To:

Zcom_simple
Home » Z Blogs » Noam Chomsky's Blog » Serb Massacres & NATO Intervention

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.


Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

  • For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
  • One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
  • One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
  • One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.


Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

9

Noam Chomsky's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/noamchomsky
Bio: (More)

All Chomsky Blogs

Recent Chomsky Content

Znetarticle_icon ZNet Articles
Zmagarticle_icon ZMag Articles
Zcommentary_icon ZCommentaries
Zaudio_icon ZAudios
Zvideo_icon ZVideos
Zblogpost_icon Blog Posts
Zbook_icon Books
Zvideo_icon ZStores

Serb Massacres & NATO Intervention

By Noam Chomsky at Feb 16, 2005

PDF Version

Printer Friendly Version
Change Text Size a- | A+
In Nov. 2004, the Bosnian Serb Republic issued a detailed document estimating the number missing as close to 8000, and apologized for the killing of thousands by the Serb forces. That is standardly misreported... The massacre, whatever its scale, can hardly be used as justification for NATO intervention, though one could, I suppose, offer it as a condemnation of NATO non-intervention, and in particular US refusal to send ground troops along with other NATO powers. Srebrenica was lightly defended by a small Dutch government contingent, and was regarded as unviable by the NATO command. The Dutch government did a careful inquiry. They concluded that Milosevic knew nothing about the massacre and was appalled at the discovery of the facts, which undermines the charge of "genocide" at the Tribunal; and also reported that the Clinton administration had been involved, along with Iran, in bringing in radical Islamist mojahadeen to support its side in the civil war, in violation of the official embargo. Shortly after the Srebrenica massacre, and the mass expulsion of Serbs from Krajina shortly after by US-backed Croat forces, the Clinton administration supervised the Dayton peace agreement, welcoming Milosevic and Tudjman (his quite comparable Croatian counterpart) as participants. Serious questions were raised right at once concerning the refusal of the US to support the (rather similar) Vance-Owen proposals under consideration in 1992, and its encouragement of Bosnians to reject them in anticipation of direct US military support which never came; and about whether not only Srebrenica, Krajina and other atrocities but the slaughter of the intervening years could have been avoided.

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (27)

Person

Re: Serb Massacres & NATO Intervention

By Hjackhammer, Dman72 at May 12, 2005 22:25 PM
Cli-Che', maybe? You answered by comments by saying something that basically translates to "but Chomsky is smarter than all other pundits", a response which supports my theory 100%. Graeme is one of his disciples. In what he writes, Chomsky is insinuating that this one report nullifies any possibility that Milosevic had knowledge of the attacks, and that the assumption he did is the fabrication of the West to justify. Where does the information from the Dutch report come from? Milosevics own denials? What shock the he would deny such a thing!! It's nonsense, and unfortunately, Chomsky uses these kinds of tactics too often. In a situation like this, it appears that he approached the subject of the attack on Serbia with a pre-determined conclusion that there HAD to be something bad behind the US/Nato action, and dug up some hearsay shaky evidence to support it, then acts as if the evidence is rock solid. Intelectually dishonest.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Serb Massacres & NATO Intervention

By Hjackhammer, Dman72 at May 10, 2005 17:59 PM
Sorry to dig this old one up for my first post... Chomsky is obviously a brilliant man, and he often has a perspective on world events that is at least worth listening too. I myself have seem him speak in person on 2 seperate ocassions. However, the rock star worship that he receives by the Che Guevara t-shirt wearing set is a bit out of control. His arguments on the situation in this blog are far from "air tight". The "evidence" regarding Milosevic's (sp) knowledge of any massacre is not exactly air tight, but Chomsky crosses the line by making it appear to you all that it's an absolute fact that he wasn't aware. That's fairly irresponsible, but that's nothing new from Chomsky. He, like most pundits, has an agenda, and he's sticking to it.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Serb Massacres & NATO Intervention

By Ralston, John at Mar 01, 2005 09:01 AM
I have found that the main reason the mainstream media fears chomsky so much, is that his arguments are almost always air tight. The few times people do try and find holes in his argument, they end up embarassed and usually left looking like idiots. Chomkskys intellectual power is derived from his unmatched mastery of the english language. Even if his argument is incorrect in some respect, trying to pick apart chomskys reasoning in the classical sense is nearly impossible. Chomsky for president.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Serb Massacres & NATO Intervention

By Slavkovich, Milan at Feb 25, 2005 15:07 PM
Well SRLiem, to be honest I tend to take it personally because the assymetries of power in this world have a very personal effect on my life. And part of the reason these assymetries exist is because of propaganda and ideological control. Enter WTGN. Though, if you notice I got kinda nasty with WTGN only after I did the research on the link he gave and realized that he was completely full of shit and out here to waste time and energy. And I think for the most part I kept to quoting from the source material to show the blatant inconsistencies, which to me doesn't qualify as reactionary rhetoric. Though if you disagree, I'd be happy if you pointed it out to me.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Serb Massacres & NATO Intervention

By Simonliem, Srliem at Feb 24, 2005 10:14 AM
I am sorry to make such an off topic post, but why does everyone take all of this so personally? If you want to discredit someone and end up attacking them personally you always sound like an idiot and it's usually a good indicator you're spouting some reactionary rhetoric. This goes for both sides.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Serb Massacres & NATO Intervention

By Allen, Robert at Feb 21, 2005 03:48 AM
That should read 'convincingly' beaten in the last post.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Serb Massacres & NATO Intervention

By Allen, Robert at Feb 20, 2005 22:10 PM
Graeme, Re. your dispatching of WTGN, the last time I saw a bully so convincing beaten was when Evander Hollyfield knocked out Mike Tyson. WTGN must stand for Witless Troll Going Nowhere (Fast).

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Serb Massacres & NATO Intervention

By Jplejic, Sherpa at Feb 18, 2005 12:09 PM
No serious analysis should give credence to the noble declarations by the NATO assassins. Yet one can't help but cringe when well inentioned people rely on a potential lack of evidence as to which warlord politician knew what and when. We should be careful not to accidently validate the criminals on all sides of the Yugoslavian tragedy. Mr. Milosevic is no different from the shameless figures organising the imperial machinations of the west. This man presided over a 'Serbian republic' that waged war with Slovenians, Croats, Bosnians, and Albanians in the former Yugoslavia. Spend anytime in anyone of these republics in the 'new balkans' and you realize that the leaders are jack ass thieves on all sides. Most of those that have been fortunate enough to avoid being linked to war crimes are now the pillars of the new free market economies. Noam himself has in the past preceded his analyses of the Balkans with comments regarding his lack of in depth research on the subject. Personally feel that Noam's x-ray analyses which has transformed how so many of us view and discuss these things is somewhat lacking with regards to the balkans. Perhaps I am wrong. Respect and thanks.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Serb Massacres & NATO Intervention

By Davidberge, Daveos at Feb 17, 2005 20:49 PM
Nice work by Fabien and Graeme exposing WTGN for what it is; as Keir notes a bunch of diversionary tactics, or better put by Fabien "disrupt discussion with banal nonsense". I think the WTGN nonsense is akin to people who write worms and viruses to infect others computers; don't they have something more constructive to do with their time? In any case the motivations WTGN attributes to Chomsky is so at odds with the conclusion of the initial post as to make it laughable. Chomsky points to the Dayton peace agreement supported by the Clinton administration and the light that cast on the previous refusal to support the Vance-Owen proposals and in fact discouraged Bosnia to reject them in anticipation of US military support which never came. Apart from the quesion of complicity of Milosovic (WTGN's air guitar solo), wasn't there a major failing in US policy that afforded the opportunity for the atrocities?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Serb Massacres & NATO Intervention

By Slavkovich, Milan at Feb 17, 2005 17:59 PM
Look WTGN, the second quote I put up pretty much says "Milosevic knew nothing about the massacre" and if you want to read that he "was appalled at the facts" go to where I pulled it from and read the page. It says as much. As for the quote you gave, about Great Serbian ambition and it's contribution to 'this process', the process it's refering to is the breakup of Yugoslavia, not the Srebrenica massacre in particular. This particular quote comes from the first few paragraphs of the summary for the press, anyone interested can look it up to judge my interpretation. Incidentally you haven't presented any evidence about hundreds of hours of testimony, and the question isn't his foreknowledge of the attack but of his complicity in the ensuing massacre - don't try to shift the debate. As for Chomsky's reasons to bring all this up, I don't really care about that, what I find interesting is the claims that YOU made and their obvious falsehood. If you can point to a specific part in the document that contradicts what Chomsky wrote, I'd be happy to read it. So far you've had three tries. Obviously your MO here is to disrupt discussion with banal nonsense.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Serb Massacres & NATO Intervention

By Tdc, Wtgn at Feb 17, 2005 17:32 PM
Fabien, you still have not made the connection between what Chomsky claimed and what the report said. Chomsky:"They concluded that Milosevic knew nothing about the massacre and was appalled at the discovery of the facts" The report says no such thing, only that the attacks did not originate from Belgrade and it is very clear on who bears the greates blame for Srebrenica. "Great-Serbian ambition played a major role in this process. This places a relatively large share of the responsibility with the Serb political leaders, especially former president Milosevic." But once again, even without the report, there are hundreds of hours of testimony from Milosevic's trial from dozens of witnesses who are testifying that he did indeed have forknowledge of the attack. The only reason chomsky cites the report is to undermine the war crimes charges against Milosevic and thereby undermine the official reason for NATO involvement.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Serb Massacres & NATO Intervention

By Ulmanen, Botpolar at Feb 17, 2005 17:06 PM
Kier - it's not a waste of your time. You need to realise that lots of people feel this way about Chomsky. If you advocate reflective thought, you must excercise it yourself. Many were posing the question 'why do you think so many people hate americans abroad', so you should ask, why many people disagree with chomsky. it's not all that clear...

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Serb Massacres & NATO Intervention

By Ulmanen, Botpolar at Feb 17, 2005 17:00 PM
Personally I find that many of the left and right misapprehend the real value in Chomsky. What Chomsky to me has always been about is democratic accountability. I used to be a socialist but today I've accepted the benefits of capitalist organisation, but I still find Chomsky appealing. The reason for this is his poilitical morality. Even if he is wrong in some cases, he's more likely to ask the question 'is my government accountable' rather than blame others. This is what all of us should be doing in democracies, because the actions of our governments make us accountable as well. Many Europeans(guardian reading brits) look accross the atlantic to Chomsky and cite American violations of international law etc. but they fail to realise that they should be more concerned about the actions of their own governments. Many Europeans which I have met have a profound love for their own countries yet they distain America. In my view this is completely missing the point.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Serb Massacres & NATO Intervention

By Pythag3, Pythag3 at Feb 17, 2005 16:11 PM
WTGN might find the following link useful. The article, written by Chomsky, provides an overview of his actual position on US intervention in the Balkans, not the imaginary one descrbied by WTGN. http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199903--.htm "There has been a humanitarian catastrophe in Kosovo in the past year, overwhelmingly attributable to Yugoslav military forces. The main victims have been ethnic Albanian Kosovars, some 90% of the population of this Yugoslav territory. The standard estimate is 2000 deaths and hundreds of thousands of refugees."

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Serb Massacres & NATO Intervention

By Pythag3, Pythag3 at Feb 17, 2005 16:04 PM
Was planning to post my rebuttal, but Graeme has rendered that totally unnecessary. The rehashed Pol Pot allegation was a dead giveaway. That statement might seem plausible, if your primary exposure to Chomsky comes from David Horowitz, "The Anti-Chomsky Reader." Those who actually bother to read Chomsky's work will quickly discover that the charges are total nonsense. Chomsky is a self-described anarchosyndicalist / libertarian socialist: he has never whitewashed the Soviets, Pol Pot, the Serbs, or anyone else.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Serb Massacres & NATO Intervention

By Rumsfelddon, Gauge2 at Feb 17, 2005 06:06 AM
WTGN: Points A and B that you raise are not consistent with the overwhelming evidence concerning the nature, timing, and even stated purpose of the intervention. Though not in the main media, this is discussed in detail elsewhere. For example, on this website. Consider reading details of the Rambouillet accords to get more information. Bear in mind that sources are useless if you are going in trying to prove something, rather than learn something. If you're trying to do neither, then go back to CNN where you belong.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Serb Massacres & NATO Intervention

By Slavkovich, Milan at Feb 17, 2005 04:46 AM
WTGN, you're a pathetic loser, I just went through the report and clearly you haven't read a thing from it. Go to part 4, chapter 2, section 20: "...some have expressed a suspicion that the attack on Srebrenica was coordinated with Belgrade ... However, there is no evidence to suggest participation in the preparations for the executions on the part of Yugoslav military personnel or the security agency (RDB).[6] In fact, there is some evidence to support the opposite view..." This section in particular points out who was and was not involved vis a vis Mladic and Milosevic. For future reference idiot, don't present an obvious lie and then the evidence to prove you wrong.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Serb Massacres & NATO Intervention

By Slavkovich, Milan at Feb 17, 2005 03:21 AM
WTGN, the complete report isn't on the website you gave (broken link), but I'm still more than a bit skeptical since I don't see why it would so plainly contradict itself in the summary (as given in that quote I put up). Provide a link to the report and tell me where it says that Milosevic was involved.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Serb Massacres & NATO Intervention

By Davidberge, Daveos at Feb 17, 2005 02:54 AM
WTGN, sorry sister. Kind of scary to read the self-congratulatory posts. Disinformed delusions for all to see! (Apparently choir preaching on the money mongering sites isn't enough). Exactly the misinformation Dr. Chomsky's post points to.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Serb Massacres & NATO Intervention

By Tdc, Wtgn at Feb 17, 2005 02:05 AM
Oh, yes, you have to read the complete report and not just its summary.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Serb Massacres & NATO Intervention

By Slavkovich, Milan at Feb 17, 2005 02:00 AM
WTGN, I just followed the link that you put up for the dutch report and read through the summary for the press release. It doesn't say anything about Milosevic being responsible for the massacre, in fact it says the opposite: "(10) There are a number of indications that it was a central command from the General Staff of the VRS. There are none pointing to political or military liaison with Belgrado (sic)." I don't understand why you would lie so obviously, especially if you then give us the source to check up on you. Maybe I'm wrong and you had some other segment in mind, if so can you be a bit more specific and tell where I can find this bit of evidence that says "exactly the opposite of what Chomsky claims".

Reply this comment

Person

By Tdc, Wtgn at Feb 17, 2005 01:18 AM
DaveOS, Damn girlfriend! that was one of the finest repudiations of my post that I have ever seen. YOU GO GIRL!

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Serb Massacres & NATO Intervention

By Tdc, Wtgn at Feb 17, 2005 01:16 AM
"Would WGTN be so good as to elucidate to the rest of us dogmatic, brainswashed, tree-hugging Chomskians just what we were so wrong about concerning the NATO intervention?" Perhaps that it was A: necessary to stop rampant and organized Serbian human rights abuses, and B: a real honest to goodness humanitarian effort. Well, if Clark was the only one saying it, then I think that perhaps the above-cited Dutch review might muddy up the issue. Thing is, Clark is not the only source and the Dutch report Chomsky cites is very explicit as to Milosevic's responsibility and foreknowledge for the events at Srebrenica. Please read it if you like. http://www.srebrenica.nl Lt. Col. Robert Franken, who not only testified at Milosevic's trial, but also contributed to the Dutch inquiry also emphatically states that Milosevic knew before hand what was going to happen at Srebrenica. I would also like to gloat a little that it seems once again after digging into Chomsky's sources they say exactly the opposite of what he claims.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Serb Massacres & NATO Intervention

By Davidberge, Daveos at Feb 17, 2005 01:15 AM
WTGN is probably too absorbed in validating the worship of the $$$ign to realize the fallibilities of Ayn Rand in the realm of reality. The over generalized condemnations WTGN applies to Chomsky's commentaries seem more a reflection of denial than the ownership the WTGN site link promotes. If the Ayn Rand quote that sets the site theme had any bearing on WTGN's reality, the "justice" principle would be compelling more reflection on America's responsibility. The WTGN rants on Chomsky are just a bunch of 'it's all good in the name of money; nevermind social responsibility to the impact of American policy on other cultures and nations, we're just following our true nature.' Surf the WTGN link to observe just how sick someone can get when they forget that the medium of exchange is less important than what is exchanged.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Serb Massacres & NATO Intervention

By Rumsfelddon, Gauge2 at Feb 17, 2005 00:39 AM
Would WGTN be so good as to elucidate to the rest of us dogmatic, brainswashed, tree-hugging Chomskians just what we were so wrong about concerning the NATO intervention? If the problem is the obvious discrepancy between Wesley Clark's statements (in the link you provided) and the above-cited Dutch government's review, I'd like to know why one is more believable than the other according to you.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Serb Massacres & NATO Intervention

By Tdc, Wtgn at Feb 16, 2005 23:32 PM
One would figure after being wrong all these years about the NATO intervention in the former Yugoslavia, that Chomsky could finally come out and be honest with his throngs of sycophants and say "I was wrong". Apparently he just cannot do that. He falls back to his classic it all America's fault. Classic Chomsky in all its glory: nothing happened in Srebrenica, if anything did happen there (notice how Chomsky ponders the scale of the massacre) certainly the Serb leadership knew nothing about it, and even if they did its all Americas fault for no intervening earlier. Talk about hedging ones bets. But then again this is a similar line of argument he has used with the FARC and Pol Pot. But one of the most disgusting lies Chomsky told in this article was that Milosevic had no knowledge of what was going to happen in Srebrenica. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3331047.stm How any of you people can have any respect for a man who continues to peddle this bullshit is way beyond me.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Serb Massacres & NATO Intervention

By Vekey, Tvekey at Feb 16, 2005 20:44 PM
The ethnic conflicts in the Balkan are complex and long enduring phenomenon and no side is completely innocent of wrongdoing. This follows an unfortunate, but historicaly established pattern of violence and counter violence. This is of course, does not mean that the perpetrators of the massacres should not be punished. The last open conflict bettween the parties also demonstrated another historicaly established pattern namely the meddling of outside 'Great Powers' in the conflict in pursuit of their own interest. All the lofty rhetoric of the US about helping etnic self-determination was only a smoke screen and a tool for (to quote a famous author) "manufacturing consent" for the "homeland".

Reply this comment

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (27)

Loading_border