NATO Expands further

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Sherlock Holmes

NATO Expands further

Post #1

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Well Finland and now Sweden have announced their desire and intention to apply for NATO membership.

That such a decisions is not made via a national referendum is a subversion of democracy, the consequences are potentially huge and every adult in the country should have had a voice in this.

The Western media constantly babble about Putin and Russia "want to reestablish the old Russian empire" while right under our noses the military force (dominated by the non-European USA) NATO continues its perverse growth.

There is nothing to stop any country from developing a treaty with other nations that guarantee military support if attacked, much as Poland had with Britain at the start of WW2.

It is simply not necessary to join NATO, there are other far less contentious options, all of this bodes ill IMHO.

So, should NATO continue to expand and continue to accept members from states bordering Russia?
Last edited by Sherlock Holmes on Mon May 16, 2022 2:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1612
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Contact:

Re: NATO Expands further

Post #41

Post by AgnosticBoy »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 11:11 am So, should NATO continue to expand and continue to accept members from states bordering Russia?
What I question is why was Ukraine kept from joining NATO when they tried to join years ago? Are they being given the run around again seeing that Finland and Sweden are set to join NATO?
Ukraine's hopes of quickly joining the European Union (EU) were dealt a major blow on Thursday as the leader of the German government suggested there would be no accelerated process for the country.

Chancellor Olaf Scholz addressed the Bundestag (German parliament) on Thursday and expressed support for Ukraine but warned that there are "no shortcuts" on the road to membership of the economic bloc.

"The accession process is not a matter of a few months or years," the chancellor said.

Scholz' comments echo Macron's remarks about potential Ukrainian membership.

"We all know perfectly well that the process to allow [Ukraine] to join would take several years indeed, probably several decades," the French president told the European parliament in Strasbourg on May 10.
Source: https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-eu-eur ... ny-1708116

I believe that Finland and Sweden NATO membership will be largely symbolic if it really takes "decades" to join all the while it's needed ASAP given the Russian threat that they claim is present OR the talk about a "decade" long process is just a way to keep Ukraine out. It's an indirect way of telling Ukraine no.
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum

- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: NATO Expands further

Post #42

Post by The Barbarian »

Diogenes wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 1:21 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 12:18 pm The public ignorance of the Balkans breakup is breathtaking . . . .
Before WW1 there was no Yugoslavia.
...
"The country was melded together after World War I from six major Slavic groups and its post-communism breakup has largely followed ethnic lines."
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/sto ... d=19148459
Yes. Like the peaceful break up of Czechoslovakia into Czech and Slovak republics, the breakup of the artificial Yugoslav nation went along ethnic lines. It's peaceful there, now. And that's a good thing.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: NATO Expands further

Post #43

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

The Barbarian wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 4:35 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 11:28 am
The Barbarian wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 11:15 am The best move in ending the genocide in Bosnia was brilliant. The U.S. merely looked the other way when other nations provided the Bosnians with heavy weapons to defend themselves. The Serbs, facing determined and newly well-equipped defenders, suddenly decided that maybe peace wouldn't be such a bad thing after all. But yes, a few bombings made the point more clearly.

Bottom line, the genocide ended, peace broke out in the Balkans, and some of the criminals who were guilty of atrocities were rounded up and punished. A good result. Serbia is better off as a free nation, no longer oppressing neighboring countries.
What sources underpin these views?
Clinton Secretly OKed Iran's Arms Shipments to Bosnia
http://tech.mit.edu/V116/N17/clinton.17w.html

How the Bosnian War ended:
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/deci ... nia-ended/

Serbian economic progress:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Serbia
How do you reconcile those accounts with these:

Dismantling Yugoslavia; Colonizing Bosnia

On the NATO Bombing of Yugoslavia

Don't forget Yugoslavia

Do any of your sources include facts like this for example:
Readers will recall that the justification for the Nato bombing was that the Serbs were committing "genocide" in the secessionist province of Kosovo against ethnic Albanians. David Scheffer, US ambassador-at-large for war crimes, announced that as many as "225,000 ethnic Albanian men aged between 14 and 59" may have been murdered. Tony Blair invoked the Holocaust and "the spirit of the Second World War". The west's heroic allies were the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), whose murderous record was set aside. The British foreign secretary, Robin Cook, told them to call him any time on his mobile phone.

With the Nato bombing over, international teams descended upon Kosovo to exhume the "holocaust". The FBI failed to find a single mass grave and went home. The Spanish forensic team did the same, its leader angrily denouncing "a semantic pirouette by the war propaganda machines". A year later, Del Ponte's tribunal announced the final count of the dead in Kosovo: 2,788. This included combatants on both sides and Serbs and Roma murdered by the KLA. There was no genocide in Kosovo. The "holocaust" was a lie. The Nato attack had been fraudulent.
or perhaps this
That was not all, says Del Ponte in her book: the KLA kidnapped hundreds of Serbs and transported them to Albania, where their kidneys and other body parts were removed; these were then sold for transplant in other countries. She also says there was sufficient evidence to prosecute the Kosovar Albanians for war crimes, but the investigation "was nipped in the bud" so that the tribunal's focus would be on "crimes committed by Serbia". She says the Hague judges were terrified of the Kosovar Albanians - the very people in whose name Nato had attacked Serbia.
You are of course free to dispute any the above, I'd be delighted to supply further documentary support if you think it will help.
Last edited by Sherlock Holmes on Fri May 20, 2022 11:18 am, edited 4 times in total.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: NATO Expands further

Post #44

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

The Barbarian wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 4:27 pm And the last time that NATO attacked a country that didn't attack another nation was...? On the other hand, Putin invaded a sovereign nation that had in no way attacked Russia. His stated goal was to destroy Ukraine's independence and return it to Russian control.
This is from the North Atlantic Treaty, may I ask, have you ever read it?
Article 4
The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.
Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .
Article 6
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
Can you show me the article that says "NATO reserves the right, at its discretion without requiring UN Security Council approval, to attack any nation that attacks another nation"?

Finally:
Article 1
The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
There we have it, NATO is to defer to the UN, each of which bodies are defined by treaties to which all NATO members are signatories.

The UN did not authorize NATO to use force, NATO acted as the aggressor and showed contempt for the UN, for the law - just as Putin has done.

If you can show me the Security Council resolution that authorized NATO to bomb Serbia we can settle this disagreement very quickly, otherwise it is clear that Russia is acting illegally in 2002 just as NATO acted illegally 1999.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: NATO Expands further

Post #45

Post by The Barbarian »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 10:42 am
How do you reconcile those accounts with these:

Dismantling Yugoslavia; Colonizing Bosnia
Funny, it doesn't look at all like this...
https://www.britannica.com/place/Bosnia ... nd-society
Readers will recall that the justification for the Nato bombing was that the Serbs were committing "genocide" in the secessionist province of Kosovo against ethnic Albanians. David Scheffer, US ambassador-at-large for war crimes, announced that as many as "225,000 ethnic Albanian men aged between 14 and 59" may have been murdered.
There were atrocities committed by both sides in Kosovo, the Albanian majority and the Serbian army took turns at ethnic cleansing. Until Serbian units began murdering civilians in mass killings, Bosnians had been relatively peaceful. Croats and Serbs also went after each other. The point is, after the Dayton Accords, fighting and mass killings stopped. As your sources demonstrate, not everyone was happy about that.

The Bosnian genocide (Bosnian: bosanski genocid) refers to either the Srebrenica massacre or the wider crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing campaign throughout areas controlled by the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS)[6] during the Bosnian War of 1992–1995.[7] The events in Srebrenica in 1995 included the killing of more than 8,000 Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) men and boys, as well as the mass expulsion of another 25,000–30,000 Bosniak civilians by VRS units under the command of General Ratko Mladić.[8][9]

The ethnic cleansing that took place in VRS-controlled areas targeted Bosniaks and Bosnian Croats. The ethnic cleansing campaign included extermination, unlawful confinement, mass rape, sexual assault, torture, plunder and destruction of private and public property, and inhumane treatment of civilians; the targeting of political leaders, intellectuals, and professionals; the unlawful deportation and transfer of civilians; the unlawful shelling of civilians; the unlawful appropriation and plunder of real and personal property; the destruction of homes and businesses; and the destruction of places of worship. The acts have been found to have satisfied the requirements for "guilty acts" of genocide, and that, "some physical perpetrators held the intent to physically destroy the protected groups of Bosnian Muslims and Croats".[10]

In the 1990s, several authorities asserted that ethnic cleansing as carried out by elements of the Bosnian Serb army was genocide.[11] These included a resolution by the United Nations General Assembly and three convictions for genocide in German courts (the convictions were based upon a wider interpretation of genocide than that used by international courts).[12] In 2005, the United States Congress passed a resolution declaring that the Serbian policies of aggression and ethnic cleansing meet the terms defining genocide.[13]

The Srebrenica massacre was found to be an act of genocide by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, a finding upheld by the ICJ.[14] On 24 March 2016, former Bosnian Serb leader and the first president of the Republika Srpska, Radovan Karadžić, was found guilty of genocide in Srebrenica, war crimes, and crimes against humanity and sentenced to 40 years in prison. In 2019 an appeals court increased his sentence to life imprisonment.[15] On 12 May 2021, it was announced that, with the agreement of the UK authorities, he would serve the rest of his sentence in a UK prison.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_genocide

or perhaps this
Image
http://genocide.leadr.msu.edu/stories/m ... he-graves/

User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 862 times
Been thanked: 1265 times

Re: NATO Expands further

Post #46

Post by Diogenes »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 10:42 am
....
With the Nato bombing over, international teams descended upon Kosovo to exhume the "holocaust". The FBI failed to find a single mass grave and went home. The Spanish forensic team did the same, its leader angrily denouncing "a semantic pirouette by the war propaganda machines". A year later, Del Ponte's tribunal announced the final count of the dead in Kosovo: 2,788. This included combatants on both sides and Serbs and Roma murdered by the KLA. There was no genocide in Kosovo. The "holocaust" was a lie. The Nato attack had been fraudulent.

Really?
The Batajnica mass graves, are graves that were found in 2001 near Batajnica, a suburb of Belgrade, the capital of Serbia. The graves contained 744 Kosovo Albanians, civilians, killed during the 1998-99 Kosovo War.
The mass graves were found on the training grounds of a Serbian police unit, the Special Anti-Terrorist Unit (SAJ).
Dead bodies were brought to the site by trucks from Kosovo; most were incinerated before burial. After the war, SAJ restricted investigators' access to the firing range, and continued live-firing exercises whilst forensic teams tried to investigate the massacre.

The Humanitarian Law Center (HLC), nongovernmental organisation based in Serbia and Kosovo, published in their research that the total number of killed during the Kosovo war (a length of time in the research studied from January 1998 to December 31, 2000) estimated at 13,517, when of this number of all killed or missing civilians were: 8 661 Kosovo Albanians, 1797 Serbs, 447 Roma, Bosniaks, and other ethnic minorities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batajnica_mass_graves
There is little doubt there are partisans on all sides, each with there own versions of 'facts.' What should be kept in mind is the Jewish holocaust decades before. The tepid response to Hitler informed NATO and the UN in Yugoslavia.
The horrible brutality perpetrated by Serbian military and para-military units excites recollections of the tragedy of the six million European Jews who were systematically exterminated by the Nazis. There are differences, of course. Hitler’s policy called for genocide, a murderous extermination. Milosevic’s strategy can best be described as “ethnic purging.” It involves executions, massacres, destruction of property and mass deportations. Much of the violence aims to intimidate. Milosevic wants to scare most of Kosovo’s ethnic Albanians into leaving Yugoslavia, and the tactic is working. In the last few weeks thousands of shocked refugees have become homeless and desperate.

The West’s response to this disaster has been much more impressive than its response to the crisis of Europe’s Jews before and during World War II. Today the combined forces of 19 nations are taking controversial military action. The Albanian victims are receiving emergency shelter and food rations, and leaders of several countries, including the United States, have agreed to take in thousands of refugees.

In contrast, the West did little in reaction to the persecutions that began against Jews in Germany and spread across the continent once Hitler’s troops marched into war.
In the late 1930s and early 1940s nations were reluctant to loosen immigration laws so that fleeing Jews could find a safe haven.
https://origins.osu.edu/history-news/le ... _entity=en
___________________________________

Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves

— Confucius

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: NATO Expands further

Post #47

Post by The Barbarian »

And the last time that NATO attacked a country that didn't attack another nation was...? On the other hand, Putin invaded a sovereign nation that had in no way attacked Russia. His stated goal was to destroy Ukraine's independence and return it to Russian control.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 11:00 amThis is from the North Atlantic Treaty,
Ukraine is not part of NATO. Thought you knew.
Can you show me the article that says "NATO reserves the right, at its discretion without requiring UN Security Council approval, to attack any nation that attacks another nation"?
Ah, so where did NATO launch a military attack on Russia? Details?
Article 1
The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

There we have it, NATO is to defer to the UN, each of which bodies are defined by treaties to which all NATO members are signatories.
Russian vetoed the UN resolution on their aggression in Ukraine. You didn't know that?
The UN did not authorize NATO to use force, NATO acted as the aggressor
I don't see any NATO troops fighting in the area. Or anywhere else for that matter. It should be noted that Ukraine, given the necessary weapons to do so, has been handling the Russian invasion of their nation pretty well. Even Russian commentators on Russian television are talking about how badly it's going for the Russian aggressors.
and showed contempt for the UN, for the law - just as Putin has done.
Nothing in the NATO treaty or international law, forbids free nations from supplying other free nations with the weapons they need to defend themselves from aggression.
If you can show me the Security Council resolution that authorized NATO to bomb Serbia


You're confusing the Russian invasion of Ukraine with the Serbian "ethnic cleansing" in Bosnia. However, NATO nations are not prevented from taking military action apart from NATO treaty responsibilities. They chose to intervene against war criminals in the Balkans, which is legal according to international law.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: NATO Expands further

Post #48

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

The Barbarian wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 11:54 am And the last time that NATO attacked a country that didn't attack another nation was...? On the other hand, Putin invaded a sovereign nation that had in no way attacked Russia. His stated goal was to destroy Ukraine's independence and return it to Russian control.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 11:00 amThis is from the North Atlantic Treaty,
Ukraine is not part of NATO. Thought you knew.
Yes and that fact has no relevance to anything I wrote.
The Barbarian wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 11:54 am
Can you show me the article that says "NATO reserves the right, at its discretion without requiring UN Security Council approval, to attack any nation that attacks another nation"?
Ah, so where did NATO launch a military attack on Russia? Details?
Again, that fact has no relevance to anything I wrote, does the North Atlantic Treaty say "NATO reserves the right, at its discretion without requiring UN Security Council approval, to attack any nation that attacks another nation"? This has a yes/no answer, you can simply read the text to see if it does or does not in your opinion, say that.
The Barbarian wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 11:54 am
Article 1
The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

There we have it, NATO is to defer to the UN, each of which bodies are defined by treaties to which all NATO members are signatories.
Russian vetoed the UN resolution on their aggression in Ukraine. You didn't know that?
Russia vetoed what resolution? again whatever you're referring to has no relevance to the fact that NATO members are bound by the UN charter - if they care about legality anyway.
The Barbarian wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 11:54 am
The UN did not authorize NATO to use force, NATO acted as the aggressor
I don't see any NATO troops fighting in the area. Or anywhere else for that matter. It should be noted that Ukraine, given the necessary weapons to do so, has been handling the Russian invasion of their nation pretty well. Even Russian commentators on Russian television are talking about how badly it's going for the Russian aggressors.
Apologies, I was referring to NATO bombing Serbia in 1999, let me rephrase my statement: The UN did not authorize NATO to use force against the sovereign nation Serbia in 1999, NATO acted as the aggressor.
The Barbarian wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 11:54 am
and showed contempt for the UN, for the law - just as Putin has done.
Nothing in the NATO treaty or international law, forbids free nations from supplying other free nations with the weapons they need to defend themselves from aggression.
Again this is irrelevant to what I wrote. I did not speak of supplying weapons I spoke of the fact that bombing a sovereign country is a war crime unless it is in self defense from an armed attack OR authorized by the UN security council. In the case of NATO bombing Serbia in 1999 neither of these conditions were met, therefore - just as with Russia bombing Ukraine today, NATO acted illegally and committed war crimes.
The Barbarian wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 11:54 am
If you can show me the Security Council resolution that authorized NATO to bomb Serbia


You're confusing the Russian invasion of Ukraine with the Serbian "ethnic cleansing" in Bosnia. However, NATO nations are not prevented from taking military action apart from NATO treaty responsibilities. They chose to intervene against war criminals in the Balkans, which is legal according to international law.
Was there or was there not a UN Security Council resolution that authorized NATO to bomb Serbia? do you know? would you rather not answer the question?

You say "NATO nations are not prevented from taking military action apart from NATO treaty responsibilities" and I agree, but they are (if they are a UN signatory) bound to the terms of the UN charter. That charter does allow for military action in two cases, 1) A nation that is attacked by another nation has a right to counter, to self defense and 2. The UN security councils approves military action and issues a resolution that's voted for by 2/3 of the rotating security council members and all of the permanent members.

NATO's bombing of Serbia in 1999 met neither of these conditions, therefore it is a war crime for the exact same reason Russia's current attack is a war crime.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: NATO Expands further

Post #49

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Diogenes wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 11:49 am
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 10:42 am
....
With the Nato bombing over, international teams descended upon Kosovo to exhume the "holocaust". The FBI failed to find a single mass grave and went home. The Spanish forensic team did the same, its leader angrily denouncing "a semantic pirouette by the war propaganda machines". A year later, Del Ponte's tribunal announced the final count of the dead in Kosovo: 2,788. This included combatants on both sides and Serbs and Roma murdered by the KLA. There was no genocide in Kosovo. The "holocaust" was a lie. The Nato attack had been fraudulent.

Really?
The Batajnica mass graves, are graves that were found in 2001 near Batajnica, a suburb of Belgrade, the capital of Serbia. The graves contained 744 Kosovo Albanians, civilians, killed during the 1998-99 Kosovo War.
The mass graves were found on the training grounds of a Serbian police unit, the Special Anti-Terrorist Unit (SAJ).
Dead bodies were brought to the site by trucks from Kosovo; most were incinerated before burial. After the war, SAJ restricted investigators' access to the firing range, and continued live-firing exercises whilst forensic teams tried to investigate the massacre.

The Humanitarian Law Center (HLC), nongovernmental organisation based in Serbia and Kosovo, published in their research that the total number of killed during the Kosovo war (a length of time in the research studied from January 1998 to December 31, 2000) estimated at 13,517, when of this number of all killed or missing civilians were: 8 661 Kosovo Albanians, 1797 Serbs, 447 Roma, Bosniaks, and other ethnic minorities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batajnica_mass_graves
There is little doubt there are partisans on all sides, each with there own versions of 'facts.' What should be kept in mind is the Jewish holocaust decades before. The tepid response to Hitler informed NATO and the UN in Yugoslavia.
The horrible brutality perpetrated by Serbian military and para-military units excites recollections of the tragedy of the six million European Jews who were systematically exterminated by the Nazis. There are differences, of course. Hitler’s policy called for genocide, a murderous extermination. Milosevic’s strategy can best be described as “ethnic purging.” It involves executions, massacres, destruction of property and mass deportations. Much of the violence aims to intimidate. Milosevic wants to scare most of Kosovo’s ethnic Albanians into leaving Yugoslavia, and the tactic is working. In the last few weeks thousands of shocked refugees have become homeless and desperate.

The West’s response to this disaster has been much more impressive than its response to the crisis of Europe’s Jews before and during World War II. Today the combined forces of 19 nations are taking controversial military action. The Albanian victims are receiving emergency shelter and food rations, and leaders of several countries, including the United States, have agreed to take in thousands of refugees.

In contrast, the West did little in reaction to the persecutions that began against Jews in Germany and spread across the continent once Hitler’s troops marched into war.
In the late 1930s and early 1940s nations were reluctant to loosen immigration laws so that fleeing Jews could find a safe haven.
https://origins.osu.edu/history-news/le ... _entity=en
David Scheffer, US ambassador-at-large for war crimes, announced that as many as "225,000 ethnic Albanian men aged between 14 and 59" may have been murdered. That was a lie, the Spanish forensic investigators team leader himself said angrily "a semantic pirouette by the war propaganda machines", his words not mine.

There was no genocide against ethnic Albanians, there is no evidence to support the lie so says the FBI and the Spanish forensic team, it is a lie, propaganda nothing more.

Read for yourself: Where’s the Evidence of Genocide of Kosovar Albanians?

excerpts:
Teams of forensic investigators from 15 nations, including a detachment from the FBI, have been at work since June and have examined about 150 of 400 sites of alleged mass murder.

There’s still immense uncertainty, but at this point it’s plain that there are not enough bodies to warrant the claim that the Serbs had a program of extermination. The FBI team has made two trips to Kosovo and investigated 30 sites containing nearly 200 bodies.
and
In early October, the Spanish newspaper El Pais reported what the Spanish forensic team had found in its appointed zone in northern Kosovo. The U.N. figures, said Perez Pujol, director of the Instituto Anatomico Forense de Cartagena, began with 44,000 dead, dropped to 22,000 and now stand at 11,000. He and his fellows were prepared to perform at least 2,000 autopsies in their zone. So far, they’ve found 187 corpses.
and
Count another victory for the Big Lie. Meanwhile, the normally reliable Society for Endangered People in Germany says 90,000 Gypsies have been forced to flee since the Serbs left Kosovo, with the KLA conducting ethnic cleansing on a grand scale. But who cares about Gypsies?
Everything you have said so far seems to be little more than an understandable expression of outrage but completely bereft of a factual basis. Instead it originates from the lies told by the press, Western propaganda, this is plain as day to me and plenty of other, but who cares what I think, who cares about the facts, they only get in the way, just ask NATO.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: NATO Expands further

Post #50

Post by The Barbarian »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 12:25 pm Was there or was there not a UN Security Council resolution that authorized NATO to bomb Serbia? do you know? would you rather not answer the question?
The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG), or the Genocide Convention, is an international treaty that criminalizes genocide and obligates state parties to enforce its prohibition. It was the first legal instrument to codify genocide as a crime, and the first human rights treaty unanimously adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, on 9 December 1948,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention

It was invoked by neighboring African states to use military force to end genocide in Rwanda also. That's what member states are obligated to do.
You say "NATO nations are not prevented from taking military action apart from NATO treaty responsibilities" and I agree, but they are (if they are a UN signatory) bound to the terms of the UN charter.
Yep. See above. That charter obligates member states to enforce the prohibition of genocide. No vote required.

NATO's bombing of Serbia in 1999 met that condition, therefore it was an obligation to take action against the criminals.

Post Reply