I read a book a long time ago about it. Maybe I still have it, I’ll look after I recover enough. But the account @davel@lemmy.ml posted seems to align largely with what I recall. In short, if it’s a Western narrative, take it with several kilos of salt.
No it was someone I’d never heard of. I’m going to look to see if I still have the book or gave it away when I recover enough to be out of bed. I’m not even getting regular meals and baths rn.
It’s an anti-Western narrative. NATO wanted the genocide to happen to kill Bosnian Muslims. They blocked weapons to both sides because they knew it would functionally give the Serbs the opportunity to genocide the Bosnians. And they knew of the genocide while they were happening. In the end they rewarded the Serbs for committing the genocide. It’s all pretty clearly laid out in the video.
As usual, the US and its allies wanted to destabilize Yugoslavia for the purposes of regime change or Balkanization, and as usual it found a group to foment, supply, train, and fund: a minority separatist movement among Muslims within Yugoslavia and across the border in Albania.
The imperialists weren’t on anyone’s side but their own, and the only outcome they cared about was replacing the government with ones that were subservient and/or weak.
The Serbs enacting laws favoring themselves after the death of Tito did a great job of spreading those ethnic tensions as well. Sure NATO loves doing divide and conquer but it’s not a one-sided affair there.
And it in no way explains why NATO would block arms to the Bosnians while the Serbs had plenty of weapons leading to the one-sided massacres. Nor why they would reward the Serbs for doing genocide afterwards.
Sure NATO loves doing divide and conquer but it’s not a one-sided affair there.
It never is. The US and pals always take advantage of whatever contradictions already exist that they can exacerbate. It makes no sense to start from whole cloth when every relationship has tensions that can be leveraged.
And it in no way explains why NATO would block arms to the Bosnians while the Serbs had plenty of weapons leading to the one-sided massacres. Nor why they would reward the Serbs for doing genocide afterwards.
I don’t have time to re-litigate this today, but if you’re going to hang on BE’s every word, you should listen to his opinion on “genocide” as a trump card, and relatedly the problem with black and white thinking: The Problem with Genocide
Certainly genocide is used as a convenient political term, (I’ve already watched that video quite a while ago) but even the Serbs were like “yep we’re doing genocide we want a state for Serbs only!”. Then they ordered top-down systemic massacres of Bosnians and Croats.
The casualty statistics as BE mentions are also just telling by themselves: 83% of Bosnians killed were civilians. But “only” 10% of Serbs killed were civilians. This by itself basically proves that Bosnians did commit massacres on civilians but it wasn’t top-down policy.
Everything NATO did favored the Serbs and the genocide at Srebrenica was the pinnacle of an example. They disarmed the Bosnians and then let the Serbs slaughter them.
The fuck? Everything NATO did was against the Serbs, they declared no fly zone, bombed them, NATO members like Germany armed and supported anti-Yugoslavian separatists, US armed and traind Bosnaks militias, US propaganda was against Serbs all the time, you can even see that continuing today when a hacks like BE attack antiimperialists.
I don’t even know how to respond to historical revisionism of such brazen unreality level. You seriously just fucking ignored decade of NATO destroying Yugoslavia because BE, whose open nonsense against AES is well know, said so.
I’m really surprised I know about this and you don’t. I would appreciate you looking into it before dismissing it.
I’m not sure what you’re refering to
I read a book a long time ago about it. Maybe I still have it, I’ll look after I recover enough. But the account @davel@lemmy.ml posted seems to align largely with what I recall. In short, if it’s a Western narrative, take it with several kilos of salt.
Perhaps it was on of Chomsky’s works on the topic.
It may have been this one, I really can’t remember.
No it was someone I’d never heard of. I’m going to look to see if I still have the book or gave it away when I recover enough to be out of bed. I’m not even getting regular meals and baths rn.
It’s an anti-Western narrative. NATO wanted the genocide to happen to kill Bosnian Muslims. They blocked weapons to both sides because they knew it would functionally give the Serbs the opportunity to genocide the Bosnians. And they knew of the genocide while they were happening. In the end they rewarded the Serbs for committing the genocide. It’s all pretty clearly laid out in the video.
This is ass-backwards.
As usual, the US and its allies wanted to destabilize Yugoslavia for the purposes of regime change or Balkanization, and as usual it found a group to foment, supply, train, and fund: a minority separatist movement among Muslims within Yugoslavia and across the border in Albania.
The imperialists weren’t on anyone’s side but their own, and the only outcome they cared about was replacing the government with ones that were subservient and/or weak.
The Serbs enacting laws favoring themselves after the death of Tito did a great job of spreading those ethnic tensions as well. Sure NATO loves doing divide and conquer but it’s not a one-sided affair there.
And it in no way explains why NATO would block arms to the Bosnians while the Serbs had plenty of weapons leading to the one-sided massacres. Nor why they would reward the Serbs for doing genocide afterwards.
It never is. The US and pals always take advantage of whatever contradictions already exist that they can exacerbate. It makes no sense to start from whole cloth when every relationship has tensions that can be leveraged.
I don’t have time to re-litigate this today, but if you’re going to hang on BE’s every word, you should listen to his opinion on “genocide” as a trump card, and relatedly the problem with black and white thinking: The Problem with Genocide
Previously.
Certainly genocide is used as a convenient political term, (I’ve already watched that video quite a while ago) but even the Serbs were like “yep we’re doing genocide we want a state for Serbs only!”. Then they ordered top-down systemic massacres of Bosnians and Croats.
The casualty statistics as BE mentions are also just telling by themselves: 83% of Bosnians killed were civilians. But “only” 10% of Serbs killed were civilians. This by itself basically proves that Bosnians did commit massacres on civilians but it wasn’t top-down policy.
That’s not what happened.
Everything NATO did favored the Serbs and the genocide at Srebrenica was the pinnacle of an example. They disarmed the Bosnians and then let the Serbs slaughter them.
The fuck? Everything NATO did was against the Serbs, they declared no fly zone, bombed them, NATO members like Germany armed and supported anti-Yugoslavian separatists, US armed and traind Bosnaks militias, US propaganda was against Serbs all the time, you can even see that continuing today when a hacks like BE attack antiimperialists.
That literally is what happened. NATO let the Srebrenica genocide happen willingly. All the receipts are in the video.
In any case it’s all adhoms against BE so as usual safe to say I’m right.
I don’t even know how to respond to historical revisionism of such brazen unreality level. You seriously just fucking ignored decade of NATO destroying Yugoslavia because BE, whose open nonsense against AES is well know, said so.
I have to refresh my memory, I don’t want to speak further before I do that.