The kerry pfp is ironic but also fairly typical post for that guy.
I'm going to be real, I don't really understand what happened after Tito died other than it was a very violent race war and then the US started bombing cities and blew up a Chinese embassy on purpose.
But I understand that Parenti supported the Serbians pretty heavily and most liberals at least say that they're the ones who were doing a genocide.
But I understand that Parenti supported the Serbians pretty heavily and most liberals at least say that they’re the ones who were doing a genocide
Wrong. Maybe do read his book. He didn't took the side of Serbs any more than proving that the western propaganda blaming Serbs for everything was false.
This feels like splitting semantic hairs. Regardless of the truth of the matter, if the prevailing wisdom is that a group committed genocide and you're are arguing that they didn't then I don't see how you aren't supporting them?
I'm not trying to demonize Parenti here, I think he's great.
Parenti does not claim Bosniak Serbs did not comitted genocide, ffs why so many people just parrot this outright liberal take instead of actually reading the book?
I think he defended Milosevic. But from what I remember reading, he rejected the comparison between Hitler and cited western media/western organizations saying the same thing. He might’ve gone a step further and said something like Milosevic was serving the people. But it’s odd even if you believe Parenti is evil because how is denying a genocide worse than not only denying an ongoing one, but actively funding it and supporting it materially
No, this is literally all about Parenti's "To Kill a Nation."
Me and a friend did a deep dive on those claims last night after seeing this post and they all circle around a
style natoid referencing his own articles lumping parenti in with a couple guys with "Among other genocide deniers such as:" (uncited)Using the fact Milosevic wrote a forward for To Kill a Nation published by verso as evidence. You can see that genocide denier claim made (uncited) in many published materials about Bosnian Genocide Denial.
You can watch the associated lecture and see what's up here (01:17:15)
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Also, SouljaGoy is a really funny name compared to the usual dredge we get from X
Is that supposed to be a reference to holo dork more?
Zionists regurgitating nazi propaganda
I think it's supposed to be about Yugoslavia during the referenced NATO bombing.
Oh ya, that makes more sense. I forgot that the bombing campaign was based on a 'we have to bomb them to stop the genocide' narrative. From my vague memories of hearing news stories about it, 'ethnic cleansing' was the term used most often around that time. Quite a reach to label someone opposed to a mass bombing campaign as a 'genocide denier'.
e: NATOpedia even acknowledges that the 'humanitarian crisis' was mostly precipitated by the bombing campaign itself.
On the 10th anniversary of the bombing campaign, Ian Bancroft wrote in The Guardian: "Though justified by apparently humanitarian considerations, NATO's bombing of Serbia succeeded only in escalating the Kosovo crisis into a full-scale humanitarian catastrophe"; citing a post-war report released by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe he concluded that it is "widely acknowledged that the bulk of the ethnic cleansing and war crimes occurred after the start of [NATO]'s campaign".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_of_the_NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia#Humanitarian_reasoning
The specific issue people focus on now is the bosnian genocide/the srbenica massacre.
Not to mention when you look at the map of nationalities in Kosovo, it's pretty obvious that heavy ethnic cleansing did indeed happened, but the cleansing and cleansed was opposite to what US said.
Do you have any recommendations for reading on this? I know next to nothing on this aside from western brainworms
The map itself is on wiki . About the Yugoslavia, Parenti book "To kill a nation".
There's also this, note the drop between 1991 and 2011, while all other minorities remained mostly unchanging in percentage.Show
You could say the same thing if you were living in Kuwait in the early 90 or Iran in the 80s. Doesn't make what we did to Iraq anything less than one big genocidal war crime. I'm glad you're safe, but never mistake that for a sincere desire to help anything on the part of the empire. They ran the numbers and found that doing what they did would be the most profitable course of action. If the numbers said any different, you would not be safe, and there would be a different person in here explaining why that's okay.
I'm inclined to agree with you. I just added the other side of the coin to your comment, which portrayed a filtered, single-sided story. However, the mods don't seem to like it.
Could I get a message from the mods as for the reason of removal?
not a mod was just skimming the modlog. It reads "van der Leyen's personal account NATOposting"
We have all spent our entire lives passively marinating in the side of the story you're adding, the removal was probably because in the context of discussing the deliberately under-discussed massive humanitarian disaster, choosing that moment to reassert the same hegemonic narrative creates a result identical to deliberate apologia. It reads as a defense and justification for what was done.
That's a well written, logical statement that I can agree with. The comment I replied to originally contained definitive statements that stated the ONLY thing NATO did was worsen a specific situation. When I objected to that radical simplification, many words, even speeches and foreign identities (a mod called me "van der Leyem") were stapled on me/put into my mouth and completely discarded my comment. And the comment is as true as the truth gets, in the terms of, it actually happened hahaha. That way of discussion, communication and treatment of people can not possibly yield any useful information, conclusions or anything good.
So sad we lost Bernie at such a young age, who knows how great he could have been
I was re-reading People's History of the United States the other day and it bent me out of shape that Howard Zinn called Bernie Sanders a socialist.
Well Zinn was a succdem, he omitted bascially entire communist movment in US and barely even mentioned communism at all.
