Drowsy Emperor

In this topic I'm just copy pasting what a reputable individual that was also external to the conflict has to say as I read through the book. Personally, I'm sure of both. Because even if we go all the way with the west's Srebrenica mythology, even there its noted that women and children were spared the so called "executions" and removed with buses by the order of Mladic himself. Therefore it is not genocide, even if you believe the mainstream version, because genocide requires the intent to destroy the entire population of the target group and that intent is lacking. You do not commit genocide by showing mercy to half of your supposed target group. Intent, critical to genocide, is lacking in Srebrenica, and it is lacking in other contested territories as well. Indeed. I assume this is just a more thorough version.

Important quote II:

New X-Men. Garbage.

Important quote:

Al Kaida was made by the US+UK+Saudis to combat Soviets in Afghanistan and has since been used as a vanguard/support in the destabilization of countries opposed to US, even post 9/11. cites many major news publications and even a video of a major Al Kaida commander present at dinner in Pentagon with top US brass several months after 9-11 accuses US of sliding into totalitarism

A most informative study of the events surrounding and culminating in Srebrenica done by a UN offical: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...a&aid=25112 Scroll down for 300 page pdf, or read the foreword for a general idea.

He doesn't believe that. Watch the video.

I though that was "The Quiet American"

Don't be snide. The video is good for what it is. Which is an opinion backed with a few news clippings, I put it up as an interesting piece - not as a final word on anything. While extremely theatrical in the way common to american discourse, its not so bad or ludicrous as to warrant outright dismissal, although I'm not expecting jubilant acceptance either. Also, you're not exactly expressing your own thoughts on what you think of Al Kaida.

There are not many ways to put broad themes in a 15 minute package for the uninformed. If its over 15 minutes no one on the internet gives a damn. Or in real life.

He's working from some solid facts, which you can use to make your own conclusions. His might not all be spot on, but nothing is stopping you from making your own. From what I've seen he uses mostly regular media and a few well known books. His style is a bit of a turnoff but its obvious who the target audience is.

Yes, discard valuable facts because of the mention of one weakly defined concept.

Alex Jones: Al Kaida, Libya http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTuTXufMJEk...embedded#at=436

Thanks. I study international relations and diplomacy, so I'm not pulling crackpot conspiracies out of my bum. I just can't go step by step and refute everything because it would involve a truckload of text, names, events and people that you're unfamiliar with and neither would you read all of it nor would I expect you to, or anyone without a personal interest in the issue. Looking at world politics through the surface reasons of this or that side is not enough for in depth analysis. I'm surprised you take anything that any media says for granted without looking at the not so transparent interests behind the issue. Here's one fact: the largest US base in SE europe is Bondsteel, in Kosovo. Would you seriously suggest that the decision to make such a large military base in such a strategic location was made after the conflict? Or was it part of the plan well in advance? If it was made in advance how would that impact the US policy in terms of which side it would back in Kosovo, would it: a) back the Albanian majority whose consent is critical to the smooth running of this base, b) the Serb minority, who along with the government (of the day) in Belgrade wouldn't support a US base on their soil? I'm not asking for big leaps in logic here or definite conclusions, just give it a thought.

::shrugs:: Boo is Serbia, we bombed his country, he's pissed off about it which is fair enough. Serbia's government at that time was complicit in genocide, this is a matter of fact. The Serbian regime brought the bombs on Belgrade. No "facts" out of the Balkan wars propagated in the west have ever shown to be anything more than bull made "true" by incessant repetition. Its a concocted justification, and its painfully obvious that as we go from conflict to conflict in the last 20 years, the first cry heard everywhere is: genocide! genocide!. The only genocide in the second half of the twentieth century is Rwanda. Everything else is western realpolitik and smear campaigns against what few truly independent countries there are left.

I merely said that they should be given no quarter and expect none, if caught in battle. The command staff and politicians tend to stay away from the front lines.

1. The use of air power is not garbage. I'd give examples but I think it would be more dignified if you conceded this on reflection. 2. I would agree that the use of air power as a weapon of terror, indeed all weapons of terror, are garbage. Because they function like a drug. You need ever increasing doses to achieve the same 'hit'. 3. A guiding principle of civilised warfare is that it use of force should be proportionate. If a single strike can decapitate a regime and end a policy of atrocity, you prefer a campaign of military bombing which may or may not end that same violence at a cost of thousands of lives? Achieving this without killing a 'great leader's children is only going to be achievable if the great leader does not hide amongst them. But we will no doubt agree to disagree on who bears the chief responsibility there. Ditto reporst that Ghaddafi has been concealing himself in hospitals, which are of course protected under the Geneva conventions. The use of air power as seen in Serbia, Libya was garbage. Or rather it was effective at its real goals, and that was the submission of the civillian populace and their leaders, the latter especially. It was completely ineffective against the military. 3. You presume that there is an atrocity and that it is not, in fact, concocted to cover mundane realpolitik goals. You presume that assasination and bombing campaigns are adequate means for solving the internal issues of other countries. You also presume that those who can do those things somehow also have the right to do them. Everyone knows that the movement against Gaddafi was small and without popular support. That much was obvious from day one. There were no atrocities, there was no real popular movement or freedom fighters, in the case of Serbia (but a CIA listed terrorist/drug group), it was all bull-**** to justify the NATO expansion to the east, a formerly Russian sphere of influence. There is what you know and what you believe. You believe in the entire premise for each intervention we've ever discussed, and therefore are ready to justify everything, like you just justified, indirectly, the slaughter of minors. Also Gaddafi could hardly be stupid enough to hide amongst his children in his residence, in a time of war waiting for a bomb to drop on his head. So please.

I never said war is fair, I said there are some things in it that shouldn't be done and are monstrous no matter how you try to spin it. Bombing is garbage against military forces. Everyone knows this. The Serbian army left Kosovo with 95% of its armor and manpower intact. The brunt of the casualties were civillians, and infrastructure used primarily by them. Thats because armies can adapt to bombardment even in the long run and civillians can't. The real goal of the bombing is the psychological submission of the civilian population and its leadership, by attrition. You can rationalise and justify all day long, but we can see it happening now as we speak. Since the armed forces (the supposed targets) won't be destroyed by the means used that means the war is waged against the people and not their armed forces. Therefore, its not a war but an organized campaign of terror. I agree with you on war crimes: since when are personal residences and family members of leaders viable targets? That's a war crime, no? Three children died in that airstrike, the oldest was, what, 4?

Have you read the book of the new sun? I concur that The Book of the New Sun is the most interestingly written fantasy-ish fiction I've read. Besides the fact that the more you read of it the less you understand.

Indeed.

I have a feeling Достоевский in original to you would be pretty much like Shakespeare is to me, almost incomprehensible. he's somewhat hard to read because of his style. he was a pretty disturbed person. and I don't believe readers can fully appreciate a writer reading translations, even very good ones. it goes beyond the meaning of the words, it's in the music of the language I think he did the Serbian translation himself... or maybe not. Maybe that was Gogol. Its the same with Nietzsche, you need a very talented translator who is also a writer/poet to convey most of what was originally intended. But you take what you can get. Shakespeare in english is hard even for a native english speaker... I also wish I could read Stirner (whom nobody remembers although he's in many ways superior to Nietzsche) in the original german, but that's not gonna happen in this lifetime. You are essentially right though, writing prodigies/geniuses tend to use language in a way that most people cant comprehend, let alone translate. Његош's (one of our best writers) poem and play The Mountain Wreath, is a horror to translate and understand if you arent from these parts.

Lol, might be on to something there.

Have you read the book of the new sun?

That occurs when any art form has something approaching a popularity surge. It's no coincidence that that happened at the time of the space race. True, but I can still confidently say that the number of sci fi books I've read and the number of those that I wouldn't use to wipe my bum is extremely disproportional. I don't think sci-fi has yet offered a novel that would be a timeless classic of world literature. Those considered classics, like Shelly and Verne are really not in the same league as Dostoyevsky, Cervantes, Shakespeare etc. Though, in general, Sturgeon is quite right.