:xi-lib-tears:
Before people chime in. This says nothing about whether or not Milocevic was piece of shit or if his side commited attrocities. These are both things Parenti admits in the book in a vacuum. This kind of passage the OP posted could very well be talking about Iraq and had Sadam who was 10 times worse instead of Milosevic and still the point would hold true
Just saying that fascists idolizes Serbs for a certain reason
Ustasi are Croats, also the Nazis killed 750,000 Serbs in the Balkans death camps.
Yes, and the Serbian atrocities against the muslims during the war have become a symbol that fascists of today rallies around. The rifle that was used to murder 51 in Christchurch have "remove kebab" written on it again, for a reason.
I love wars where all the guys with guns are fascist and everyone is trying to do an ethnostate. The Serbian paramilitaries were fucking bad and Milosovek absolutely shouldn't have sided with them or allowed them to reform.
The JNA was a surprisingly multi-ethnic force that should have been the only group doing the fighting.
To Kill a Nation by Michael Parenti
It'll make you want to scream. NATO is fucking disgusting and Madeline Albright deserves to be hung.
https://hexbear.net/post/107209
https://hexbear.net/post/107307
I want to throw a gender reveal party inside the White House
After that we can do one for wherever the fuck NATO HQ is
There were some Serbian paramilitary groups that were somewhat out of the control of the Yugoslavian government that did bad shit. That was kinda the rule during the wars though. Most of the NATO backed groups had very open ties to the SS and frequently tagged Serb, Jew, and Roma homes with Nazi symbols.
While Yugoslavia remained very diverse (even the military was diverse), the NATO forces formed ethno-states and massacred or expelled Roma and Serbs from their homes (KLA burned 14,000 Roma homes out of 30,000). Serbia took in hundred of thousands of refugees and attempted to build them permanent housing and integrate them into the cities.
Sadly, the NATO bombings of 1999 leveled a lot of those refugee housing complexes as well as 164 state owned factories and all communication, water, and power infrastructure under state control. somewhere between 1500-2500 people were killed by NATO directly in 2 months, with the number of people found in mass graves amounting to about 2000-5000 total in all 4 wars. Mass graves are 2 or more people in a hole and a lot of them were clearly victims of mortar attacks or victims of battle. Lots with indiscernible ethnicity.
he denies the srebrenica massacre
He doesnt,. He basically has the same position on the subject as Chomsky family enough. That A. It was exaggerated by NATO for justification of invasion and B. That it was completely disconnected to any reason Clinton an NATO actually had for invasion and that C. That despite Milosevic being a piece of shit he most likely had little to do with that massacre . (something that I think was backed by international courts later on)
I mean that sounds more like talking about it being purposefuly exaggerated by the press and Nato, not denial and the second part about the totally one sided coverage of attrocities in a multi-sided ethnic conflict to suit the wests goal and imperialist meddling, not trying to justify it cause "muslims did it too". Again i do remember the same approach from Chomsky and he already got "burned" once for questioning numbers and scale of attrocities, so they both probably thought strongly that the exageration and lack of both sides coverage was integral in the building of the imperialist narrrative that would justify intervention in Yugoslavia so they had to highlight it
The nationality thing is a bit sus tho
This approach if questioning of the scale of an attrocity (that happened ) can be both dog whistle and disgusting and legit and historicaly correct based on the specific . I dont think "questioning the scale/number of bodies reported" at any or all instances is paramount to soft denial of the entire thing and shouldnt be used. Especially if its done against what is presented by the western media machina that promotes specific goals of nato and the US state and you have reasonable (non general "thats the way the US always lies") reasons ,at that point in time, to think that there was indeed fuckery (conflicted reports even by western investigation, timelines not matching, corruption and weird coverage of the subject etc).
I do think Parenti in the entirety of "To kill a Nation" makes these points clearcut and concise, complete with focus on the actualy proven serb massacres and ways Milosevic was most certenly not some leftist or good guy. I dont know exaclty the context of the paragraph or chapter that quote we are talking about is from and i agree that making these points back to back feels dog whistly tho if the massacres of the one side were used on the ground as justification for the massacres of the other side, bringing up (even if you are correct) both the zero of coverage for the former and the reasonable doupt you might have for the scale of the later will have you look like you are justifying the latter , even if these are point that should be made when trying to analyse the media machine's tactics and manufacturing of concent biases and tactic on the road to a wastern intervention in the erea
A lot of the time, and especially closer to such historical instances, writters like Parenti and even Chomsky who is much less inclined to support a side, will go overboard with their assumptions and doupts against what the dominant imperialist narrative is leading to actualy downplaying or ignoring parts of the massacres/problems the west uses as excuses to meddle, destroy and intervene to these countries . 95% of their analysis and approach regarding the situation remains correct and valuable but its very likely that they, as many leftist, reached a point of subconsious contrarianism on every topic , that even if it turns out correct in the vast majority of times it might lead to somewhat uncomfortable postions . I have to reread the book to know how much or how little Parenti's anaylisis of the massacres and milosevic falls into that
