A couple of questions as the White House rebukes John Kerry for using the f-word in Rolling Stone:
The Hague Inquisition convicted Bosnian Serb General Stanislav Galic Friday, of “command responsibility” in the siege of Sarajevo. According to BBC, Galic was found guilty of “murder” (?) and “infliction of terror,” and sentenced to 20 years in prison.
I lived in Sarajevo during the war, in the Muslim-held part of the city, and experienced first-hand many of the attacks for which Galic is accused. I agree that their objective was to terrorize civilians, and thus put pressure on their government (Izetbegovic) to negotiate a peace. But how is this different from “bombs for peace” pursued by NATO?
Remember, these are people who decided NATO didn’t commit any war crimes in 1999 simply because NATO told them so. The only difference between terrorizing civilians and targeting infrastructure in Sarajevo (1992-95) and Serbia (1999) is that the former was done by the Bosnian Serbs (declared a priori evil) and the latter by NATO (forces of goodness, by own definition). There’s the old double standard again. Continue reading “ICTY’s new hypocrisy”
Antiwar.com’s Blog has been nominated for the WizBang Weblog Awards.
Half of the categories are denoted by evolutionary state. We are in the category of Best Crawly Amphibians Ecosystem Level Blog, which is the lower end of the evolutionary scale (not an insult, we are new).
People can vote multiple times in each category, but no more than one vote per 12 hours.
Update: We are now in second place.
For what it’s worth, check it out and vote for us.
Robert Stinnett on the continuing Pearl Harbor coverup. Don’t look for any of this information tomorrow on the History Channel. And don’t expect to know the full story on the WTC attacks by September 11, 2063.
Saddam’s former translator gives us another justification for the war:
‘He wrote in a hurry. It was as if he had all these ideas he just wanted to get out and his formal pronouncements weren’t enough.’ To express even the simplest ideas, Saddam used a convoluted style full of subclauses, superfluous adjectives and boring digressions. ‘It was virtually impossible to translate into English because I had to chop up these endless sentences. Let’s just say Saddam was no Naguib Mahfouz.’