Did Clark really say bombing journalists is the same as bombing an army?

[TLM]

http://www.fair.org/extra/9907/kosovo-crimes.html



Extra! July/August 1999 Legitimate Targets? How U.S. Media Supported War Crimes in Yugoslavia - By Jim Naureckas

NATO justified the bombing of the Belgrade TV station, saying it was a legitimate military target. "We've struck at his TV stations and transmitters because they're as much a part of his military machine prolonging and promoting this conflict as his army and security forces," U.S. General Wesley Clark explained--"his," of course, referring to Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic. It wasn't Milosevic, however, who was killed when the Belgrade studios were bombed on April 23, but rather 20 journalists, technicians and other civilians.

[HFishbine]

1. Isn't that

against the Geneva convention?

[Mattforclark]

5. Cite

the section of the geneva convention that it is against then. Thanks.

[TLM]

9. That would be the section on targeting civilains and non-combatants.

That's why the UN human rights commissioner said it was unacceptable.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Kosovo/Story/0,2763,208056,00.html

A month later, with Nato getting increasingly frustrated about Milosevic's refusal to buckle, Mary Robinson, the UN human rights commissioner, said Nato's bombing campaign had lost its "moral purpose". Referring to the cluster bomb attack on residential areas and market in the Serbian town of Nis, she described Nato's range of targets as "very broad" and "almost unfocused". There were too many mistakes; the bombing of the Serbian television station in Belgrade - which killed a make-up woman, among others - was "not acceptable".

[HFishbine]

13. Here you go

This:

Art. 48. Basic rule

In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.


http://www.genevaconventions.org/

[TLM]

17. Yet under Clark's command they did exactly that...targeted civilains.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Kosovo/Story/0,2763,208056,00.html

A month later, with Nato getting increasingly frustrated about Milosevic's refusal to buckle, Mary Robinson, the UN human rights commissioner, said Nato's bombing campaign had lost its "moral purpose". Referring to the cluster bomb attack on residential areas and market in the Serbian town of Nis, she described Nato's range of targets as "very broad" and "almost unfocused". There were too many mistakes; the bombing of the Serbian television station in Belgrade - which killed a make-up woman, among others - was "not acceptable".

Nato, which soon stopped apologising for mistakes which by its own estimates killed 1,500 civilians and injured 10,000, said that "collateral damage" was inevitable, and the small number of "mistakes" remarkable, given the unprecedented onslaught of more than 20,000 bombs.

Yet once Nato - for political reasons, dictated largely by the US - insisted on sticking to high-altitude bombing, with no evidence that it was succeeding in destroying Serb forces committing atrocities against ethnic Albanians, the risk of civilian casualties increased, in Kosovo and throughout Serbia. Faced with an increasingly uncertain public opinion at home, Nato governments chose more and more targets in urban areas, and experimented with new types of bombs directed at Serbia's civilian economy, partly to save face. By Nato's own figures, of the 10,000 Kosovans massacred by Serb forces, 8,000 were killed after the bombing campaign started.

Nato does not dispute the Serb claim that just 13 of its tanks were destroyed in Kosovo - a figure which gives an altogether different meaning to the concept of proportionality. Nato fought a military campaign from the air which failed to achieve its stated objectives.

[Hoppin_Mad]

43. Yes they did -eom-

[dogman]

2. When they are working to exterminate over 1.5 million people

Hitlers' propaganda machine was innocent too I suppose.

[TLM]

10. Journalists... even if nothing but propagandists are non-combatants.

Intentionally targeting them is a war crime.

[dogman]

14. Read your post It says TV stations and Transmitters.

War is hell.

[JVS]

16. That is the attitude that causes war crimes

[TLM]

22. Yeah and who are inside TV stations?

Your argument is like saying... he did not murder kids... he just blew up pre-schools and school busses.

[exJW]

3. LOL, I guess the answer is no then?

you answered your own question. In case you missed it, this is what Clark said:

"We've struck at his TV stations and transmitters because they're as much a part of his military machine prolonging and promoting this conflict as his army and security forces," U.S. General Wesley Clark explained--"his," of course, referring to Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic.

[Mattforclark]

4. They were legitimate targets

Please explain why they are not.

If we had laser guided bombs in WW2, I would have had no problem bombing Goebbles' HQ. The same applies here.

Additionally, they were even WARNED that NATO was going to bomb it and told that they should evacuate it. That goes beyond the requirements of the rules of war and I think shows Clark's respect for human life.

[TLM]

11. The UN human rights commissioner disagreed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Kosovo/Story/0,2763,208056,00.html

A month later, with Nato getting increasingly frustrated about Milosevic's refusal to buckle, Mary Robinson, the UN human rights commissioner, said Nato's bombing campaign had lost its "moral purpose". Referring to the cluster bomb attack on residential areas and market in the Serbian town of Nis, she described Nato's range of targets as "very broad" and "almost unfocused". There were too many mistakes; the bombing of the Serbian television station in Belgrade - which killed a make-up woman, among others - was "not acceptable".

[JohnKleeb]

12. Mary Robinson? former president of Ireland isn't she

Thanks, just wondering.

[Padraig18]

21. yes.

She was President of Ireland. :)

[JohnKleeb]

23. Thanks

[Monte Carlo]

6. These weren't any old journalists - they were Milosevic's tools.

They maintained the illusion of peace, serentity, and unity in Serbia even when the country was falling apart and guilty of genocide. I'd say they're legitimate targets.

[TLM]

15. So you support the military targeting of non-combatants in war time?

Yeah good thing they got rid of that evil make up lady and those genocidal A/V techs.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/Kosovo/Story/0,2763,208056,00.html

A month later, with Nato getting increasingly frustrated about Milosevic's refusal to buckle, Mary Robinson, the UN human rights commissioner, said Nato's bombing campaign had lost its "moral purpose". Referring to the cluster bomb attack on residential areas and market in the Serbian town of Nis, she described Nato's range of targets as "very broad" and "almost unfocused". There were too many mistakes; the bombing of the Serbian television station in Belgrade - which killed a make-up woman, among others - was "not acceptable".

[Monte Carlo]

18. The guilty ones, yes.

It's unfortunate that the evil make up lady was there, but the power of Milosevic's state run TV was strong in the morale of the Serbians, who unfortunately would not stop their genocide. Refusing to act during a genocide is to condone it.

[TLM]

24. So you openly support the murder of civilains...

in order to stop them from tacitly supporting the murder of civilians?


When the bombing campaign started, about 2000 civilians had been killed by the Serbs. Clark's campaign killed 1500.

2000 dead civilians = genocide
1500 dead civilians = heroic


How exactly does that work?

[dogman]

32. Over 1,500,000 saved!

Ask the Albanians who show up at Clark appearances to thank him for saving them and their families. I'll side with them, you can side with Milosevic.

[TLM]

55. "I'll side with them, you can side with Milosevic."

Simply change Milosevic to Saddam and you just gave the rubber stamp freeper response to criticisms about the tactics being used in Iraq.

Why do Clark supporters use the same straw man tactics as freepers when defending CLark's war crimes in Kosovo?

The fact that someone is criticizing the tactics used in Kosovo does not mean they are defending Milosevic or saying he was a swell guy.

Yet that's the standard response from Clark supporters to those who criticize Clark's choice to target and murder civilians in a war supposedly being fought to stop the murder of civilians.

Yet another reason I refuse to support Clark.

The mindset that supports a conservative war monger is the same regardless of the letter that war monger puts by their name this week.

[Hep]

57. Wow.

And what about our "embedded" press? They were tools of Bush's proaganda machine. So open season on them, too?

Pretty scary precedent you've set for us.

[JVS]

7. What a sick twisted monster!

[Mattforclark]

8. What a sick twisted argument

Amazing one liner, yo.

[dogman]

20. Yes, Milosevic is.

[JVS]

27. This is about Clark. His kind of thinking reminds me of McVeigh

[dogman]

41. McVeigh saved over 1.5 million people?

I did not know that.

[TLM]

28. Milosevic is a monster for murdering civilains....

yet Clark is a hero for murdering civilians.

[JVS]

31. Funny how that works out

[MIMStigator]

19. agree Geobbels was an innocent victim

eom

[TLM]

26. Wasn't he in the German military?

Sad that you would compare a make up lady to Goebbels just to defend Clark for murdering civilians.

[SahaleArm]

33. Minister for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda...

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Holocaust/goebbels.html

[JVS]

30. Goebbels and his wife killed themselves after killing their kids

They weren't blown up while doing the freaking weather report.

[SahaleArm]

34. Broadcasting miltiary orders is doing the weather report ? n/t

[JVS]

37. Not everyone at a TV station is broadcasting military orders

But I guess the collateral damage can just pile up as far as Clark cares.

[SahaleArm]

42. How do you know that didn't happen here?

So far every piece of *evidence* has been anecdotal.

[TLM]

60. It is not collateral damage ....

collateral damage is when you attack a military target and accidentally kill civilians.

Clark TARGETED civilians.

They were not accidental... that's why the UN HRC came out and said it was unacceptable. Clark targeted schools, hospitals, market places, civilian infrastructure... and none of it made one god damn bit of difference in saving anybody.

80% of the people killed by the Serbs were killed DURING that bombing campaign. What ended Slobo was the Russians pulling their support... and his own people kicking his ass out. And Clark almost fucked that up too.


The Serbs had killed 2000 people, and mostly in crossfire incidents... but that was sufficient for NATO to insist on intervention to halt this brutal slaughter and genocide. So 2000 dead civilians is genocide worthy of intervention by the international community. Yet Clark's bombing killed 1500.

So Clark is 500 dead civilians from being a genocidal mad man.

[slor]

25. If their media was anything like...

enterprise run by Joseph Goebbels, then Wes did the right thing. Let us not pass judgment until we know these facts first.

[TLM]

29. Here you go....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=83652&mesg_id=83787&page=

[wyldwolf]

35. The answer to your question is "No"

Clark never said "bombing journalists is the same as bombing an army."

He said, ""We've struck at his TV stations and transmitters because they're as much a part of his military machine prolonging and promoting this conflict as his army and security forces."

I'm sure you see the difference both in the wording and the meaning.

As unfortunate as this incident was, the TV station fell into the category of a dual use facility - used by civilians and military - and was a legitimate target.

The military used the station to spread propaganda, hence it's dual use and hence the reason a warning was issued that it was a target.

Do I have proof it was a dual use target? Only the word of NATO and other world leaders. In contrast, those who argue it WASN'T dual use get their information from Milosevic's people.

Of course, I'm not arguing the moral rights and wrongs of war. But this action appears to have been legal. Many civilians were killed by the allies in WWII but I've never heard of anyone calling FDR a war criminal.

[Democrats unite]

36. Damn the torpedoes & full steam ahead

Talk about a non issue!

[jumptheshadow]

38. I heard a first-hand account

A Clark supporter I've met was with a humanitarian organization in Kosovo during Clark's tenure. He told me that, 1) The media workers were given plenty of warning, and, 2) The vitriol spewed by the TV station was inciting murder, pure and simple.

[slinkerwink]

46. and so this means they deserved to die?

look, they were noncombatants, and it was wrong to bomb them.

[jumptheshadow]

62. Look, he said they were warned in advance

They stayed at a bombing target after they were given notice.

The target was bombed because the station was inciting violence, murder and rape.

They chose to die. They could have chosen to survive.

If we had a chance to take out Hitler's propaganda machine during WWII we would have done it.

But there would have been no advance warning.

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

39. Digging, digging, digging

keep those dogies digging...RAWHIDE!

LOL.

It is fascinating that folks who want to smear Wes can only come up with things from years back that have been part of public discussion and open to public scrutiny through all those years.

It's a bitch to have so little to chew on isn't it guys?

:boring:

[Rowdyboy]

40. Can you spell g-e-n-o-c-i-d-e?

Most Kosovars can. Not much use in trying to debate with people who are comfortable defending Slobodon Milosevic and ethnic cleansing. But please keep defending him. It reflects negatively on your candidate and reminds people what a hero Clark is. We get two birds with one stone...

[Maddy McCall]

44. excellent point, Rowdy

[wyldwolf]

45. Whay really makes it worse is..

...that if this wasn't primary season, some of these same people would be supporting the Kosovo intervention...

Which means they'd rather pretend to support Milosevik if it means making Dean look better (or Clark worse.)

[TLM]

66. Criticizing the targeting and murder of civilians and non-combatants...

is not defending Milosevik in any way.

Just like criticizing the actions in Iraq is not defending Saddam.


Why are Clark supporters using freeper style arguments to defend the intentional targeting and murder of civilians by Clark in Kosovo?


The argument is not that intervention in Kosovo was wrong... the argument is that Clark's tactics were wrong. So why try and hide behind a straw man of accusing any critic of supporting milosevik, if Clark's murdering of civilians was so honorable?

[TLM]

47. Why do Clark supporters use republican talking points like this...

If you do not agree with the killing of civilians in Iraq... repukes say you must support Saddam.

If you do not agree with the killing of civilians in Kosovo... Clark supporters say you must support Milosevic.


War mongering hawk conservative birds of a feather.

[The Magistrate]

49. Good Luck, Fellow

The only person doing the work of the Republican Party here is you.

The propaganda apparat of a totalitarian regime is a legitimate military target: such facilities are essential to its maintaining itself in power, and must be eliminated in a state of hostilities. It is no accident that, nowadays, in any competent attempt at coup, the television and radio stations are targeted by the rebels even before the ministries. Communication is the glue that holds these things together.

There was no crime committed by NATO in preventing Butcher Slobo's projected expulsion of Albanians from Kossovo. There was only the normal practice of war-fare in the modern era, which, for all the technological improvements in accuracy, remains attended on occassion with muddle and mis-hap. Your figures on Serb civilian casualties, by the way, are greatly overstated, and based on estimates during hostilities that have since been contradicted by facts. If you wish to be in spitting distance of accuracy, reduce your claimed deaths by a factor of three, and claimed injuries by a factor of five.

Beyond that, understand this: this claim of yours will have no impact whatever on the general populace, nor will it feature in any general election campaign. The Republican Party will not use it as an attack line, for it would open the issue of criminality in the attack on Iraq, and would highlight the military character of Gen. Clark, in ways that would work to his benefit. Most people in the United States agree with a degree of ruthlessness, and see its display as a sensible qualification for high office. In this unhappy world we dwell in, they are right to do so.

Left radicals who should choose in future, should Gen. Clark win the Democratic nomination for President, to absent themselves from his campaign, will be doing nothing but working to assist the victory of the most reactionary elements of our polity in the up-coming election. You are free to do that if you choose, but you had better be aware that that is in fact what you are doing. A thoroughgoing Leninist would have no difficulty asserting persons who act thus are nothing more than agents in fadcist pay.

[TLM]

65. The 1500 civilian death toll are NATO's numbers.

"There was no crime committed by NATO in preventing Butcher Slobo's projected expulsion of Albanians from Kossovo. "


No the crime was in targeting and murdering civilians and non-combatants, targeting civilians centers, and targeting civilian infrastructure.

You may be OK with that... as long as the folks doing the killing our on our side, but I am not OK with it. I am not OK with it in Iraq, nor in Kosovo.

You may support the use of DU rounds in civilian centers, I do not.

[Bread and Circus]

48. Are Dean supporters really recycling old stuff cuz they can't come up...

with anything new?

[Hep]

58. Why is it Dean supporters and not Clark opponents?

Your own personal bias against ME perhaps?

[TLM]

67. Yeah I've seen several DK and a few Edwards folks pissed over this

issue as well.

This has nothing to do with Dean, just as it has nothing to do with defending slobo... but Clark supporters have no defense for Clark's actions, so they instead attack the critics.

[Phelan]

74. well why wont you let them speak then?

Since the only people that keep on bringing up this stuff are Dean people.

I lived in Germany during the Kosovo crisis so we probably got a fair amount more media coverage of there than here, and the only critcism I have of NATO is that the US Congress was not willing to send ground troops in to prevent the genocide this made the bombardment the only and the necessary option. That the Pentagon refused to yield to Clarks pleas for permission for lower flights to reduce Civilian casualties would also be a good point of criticism of the Pentagon and SoD.

[mmonk]

50. This is the kind of inflammatory thread

that will make it hard to work with Dean people if he should get the election.

[artr2]

51. Well, when some clark supporters have to go back 20 years ..

to dig up shit on Joe Trippi I guess this is fair game too. Right?

[mmonk]

52. Implying

Clark was a seeker out of civilians to bomb is over the top.

[artr2]

53. It's called politics, people

People play to win ... Deal with it... not this constant "Mommy, he took my ball wah wah " You clark people love to slam Dean as much as possible, but when it is turned on you, all I hear is a bunch of spoiled brats.. It's called politics, it's a hardball game, and an adult game.. grow up will ya

[mmonk]

54. Sorry

to reply to the smears. I'm not taking my ball anywhere. I'll be here to pick out how ridiculous the attacks are. There may be those out there that might read the attacks and think Clark wanted to kill civilians as targets. Those saying someone wants to kill innocent people better expect replies that let them know they are out of line.

[Hep]

59. He didn't have to seek them out

He just had to bomb their building. He knew where it was. No seeking involved.

This is a non issue for me so far. But the quote does bother me. That's why I'll wait and find some context before I make a decision about whether or not it matter much to me.

[mmonk]

61. First

they were seeking to knock out the transmitters. Second, they instructed an evacuation. If he wanted NATO to attack civilians, he would have ordered them to attack their homes without warning. This is quite a ridiculous conversation.

[Hep]

63. I know, I know

Like I said, there is not enough information in that quote to provide context, and I can't come close to claiming I am an expert on that military action. I don't like this kind of discourse no matter who is behind it. I'm with you on this.

But I do stand by my one question. If you just look at that quote, and if you take it literally, and if you defend it the way I've seen it defended here, would it apply to our own press reporting from Iraq?

[TLM]

70. If this was one incident that argument might work....

But this is far from the only civilain target... there were schools, hospitals, churches and market places. They were targeting the "civilain economy" by blowing up the civilains and population centers. So much so the UN HRC said it was not acceptable.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/Kosovo/Story/0,2763,208056,00.html

A month later, with Nato getting increasingly frustrated about Milosevic's refusal to buckle, Mary Robinson, the UN human rights commissioner, said Nato's bombing campaign had lost its "moral purpose". Referring to the cluster bomb attack on residential areas and market in the Serbian town of Nis, she described Nato's range of targets as "very broad" and "almost unfocused". There were too many mistakes; the bombing of the Serbian television station in Belgrade - which killed a make-up woman, among others - was "not acceptable".

Nato, which soon stopped apologising for mistakes which by its own estimates killed 1,500 civilians and injured 10,000, said that "collateral damage" was inevitable, and the small number of "mistakes" remarkable, given the unprecedented onslaught of more than 20,000 bombs.

Yet once Nato - for political reasons, dictated largely by the US - insisted on sticking to high-altitude bombing, with no evidence that it was succeeding in destroying Serb forces committing atrocities against ethnic Albanians, the risk of civilian casualties increased, in Kosovo and throughout Serbia. Faced with an increasingly uncertain public opinion at home, Nato governments chose more and more targets in urban areas, and experimented with new types of bombs directed at Serbia's civilian economy, partly to save face. By Nato's own figures, of the 10,000 Kosovans massacred by Serb forces, 8,000 were killed after the bombing campaign started.

Nato does not dispute the Serb claim that just 13 of its tanks were destroyed in Kosovo - a figure which gives an altogether different meaning to the concept of proportionality. Nato fought a military campaign from the air which failed to achieve its stated objectives.

[TLM]

68. It is not an implication. It is a FACT.

Read the statements from the UN human rights commissioner. They're quoted in this thread.


Clark intentionally targeted civilians and non-combatants.

[mmonk]

69. OK TLM

Clark sought various ways to avoid civilian casualties (fact).

[TLM]

71. Then he targeted and bombed civilains...

there's no excuse for that.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/Kosovo/Story/0,2763,208056,00.html

A month later, with Nato getting increasingly frustrated about Milosevic's refusal to buckle, Mary Robinson, the UN human rights commissioner, said Nato's bombing campaign had lost its "moral purpose". Referring to the cluster bomb attack on residential areas and market in the Serbian town of Nis, she described Nato's range of targets as "very broad" and "almost unfocused". There were too many mistakes; the bombing of the Serbian television station in Belgrade - which killed a make-up woman, among others - was "not acceptable".

[Hep]

56. I wonder. Does that logic hold up if Iraqis shoot OUR press?

curious indeed.

[TLM]

72. Yeah, nobody ever wants to answer that one...

basicaly they seem to be saying that if Iraqis bombed FOX HQ here in the US, killing the make up people and techs who work there... that would be perfectly acceptable.

[Clark Campaigner]

64. Blah. Next you'll start talking about Waco and Fort Hood.

:eyes:

[TLM]

73. No I'll start talking about Clark's support for the School of the Americas

Because that sets a very consistent pattern for Clark of disregarding the civilian costs of his actions.

He has no problems with the brutal slaughter and oppression of civilians in South America at the hands of people trained by the SOA, which Clark supports.

He has no problems bombing hospitals, schools, busses, market places and TV stations killing civilians left and right.

He is part of the NED and CSIS.

The man is the very worst example of what a life in the military can produce.

[Phelan]

75. blah

Real School of the Americas was in Panama and is to my knowledge closed now. And I don't think that you can make policy decisions as General. The School was open as a matter of US policy, his job as General is that of an administrator not that of a decision maker.

[fishguy]

76. A Dean supporter digging for dirt on Clark

Isn't that the point of this thread?
I hope all the college students on here who support Dean realize that most people are adults and can see through these stupid tactics.