Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Gorgo · Apr 15, 2005, 06:24 am

IndieC, I have posted responses to most of your ideas on this and other forums. Have you read them, or are you asking me to start from scratch?

There were wars going on that NATO countries worked very hard to ignite. They wanted the break-up of Yugoslavia. People were killed in those wars. The Croatians and others hired PR people to lie and exaggerate about the situation. Because NATO countries wanted all this, they subsidized this and encouraged it. Your own data confirms that the killing increased because of the idiotic, murderous, illegal bombing by NATO gangsters.

IndieC · Apr 15, 2005, 12:00 pm

Umm.. yeah, but guess what? These guys were fighting well before NATO existed, so how can it all be a NATO conspiracy? Please also explain to me why NATO would want to break up Yugoslavia... as far as i can see, there is no real point in doing it.

By the way i keep repeating myself, because i am waiting for you to prove my argument wrong, just denying it, and calling me arrogant doesn't really win you an argument.

Gorgo · Apr 15, 2005, 12:12 pm

I didn't call you arrogant. I said, "before you get arrogant." I asked you if you read what I posted. If you don't respond to what I posted, then there is no point in going on. You'd need to read a book or two to see things the way I see them, and I see no point in rehashing the details with someone that's not really interested in learning anything. If you're just here to win arguments, then declare your victory and go away. I don't care.

IndieC · Apr 15, 2005, 01:18 pm

If you don't care, why did you even bother replying?

Obviously you do care, or you wouldn't even bother replying. Since you do care, would you care to prove me wrong? After all, there's a post on the other forum i left you, telling you you were wrong, and you haven't answered it yet. I think that it is because you can't. If you could have proven me wrong, you wouldn't have started telling me to stop before i got arrogant, in other words, using petty antics to get out of an argument. It is, to be honest, being a bad sportsman when you end a debate in that way. You make it seem as though the person who is right in the debate is actually arrogant if he continues, instead of acknowledging that they put forward a good argument. If you put some concrete evidence in front of me, proving that i am wrong, that is what i will do, but until then, i think you should be a little nicer. You know, just a teeny bit. It makes it so much nicer talking to people.

About reading what you posted, i did, and i didn't find a single bit of evidence you left there to back any of it up, except an other discussion forum, which can't be considered as a foundation for an argument. I on the other hand, gave you a website, which you promptly chose to ignore.

I would actually like to have a constructive debate on this matter, that is how you learn, but you aren't helping matters, you are just saying what you have said before, in an attempt to stop me from talking about what i believe. In fact, you haven't answered any of my questions, and you haven't questioned any of my arguments. About your posts, i did respond, and you didn't accept my response, and tried to throw me off, basically insulting me using the cunning which seems the only part of your argument which actually holds together, and even that really isn't a part of your argument.

Nono · Apr 15, 2005, 01:20 pm

Gorgo, how's that pipeline coming along that the US invented the whole Kosovo mess so it would have an excuse for building through to the Adriatic? Or am I thinking of the wrong conspiracy?

Gorgo · Apr 15, 2005, 01:31 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Nono

Gorgo, how's that pipeline coming along that the US invented the whole Kosovo mess so it would have an excuse for building through to the Adriatic? Or am I thinking of the wrong conspiracy?

Sorry, don't know anything about pipelines.

Gorgo · Apr 15, 2005, 01:32 pm

Quote:

Quote by: IndieC

which you promptly chose to ignore.

Right. You win, I lose. Good bye.

Nono · Apr 15, 2005, 01:34 pm

Just trying to get your goat, Gorgo. Many people have suggested that the 1999 war was just an excuse to occupy Kosovo for better access to petroleum from the Caucasus. Well, they used to anyway, only the promised proof (a pipeline) hasn't been forthcoming. :)

Gorgo · Apr 15, 2005, 01:42 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Nono

Just trying to get your goat, Gorgo. Many people have suggested that the 1999 war was just an excuse to occupy Kosovo for better access to petroleum from the Caucasus. Well, they used to anyway, only the promised proof (a pipeline) hasn't been forthcoming. :)

Yeah, I don't know that the answers to this are quite as pat as that. I know that a lot of this stuff is about control. That seems to be largely about what the attack on Iraq is about, control of an oil-rich region, or if not control, at least as much influence as possible.

Unfortunately, the criminals we love to call our leaders don't tell us why, they just seem to lie. Obviously, bombing Yugoslavia for weeks wasn't to save anyone, but the exact reasons are just speculation. Some of it is good speculation, but again, when you deal with gangsters, all we really know is that a crime occurred.

And thanks, but my goat has been beaten nearly to death lately and it just don't care no more.

Gorgo · Apr 16, 2005, 02:12 pm

IndieC, I don't know if I misjudged you, but you came off to me as a loudmouthed, arrogant teenager, and I will assume I'm wrong. Your website says that certain newspapers on certain dates said that ethnic cleansing happened, and so I guess I'm supposed to go to those newspapers and read those articles and find out where they got their information, and whether or not it's genuine, and then get back to you? The killing increased after the murderous, illegal NATO bombing started. That is all that your web site shows me. Have you read the articles that I posted? Do you wish to comment on them?

For those who wish to know more, just put "ruder finn" yugoslavia into google and see what you find.

IndieC · Apr 16, 2005, 03:00 pm

Yes, of course the killing increased after NATO invaded, they wanted to get the job done before NATO could stop them. As for the website, if you have a problem with its credibility, please refer that to the person who created it: Matthew White. There is a link at the bottom to his home page. I will note, however, that this was the only online ressource i quoted, simply because it is the most concise, and because it is a general source of reference.

I challenge you to show me concrete evidence that proves that the NATO bombing was illegal, however. After all, the UN did support it, so how can it go against international law? Furthurmore, yes, if you want to go and read the articles, and the source he used, then do so, and get back to me when you can call then completely biased. I will be honest, i believe that if you wanted to you could call Reuters biased, but i doubt anyone would take you seriously. As for your website, it is biased. I looked it up, and it does have some interesting articles on it, which are very moving, and promote one way of looking at the conflict, however, there is a distinct lack in anything which doesn't involve NATO. In fact, there is even a link "NATO shame on you", which i found quite amusing. I am not one to be for NATO, i do just think that it is an extension of the US into Europe, using mainly US forces, and some European, and that it carries the US bias with it, but in some cases, it all depends on what you think should be done. The UN was involved before NATO, and asked NATO to come in, because they couldn't control the ethnic cleansing going on. (see:http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/G...df?OpenElement)
The above link is to the UN SC resolution 1244 on the situation relating to Kosovo passed on the 10th of June 1999, which calls for an international presence in Kosovo, which was then implemented.

In attacking NATO, you website undermines the UN, and is therefore untrustworthy, and has no international view, but a view which undermines decisions taken by the world in response to a conflict believed, by the UN, to be so bad that troops need to be called in to stop it.

Gorgo · Apr 16, 2005, 03:28 pm

Your web site doesn't tell me anything. Come up with something to refute what I've posted, or come up with something new.

Your link doesn't work.

It is illegal to bomb countries except to remove an immediate threat. It's part of the UN Charter, to which the U.S. is a member. The UN Charter, since it is a treaty, is the law of the land in the U.S. NATO is not the U.N. Can the UNSC do things illlegally? Of course. There was no "genocide," and no reason certainly to murder civilians and bomb their homes, schools, utilities and hospitals.

IndieC · Apr 16, 2005, 04:03 pm

The web site i gave you gives you precise figures as to the amount of people that died in Kosovo. If you look carefully, you will find that there are estimates from primary and secondary sources which one could call reliable, and which are certainly less biased than your website, which i have formerly proved biased.

Furthermore, i came up with something to refute what you had posted, and it did show you something new. Show me where i repeated myself to prove me wrong. As for the UN being able to act illegally, i think you will find that the UN make international law, and so cannot go against it, and make a point of not doing so. Since my link didn't work, you could have gone to the UN website, and simply looked up the resolution instead of making me give you a link so you can find it, but i suppose i should have given you a back-up.
See: http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1999/sc99.htm, and go to resolution1244 on the situation relating to Kosovo.
Oh, where does it say in the UN Charter that it is "illegal to bomb countries except to remove an immediate threat"? It also seems you don't take into account the fact that, in the UN Charter, it pledges to "ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest" in the Preamble, which, I'm sure you have read, and which also includes the pledge to "reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small". Considering these two things, one can safely assume that the upholding of human rights is in the common interest, and therefore armed force can be used to promote it, and stop human rights abuse from happening, which, i have already proven, evidently was in Kosovo in 1999. So, it was upholding international law to go to war in Kosovo, not breaking it, if you consider the UN Charter as the International Law.

By the way, i will admit that there was no genocide, i started using that word because others used it. The correct term is in fact "ethnic cleansing", which i have proved has happened.

Ps: If my link doesn't work, it must be because there is something wrong with your computer, because it works fine for me.

Gorgo · Apr 16, 2005, 04:36 pm

There was no policy of ethnic cleansing by the government of Kosovo. There were war crimes on all sides. Your original web site shows that there was no reason for the bombing, and that the bombing only made things worse, certainly improved nothing, and certainly caused more than the 2,000 deaths which you call "ethnic cleansing." Since you refuse to debate the facts, I'll leave you alone.

IndieC · Apr 16, 2005, 05:01 pm

Of course there wasn't a policy of ethnic cleansing by the government of Kosovo, it was the government of Serbia.

Yes there were war crimes on all sides, i said that from the beginning.

The site only gives facts and figures, it does not tell of why it happened, and i wasn't using it to show why. The bombing did make things worse, but it wasn't illegal, as you have been claiming, and it increased the ethnic cleansing, because, as i said before, the Serbs wanted to get the job done because they knew they were going to lose against a superior NATO force. On top of that, the ethnic cleansing went on through the war and caused an extra 10,000 more deaths according to 5 different sources. Added to the original 2000, that makes 12,000 Albanians that died. I don"t know about you, but i call that ethnic cleansing. As far as the war goes, most figures are between about 500 and 5000 casualties, which is less than half of the figures from the ethnic cleansing, and most sources claiming more than 20 times less.

Which facts have i refused to debate? You seem to have thrown the same arguments at me, and i have used evidence to refute those arguments, from what i can see. If i am wrong, prove it to me, or stop making false statements.

Gorgo · Apr 16, 2005, 05:46 pm

Quote:

Quote by: IndieC

Of course there wasn't a policy of ethnic cleansing by the government of Kosovo

Government of Yugoslavia, excuse me.

Gorgo · Apr 16, 2005, 05:47 pm

Quote:

Quote by: IndieC

Serbs wanted to get the job done

That is nonsense, as I have shown.

Gorgo · Apr 16, 2005, 05:48 pm

Quote:

Quote by: IndieC

If i am wrong, prove it to me, or stop making false statements.

You have decided not to deal with the facts, so I quit.

IndieC · Apr 16, 2005, 06:00 pm

On the contrary, i have shown you facts, and you haven't attacked them except in ways where i could defend them. Whether or not you admit that they are the truth is an other matter. As for your 'facts', i refuted them, and you chose not to defend them, so your argument fell apart.

If you still do want to continue, i would like to know how you showed that the Serbs did not actually do the ethnic cleansing, considering that International courts are trying the war criminals now, and considering the figures i showed you quoting 5 different sources.

Gorgo · Apr 16, 2005, 06:28 pm

Again, I have to keep repeating myself, but what you posted tells me , even if it's correct, which it isn't, is that the reason for NATO murdering over 3,000 people was that 2,000 people had died, causing the "ethnic cleansing" of thousands more. Somehow that makes sense to you.

Secondly, what your web site tells me is that some newspaper articles prove that "ethnic cleansing," whatever that is, occurred. I don't know that those articles even claimed that, and I don't know their source. The first one I looked up said "the pentagon said." They, of course, did not bother to check to see if the Pentagon was lying. I suspect the other articles are the same. Most of the stories of ethnic cleansing are just that. Stories. The articles I posted explain that. You choose to ignore the facts of the case, so I quit.

If anyone is interested, here are more articles:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...18&ItemID=5787

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Yu...g_Yugo_PC.html

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...s/kosovo20.htm

As far as your UN post, NATO knew what was happening, even if the UNSC didn't. They knew they were committing murder.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Mi...rimes_MOW.html
'NATO Commander General Wesley Clark boasted that the aim of the air war was to "demolish, destroy, devastate degrade, and ultimately eliminate the essential infrastructure of Yugoslavia." This of course was no "war" but rather an aerial massacre of defenseless human beings, most of them civilians.'

Apr 15, 2005, 12:00 pm	#22 (permalink) (top)
IndieC Igneous Magma Location: UK Posts: 303	Umm.. yeah, but guess what? These guys were fighting well before NATO existed, so how can it all be a NATO conspiracy? Please also explain to me why NATO would want to break up Yugoslavia... as far as i can see, there is no real point in doing it. By the way i keep repeating myself, because i am waiting for you to prove my argument wrong, just denying it, and calling me arrogant doesn't really win you an argument. "Never before in the history of warfare had destruction been so indiscriminate and universal" - makes you think of Hiroshima... -H.G. Wells, The War of the Worlds

Apr 15, 2005, 01:18 pm	#24 (permalink) (top)
IndieC Igneous Magma Location: UK Posts: 303	If you don't care, why did you even bother replying? Obviously you do care, or you wouldn't even bother replying. Since you do care, would you care to prove me wrong? After all, there's a post on the other forum i left you, telling you you were wrong, and you haven't answered it yet. I think that it is because you can't. If you could have proven me wrong, you wouldn't have started telling me to stop before i got arrogant, in other words, using petty antics to get out of an argument. It is, to be honest, being a bad sportsman when you end a debate in that way. You make it seem as though the person who is right in the debate is actually arrogant if he continues, instead of acknowledging that they put forward a good argument. If you put some concrete evidence in front of me, proving that i am wrong, that is what i will do, but until then, i think you should be a little nicer. You know, just a teeny bit. It makes it so much nicer talking to people. About reading what you posted, i did, and i didn't find a single bit of evidence you left there to back any of it up, except an other discussion forum, which can't be considered as a foundation for an argument. I on the other hand, gave you a website, which you promptly chose to ignore. I would actually like to have a constructive debate on this matter, that is how you learn, but you aren't helping matters, you are just saying what you have said before, in an attempt to stop me from talking about what i believe. In fact, you haven't answered any of my questions, and you haven't questioned any of my arguments. About your posts, i did respond, and you didn't accept my response, and tried to throw me off, basically insulting me using the cunning which seems the only part of your argument which actually holds together, and even that really isn't a part of your argument. "Never before in the history of warfare had destruction been so indiscriminate and universal" - makes you think of Hiroshima... -H.G. Wells, The War of the Worlds

Apr 15, 2005, 01:20 pm	#25 (permalink) (top)
Nono Throbbing Member Location: Old Europe Posts: 7,444	Gorgo, how's that pipeline coming along that the US invented the whole Kosovo mess so it would have an excuse for building through to the Adriatic? Or am I thinking of the wrong conspiracy? "I wish I was as cocksure of anything as Tom Macaulay is of everything." -- Viscount Melbourne

Apr 15, 2005, 01:34 pm	#28 (permalink) (top)
Nono Throbbing Member Location: Old Europe Posts: 7,444	Just trying to get your goat, Gorgo. Many people have suggested that the 1999 war was just an excuse to occupy Kosovo for better access to petroleum from the Caucasus. Well, they used to anyway, only the promised proof (a pipeline) hasn't been forthcoming. :) "I wish I was as cocksure of anything as Tom Macaulay is of everything." -- Viscount Melbourne

Apr 16, 2005, 03:00 pm	#31 (permalink) (top)
IndieC Igneous Magma Location: UK Posts: 303	Yes, of course the killing increased after NATO invaded, they wanted to get the job done before NATO could stop them. As for the website, if you have a problem with its credibility, please refer that to the person who created it: Matthew White. There is a link at the bottom to his home page. I will note, however, that this was the only online ressource i quoted, simply because it is the most concise, and because it is a general source of reference. I challenge you to show me concrete evidence that proves that the NATO bombing was illegal, however. After all, the UN did support it, so how can it go against international law? Furthurmore, yes, if you want to go and read the articles, and the source he used, then do so, and get back to me when you can call then completely biased. I will be honest, i believe that if you wanted to you could call Reuters biased, but i doubt anyone would take you seriously. As for your website, it is biased. I looked it up, and it does have some interesting articles on it, which are very moving, and promote one way of looking at the conflict, however, there is a distinct lack in anything which doesn't involve NATO. In fact, there is even a link "NATO shame on you", which i found quite amusing. I am not one to be for NATO, i do just think that it is an extension of the US into Europe, using mainly US forces, and some European, and that it carries the US bias with it, but in some cases, it all depends on what you think should be done. The UN was involved before NATO, and asked NATO to come in, because they couldn't control the ethnic cleansing going on. (see:http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/G...df?OpenElement) The above link is to the UN SC resolution 1244 on the situation relating to Kosovo passed on the 10th of June 1999, which calls for an international presence in Kosovo, which was then implemented. In attacking NATO, you website undermines the UN, and is therefore untrustworthy, and has no international view, but a view which undermines decisions taken by the world in response to a conflict believed, by the UN, to be so bad that troops need to be called in to stop it. "Never before in the history of warfare had destruction been so indiscriminate and universal" - makes you think of Hiroshima... -H.G. Wells, The War of the Worlds

Apr 15, 2005, 06:24 am	#21 (permalink) (top)
Gorgo BANNED-Warned multiple times about instigating. User then reported topics multiple times to mess with staff. Posts: 4,412	IndieC, I have posted responses to most of your ideas on this and other forums. Have you read them, or are you asking me to start from scratch? There were wars going on that NATO countries worked very hard to ignite. They wanted the break-up of Yugoslavia. People were killed in those wars. The Croatians and others hired PR people to lie and exaggerate about the situation. Because NATO countries wanted all this, they subsidized this and encouraged it. Your own data confirms that the killing increased because of the idiotic, murderous, illegal bombing by NATO gangsters.

Apr 15, 2005, 12:12 pm	#23 (permalink) (top)
Gorgo BANNED-Warned multiple times about instigating. User then reported topics multiple times to mess with staff. Posts: 4,412	I didn't call you arrogant. I said, "before you get arrogant." I asked you if you read what I posted. If you don't respond to what I posted, then there is no point in going on. You'd need to read a book or two to see things the way I see them, and I see no point in rehashing the details with someone that's not really interested in learning anything. If you're just here to win arguments, then declare your victory and go away. I don't care.

Apr 16, 2005, 02:12 pm	#30 (permalink) (top)
Gorgo BANNED-Warned multiple times about instigating. User then reported topics multiple times to mess with staff. Posts: 4,412	IndieC, I don't know if I misjudged you, but you came off to me as a loudmouthed, arrogant teenager, and I will assume I'm wrong. Your website says that certain newspapers on certain dates said that ethnic cleansing happened, and so I guess I'm supposed to go to those newspapers and read those articles and find out where they got their information, and whether or not it's genuine, and then get back to you? The killing increased after the murderous, illegal NATO bombing started. That is all that your web site shows me. Have you read the articles that I posted? Do you wish to comment on them? For those who wish to know more, just put "ruder finn" yugoslavia into google and see what you find.

Apr 16, 2005, 03:28 pm	#32 (permalink) (top)
Gorgo BANNED-Warned multiple times about instigating. User then reported topics multiple times to mess with staff. Posts: 4,412	Your web site doesn't tell me anything. Come up with something to refute what I've posted, or come up with something new. Your link doesn't work. It is illegal to bomb countries except to remove an immediate threat. It's part of the UN Charter, to which the U.S. is a member. The UN Charter, since it is a treaty, is the law of the land in the U.S. NATO is not the U.N. Can the UNSC do things illlegally? Of course. There was no "genocide," and no reason certainly to murder civilians and bomb their homes, schools, utilities and hospitals.

Apr 16, 2005, 04:03 pm	#33 (permalink) (top)
IndieC Igneous Magma Location: UK Posts: 303	The web site i gave you gives you precise figures as to the amount of people that died in Kosovo. If you look carefully, you will find that there are estimates from primary and secondary sources which one could call reliable, and which are certainly less biased than your website, which i have formerly proved biased. Furthermore, i came up with something to refute what you had posted, and it did show you something new. Show me where i repeated myself to prove me wrong. As for the UN being able to act illegally, i think you will find that the UN make international law, and so cannot go against it, and make a point of not doing so. Since my link didn't work, you could have gone to the UN website, and simply looked up the resolution instead of making me give you a link so you can find it, but i suppose i should have given you a back-up. See: http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1999/sc99.htm, and go to resolution1244 on the situation relating to Kosovo. Oh, where does it say in the UN Charter that it is "illegal to bomb countries except to remove an immediate threat"? It also seems you don't take into account the fact that, in the UN Charter, it pledges to "ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest" in the Preamble, which, I'm sure you have read, and which also includes the pledge to "reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small". Considering these two things, one can safely assume that the upholding of human rights is in the common interest, and therefore armed force can be used to promote it, and stop human rights abuse from happening, which, i have already proven, evidently was in Kosovo in 1999. So, it was upholding international law to go to war in Kosovo, not breaking it, if you consider the UN Charter as the International Law. By the way, i will admit that there was no genocide, i started using that word because others used it. The correct term is in fact "ethnic cleansing", which i have proved has happened. Ps: If my link doesn't work, it must be because there is something wrong with your computer, because it works fine for me. "Never before in the history of warfare had destruction been so indiscriminate and universal" - makes you think of Hiroshima... -H.G. Wells, The War of the Worlds Last edited by IndieC; Apr 16, 2005 at 04:05 pm.

Apr 16, 2005, 04:36 pm	#34 (permalink) (top)
Gorgo BANNED-Warned multiple times about instigating. User then reported topics multiple times to mess with staff. Posts: 4,412	There was no policy of ethnic cleansing by the government of Kosovo. There were war crimes on all sides. Your original web site shows that there was no reason for the bombing, and that the bombing only made things worse, certainly improved nothing, and certainly caused more than the 2,000 deaths which you call "ethnic cleansing." Since you refuse to debate the facts, I'll leave you alone.

Apr 16, 2005, 05:01 pm	#35 (permalink) (top)
IndieC Igneous Magma Location: UK Posts: 303	Of course there wasn't a policy of ethnic cleansing by the government of Kosovo, it was the government of Serbia. Yes there were war crimes on all sides, i said that from the beginning. The site only gives facts and figures, it does not tell of why it happened, and i wasn't using it to show why. The bombing did make things worse, but it wasn't illegal, as you have been claiming, and it increased the ethnic cleansing, because, as i said before, the Serbs wanted to get the job done because they knew they were going to lose against a superior NATO force. On top of that, the ethnic cleansing went on through the war and caused an extra 10,000 more deaths according to 5 different sources. Added to the original 2000, that makes 12,000 Albanians that died. I don"t know about you, but i call that ethnic cleansing. As far as the war goes, most figures are between about 500 and 5000 casualties, which is less than half of the figures from the ethnic cleansing, and most sources claiming more than 20 times less. Which facts have i refused to debate? You seem to have thrown the same arguments at me, and i have used evidence to refute those arguments, from what i can see. If i am wrong, prove it to me, or stop making false statements. "Never before in the history of warfare had destruction been so indiscriminate and universal" - makes you think of Hiroshima... -H.G. Wells, The War of the Worlds

Apr 16, 2005, 06:00 pm	#39 (permalink) (top)
IndieC Igneous Magma Location: UK Posts: 303	On the contrary, i have shown you facts, and you haven't attacked them except in ways where i could defend them. Whether or not you admit that they are the truth is an other matter. As for your 'facts', i refuted them, and you chose not to defend them, so your argument fell apart. If you still do want to continue, i would like to know how you showed that the Serbs did not actually do the ethnic cleansing, considering that International courts are trying the war criminals now, and considering the figures i showed you quoting 5 different sources. "Never before in the history of warfare had destruction been so indiscriminate and universal" - makes you think of Hiroshima... -H.G. Wells, The War of the Worlds

Apr 16, 2005, 06:28 pm	#40 (permalink) (top)
Gorgo BANNED-Warned multiple times about instigating. User then reported topics multiple times to mess with staff. Posts: 4,412	Again, I have to keep repeating myself, but what you posted tells me , even if it's correct, which it isn't, is that the reason for NATO murdering over 3,000 people was that 2,000 people had died, causing the "ethnic cleansing" of thousands more. Somehow that makes sense to you. Secondly, what your web site tells me is that some newspaper articles prove that "ethnic cleansing," whatever that is, occurred. I don't know that those articles even claimed that, and I don't know their source. The first one I looked up said "the pentagon said." They, of course, did not bother to check to see if the Pentagon was lying. I suspect the other articles are the same. Most of the stories of ethnic cleansing are just that. Stories. The articles I posted explain that. You choose to ignore the facts of the case, so I quit. If anyone is interested, here are more articles: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...18&ItemID=5787 http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Yu...g_Yugo_PC.html http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...s/kosovo20.htm As far as your UN post, NATO knew what was happening, even if the UNSC didn't. They knew they were committing murder. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Mi...rimes_MOW.html 'NATO Commander General Wesley Clark boasted that the aim of the air war was to "demolish, destroy, devastate degrade, and ultimately eliminate the essential infrastructure of Yugoslavia." This of course was no "war" but rather an aerial massacre of defenseless human beings, most of them civilians.'