.smh.com.au/.
>> >> As the NATO bombings have sped up the ethnic cleansing,
>>
>> >The NATO bombings have not sped up the ethnic cleansing. The Serbs
>> >have sped up the ethnic cleansing. The NATO bombing has destroyed
>> >much of the military and civilian infrastructure and has killed a lot
>> >of people.
>>
>> A typical US style argument attempting to place all responsibility
>> on the faction you don't like by simplistically attributing any
>> result to a *single* unique cause. Like "Guns don't kill,
>> people do"
>Wait a minute! "attributing any result to a *single* unique cause" is
>exactly what *you* did: "NATO bombings have sped up the ethnic
>cleansing".
Umm, pointing out that the NATO bombings are a major factor in
making the problem worse is *not* attributing blame to a single
unique cause, unlike insisting that only Slobbo responsible for
the problems in the region.
>*Your* claim that the single unique cause is the NATO
>bombing is based on *your* assumption that the Serbs do not have free
>will, ie they are not human.
Crap.
It's a bit harder to *exercise* free will when your country has been
placed on a war footing and security forces granted emergency powers.
And harder to make informed choices when independent media has been
suppressed.
>You are the one who sees the Serbs as
>non-human. You are the one who believes their behavior is
>deterministic. Why do you believe the Serbs are not human?
Rhetoric like this is unworthy of a response.
>> The Kosovars are suffering from a situation which is the result of an
>> interaction of many forces & motivations. Before NATO intervention,
>> there were far fewer casualties and displacements than after.
>> To try to paint NATO as free of responsibility without showing
>> that the situation would be just as bad without their contribution
>> is dishonest.
>Wait a minute! Now you are accusing me of trying to "paint NATO as
>free of responsibility". And you know your accusation is false,
>because you have read what I said: "I think people are in favor of the
>NATO action because it is a decisive action to stop a wrong. Despite
>the fact that the NATO ACTION IS ALSO A WRONG, I think they will
>continue to be in favor of it as long as it stays focused on its
>military goal and until the Russians negotiate a deal acceptable to
>NATO."
I accuse you of trying to paint NATO as free of responsibility
because you keep insisting that only Milosevic can stop NATO
bombings. As if NATO commanders have no free will.
There is another way of stopping them you know, a way that is
more open to we citizens of the West.
>> >> allowed the suppression of Serbian opposition,
>>
>> >The NATO bombings have not allowed the suppression of the Serbian
>> >opposition. The Serbs have suppressed the Serbian opposition.
>>
>> Some Serbs *ARE* the Serbian opposition.
>>
>> Funny that the pro-government Serbs weren't able to so completely
>> defeat the opposition until the bombings started isn't it?
>How do you know it has been so completely defeated, as you say?
The testimony of Yugoslavian democrats and anarchists who I have been
in contact with since the Bosnian crisis and during the street protests
which attempted to oust Milosevic a couple of years ago.
My main source up until recently was the Zaginflatch coop
(http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3707/).
There are far more now, but as I have known Zaginflatch since 1993 I
can be pretty sure it's not a propaganda exercise set up by Belgrade
for this occasion.
>> >> rallied the waverers behind Milosevic and prevented
>> >> humanitarian aid from reaching the victims
>>
>> >True.
>>
>> >> there is already a strong case for stopping them.
>>
>> >There is no authority to stop them. Organizing a grass roots movement
>> >will take so long that the bombing will end before it gathers enough
>> >momentum. Such a movement should have been organized long before the
>> >bombing.
>>
>> Very good point.
>>
>> Maybe when Clinton was bombing Iraq to protect his (blow) job.
>>
>> If we organise them now, we might be able to stop the NEXT
>> atrocity.
>That's right. but not if your purpose is is just to prevent bombing,
>because that won't change the rules that generate the system that
>creates situations that "require" bombing. You will be fighting this
>same fight again in five, ten or twenty years.
My purpose is not just to stop bombing, it's to attempt to
create a level of public resistance to the sort of blatant
propaganda you slavishly follow, and prevent the likes of
Milosevic, Clinton and military corporations from getting
so much support for this sort of thing in future.
Public opinion stopped the Vietnam war.
IMHO, whatever other motivations may be present, this is partly an exercise
in testing and selling new military hardware but even more so in
testing and selling new propaganda. It must fail.
>> >It should have been organized to stop Milosevic and the
>> >Serbs.
>>
>> It was, in Serbia and without Western support.
>> It's gone now though, thanks to NATO.
>Without *your* support you mean.
Well, moral support to the Zaginflatchers only.
What have *you* done, other than echo NATO/CNN from the safety of Norway?
Will you be volunteering for the land invasion you insist is necessary?
>You only take action when n killings
>per unit time becomes n+m killings per unit time and some institution
>decides to stop it by force.
More meaningless rhetoric.
>> But as citizens of allegedly democratic countries, we should be
>> organising to stop *our_own* governments from participating in
>> these sorts of crimes.
>Don't you see any irony in your statement? It reveals the problem but
>you don't seem to be able to see it.
Please reveal it, or cut the crap rhetoric.
>> "When they came to bomb the Libyans, I said nothing because I'm not
>> a Libyan. When they came to bomb the Iraqis ...."
>>
>> God help you if they decide that Norway has a 'rogue
>> government' Martin.
>That won't make me think any different. I might be dead or I might be
>on the run, or I might fight with the Norwegians, but I won't have any
>illusions about what is happening.
That would be a *big* change.
>Anyway, norway already has a rogue
>government. We have socialized medicine, and we like it. We own the
>railroad and bus systems. We wish they were cheaper to use, but we
>like them. We pay families to raise their children. Our police don't
>carry guns, and we aren't allowed to own a gun for self defense.
>Norway is a member of NATO.
So what are *you* doing to rein in your allegedly democratic
government. Criticise someone else's, just as your NATO-joining
government wants you to?
>> >The people who are protesting the bombing now were not
>> >protesting the worsening situation in Jugoslavia.
>>
>> Bullshit.
>>
>> Check
>>http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3707/zap-english.htm
>> or at least find some sort of alternative media source before you
>> start parroting CNN lies.
>I'm not parroting anything. These are my own obsevations.
And how long were you in Yugoslavia observing?
Or is it just possible that all your 'observations' are of the television?
>There was
>no protest movement to stop the IMF from putting the economic system
>of Yugoslavia in jeopardy.
Not on Norwegian tellie anyway.
> You weren't protesting the existence of
>NATO.
I don't protest the existence of anything.
It's fucked *actions* that piss me off.
>You accepted the existence of an institution whose existence
>depended on its willingness to use force, as long as it never actually
>used force.
I don't.
But the argument you make is exactly the one many use in favour
of nuclear weapons.
> You aren't demanding that the UN be redefined to make it
>useful in such circumstances. You are willing to accept the system
>that depends on the use of force, as long as it never uses force.
Martin, I am an anarchist and an activist.
I not only accept no such thing, I work actively to get rid of it.
On the other hand, as Chomsky has said in his "Goals and Visions"
lectures, getting rid of authoritarian institutions is like defusing a bomb.
It has to be done in the right order.
Getting rid of regulatory bodies while multinational corporations still exist
would be a recipe for disaster. While I am not so clear on the relationship
between the UN and national governments & militaries, I am far from
confident that dismantling the UN is the next step.
> >This list was dead until the bombing started. Protests organize to stop
> >bombing, but they don't organize to stop dictators. They don't organize
> >to prevent and defuse situations that NATO eventually decides to fix.
>
> Could it be, Martin, that you just don't see anything in the mainstream
> media until it becomes a CNN/NATO/US/UN issue, whereupon they pretend
> that noone was doing anything until they stepped in.
No. It couldn't be that. I didn't say *no one* was doing *anything*.
By now, you have read most of the writings of Chomsly, et al, on this
subject. You know that the system produces these results. But your
level of protest goes up by an order of magnitude *after* the bombing
starts. You can't be bothered to make a big noise at a point when it
can actually head off situations like the present one. Could it be
you don't really understand the problem? Could it be you protest now
because it is so easy to be self-righteous now, and because you need
to recover some self-esteem after so many years of letting things get
worse and worse? Why is it so hard to admit you really don't care
enough to really solve the problem?
> Before NATO drove the international observers and relief agencies out,
> the death rate due to military action was around 50 a week. It's
> impossible to say now but it's doubtless much higher. Maybe people
> *were* doing something, but it just didn't make good enough television
> to draw your attention.
But *I'm* not protesting. Nor would I be protesting had there been
more coverage in the media. Are you blaming the media now because you
didn't know what was going on? Is it their fault you were caught out
as an ignoramous? No. False. You knew from reading Chomsky what was
going on. It is the way the system works. You don't really have a
right to claim ignorance because the media and the government have
been pooling the wool over your eyes for ten years.
>> I have been involved in community protests about Indonesian govt actions
>> in East Timor and Australian government support of it since the mid 80s,
>> but I'll bet that up until the US based media started paying attention
>> about four years ago, noone was 'organising to prevent and defuse
>> situations that NATO eventually decides to fix' regarding Timor in
>> your eyes.
>What community protests? I lived in Australia. I saw very little of
>community protests in Adelaide over East Timor.
You obviously see very little that is not presented to you via TV.
Wouldn't know about Adelaide, I live in Sydney where there are regular
street protests outside Town Hall and Jose Ramos Horta used to speak
at many lectures in small venues all over Sydney until he got his Nobel
and the media suddenly discovered him.
I have also been involved in publicising various protest actions by
people like Rob Wesley-Smith through my contacts in the media.
I also put some hard questions to Gareth Evans and Richard Woolcott
over ET policy on radio. Evans deflected me with sophistry but
Woolcott was forced to bluster.
There is now strong public opinion for a change in ET policy and the
ALP's new spokesman, Brereton, has gone a long way towards changing
The official position of the Catholic Church in Aus is now that ET
refugees should be put up in private homes in defiance of the law,
and many are.
>Yes, there was
>discussion of East Timor, but that is all it was. Discussion.
You seem to be more in favour of taking action *without*
discussion, a'la NATO.
Do you know what 'democracy' is Martin?
> The
>discussions are still going on, and you can feel righteous that you
>have been involved.
You are obviously as ignorant about Australia's recent shift on
ET policy as you are about anything that isn't on Norwegian TV
Martin.
Contact any friends you may still have in Aus and ask.
> But now, despite all the alleged protests,
>violence is worsening in East Timor. Imagine that. It's happening
>again. Your protests did not stop it. It's getting worse.
Oh shit, do you mean we didn't fix everything instantly?
Yep, the protests must be useless.
You would have said the same thing the day before Whitlam announced
the pull out of Aus troops from Vietnam.
>
>> There *will* be protests about exactly this sort of thing all over
>> Europe in June, culminating in the G7 (G8 now?) meeting on June 18.
>>
>> Gonna be there Martin?
>No. I have said several times. I don't want to spend my life
>protesting, because I believe it will ultimately fail. It will fail
>because, far from changing the system, it validates it. I will rather
>spend my life searching for a solution. But I'm an engineer. I
>recognize that is the way I think. I don't intend to work against
>myself.
What Chomsky calls one of the educated elites who benefit from
the oppressive status quo.
Noone could accuse you of not knowing which side your bread is buttered
on Martin, except that it creates riduculous stress on the social fabric
and will eventually result in the destruction of the system that
looks after you so well.
The question is whether the new society to come from it will be
better or worse.
>> >There were no massive demonstrations when the
>> >fighting started that resulted in the breakup of Jugoslavia. There
>> >were no massive demonstrations when the Dayton accords neglected to
>> >resolve the Kosovo problem. Now NATO is bombing, and there are
>> >massive demonstrations.
>>
>> Because now the government who claim to represent us have jumped
>> in armed with ignorance, high explosives and lies about their
>> motivations.
>>
>> It's one thing to do nothing about a bad situation, another to
>> add to the problem.
>Piss and moan about the government you elected.
I didn't elect them.
> Piss and moan about
>the system you tacitly approve.
Your argument that protesting against the system is tacitily approving
of it is Orwellian in it's ridiculousness.
>It won't change anything, but you'll
>get some anger off your chest, and that's good for you.
You wouldn't know Martin, you have clearly never set about trying to
change social conditions or policies, but have accepted assurance
from the authorities that 'resistance is useless'.
>> > Before the bombing, if those who are
>> >protesting the bombing now cared, they didn't care enough to protest,
>> >not on this list anyway.
>>
>> The list is mainly about media spin, which didn't exist until
>> the media started paying attention.
>I thought the list was about Chomsky's writings, whether about
>politics or linguistics.
You're right. But I have very little to contribute to a discussion
of linguistics.
Chomsky's main political argument is that privileged educated elites
like us are manipulated by the media to support corporate oppression in
the name of 'democracy'. That is exactly what I'm addressing.
>But let that pass. Why do you want to
>discuss media spin? Has its existence not been proved to your
>satisfaction?
Indeed.
But the Nation article I originally responded to was specifically
designed to snow people who might normally see through this kind of
thing, so it was worth a comment.
You are a privileged educated elite who either embraces the antidemocratic
oppression of those who can be profitably oppressed, or has been conned
by this aspect of the media. That is also worthy of comment on a Chomsky
list.
>Do you still expect the media to give you the unadorned
>truth?
Of course not.
I wouldn't have expected the level of success that such a transparent
propaganda exercise has had however.
NATO actions have undoubtably made things worse and according to military
and diplomatic analysts (including pro-NATO ones) there is little
if any prospect of a change in the foreseeable future.
Yet allegedly rational people try to justify it in terms of "It's better
than doing nothing". This surprises me quite a bit.
>Why not work to get your local school system to teach that TV
>news programs are not to be believed.Why not petition your local
>school district to introduce "The Chomsky Reader" as a required text?
Because I don't believe in compulsory propaganda for *any* point of
view, including my own. You can always ignore my postings Martin,
schoolies being examined on Chomsky would have no such luxury.
As it is, I'm involved in producing two magazines, one aimed at and
distributed to school kids, which gives them access to these ideas
*if_they_want_them*.
>
>> How is adding to the chorus of crap being put out by the military
>> industrial propaganda machine contributing to a change in the structure?
>Are you accusing me of doing that? I haven't done it?
If not I apologise.
But your defence of a Nation article advocating bombing implied
that to me.
>> Actually, while we wait for the revolution, we might even be able to
>> mitigate some of these abuses by adopting a more sceptical line towards
>> the attempts to manipulate public morality.
>See that's what I mean. You will *wait* for a revolution. You won't
>cause one.
When I make a cake I *wait* for it to cook.
I also 'cause' it.
You seem to imagine that if something hasn't already succeeded it is
doomed to failure. Are you a Utilitarian by any chance?
> And you admit that the best you can do is *mitigate*
>abuses, but only *some* of them.
Oh sorry, I meant I will wave my magic wand and make an instant
eternal Utopia. Get real Martin.
>
>> But seriously Martin, are you suggesting that we should agree
>> with NATO because they're too tough to argue with?
>In the absence of changes to the meta system from which the system is
>generated, the best strategy for the world is for all nations to adopt
>the "American Way", which basically means American democracy and
>American capitalism - with socialist policies mixed in where allowed -
>and *then* fix the problems. Clear the board and *then* start from a
>homogenous, if not level, political and economic playing field.
Ha, ha, that's a good one.
Have you really read any Chomsky, Martin?
>> >It doesn't matter.
>>
>> But it matters whether CHOMSKY list members protested the situation
>> in Kosovo before the bombings started?
>>
>> ?Huh?
>You heard me. The media are a known quantity. You can't change it.
As I write for two magazines and have friends in the ABC who
have picked up on stories I have put them onto and put out
regular press releases on criminal justice issues which is
also picked up by the media and generates discussion which
has influenced public policy I must beg to differ.
If you mean completely change it's paradigm, you may be right,
but it can certainly be influenced for the better.
>It will act as a strange attractor hovering around supporting whatever
>results the government wants to produce, which is the result corporate
>elites want it to produce, which is the result the system is set up to
>produce, which is the system automatically generated by the
>metamodel.
That is one of the dumbest pseudoscientific applications of halfbaked
chaos theory I have ever seen, and there is some stiff competition.
>Protests do matter, when they are done in time to prevent
>the situation from occurring. The Vietnam protest was too late to
>prevent the war in Vietname.
It stopped it just before I got conscripted.
Very timely indeed if you ask me.
But even if this one is belated, we need to get it running now to
stop the 'Montenegrin Crisis of 2001' or the
'Volosvodija Crisis of 2005'.
>It has at least prevented, so far, a
>ground invasion of Yugoslavia.
Lack of military preparedness could have something to do with
it Martin. They have spent over a week trying to get 12 Apaches
there from Germany.
>It has at least prevented, so far,
>carpet bombing of Yugoslavia.
They're dropping everything they've got except nukes.
>> >I think people are in favor of the NATO action because it is a
>> >decisive action to stop a wrong. Despite the fact that the NATO
>> >action is also a wrong, I think they will continue to be in favor of
>> >it as long as it stays focused on its military goal and until the
>> >Russians negotiate a deal acceptable to NATO.
>>
>> Gullible, manipulable people favour NATO action because no effort
>> or expense has been spared in organising the media to make people
>> think that aggravating the situation in aid of US strategic interests
>> is actually 'decisive action to stop a wrong'.
>The action is decisive. You can't possibly claim it isn't decisive.
What has it decided?
And you seem to have dropped the bit about 'stopping a wrong'.
>It's purpose is to diminish, if not destroy, the military capability
>of Yugoslavia, which is being used to do wrong.
And several *NATO* commanders admit it has had very little effect.
And the 'wrong' has been accelerated.
> You can't claim the Yugoslav8ian military is not being used to do wrong.
I claim no such thing.
Do you claim that the NATO jets are not being so used?
>> They will continue to be in favour for as long as the media snow job
>> can outshout reports of the actual *effect* of the campaign.
>You have a very low opinion of people in general.
Do you wonder why so much money is spent on advertising, Martin?
Is thinking that people can be strongly influenced by media campaigns
contemptuous or realistic?
Actually, my opinion of many of my fellow Australians and people
like yourself *has* taken a dive after seeing how easy it is to get
them to endorse war crimes, but I imagine it is still higher than
that of economimc rationalists who think that people can only
be constructively influenced by greed.
>> Tell me Martin, what *is* the NATO military goal, as they repeatedly
>> avoid any commitment to putting in ground troops? If you are just going
>> to repeat the 'degrading Milosevic's military capacity' line,
>> please explain what this means in terms of a viable exit strategy.
>The NATO military goal is to destroy the military capability of the
>Yugoslavian military. There is no exit strategy.
If that is true, given that there is no hope of doing that from the
air, there is no exit at all. You're proposing eternal war like the
middle east or '1984'.
I made the mistake of responding to you in the belief that you
were putting forward an opinion you honestly hold re the bombings.
However, from the evasive nature of your arguments I suspect I've
fallen for a troll.
- michael
|
