Chomsky denied holocaust in Bosnia

[hajduk]

Noam Chomsky DENIED the holocaust in Bosnia and Herzegovina in january 2006 on national bosnian tv BHT1 in political tv show "OPEN TALK WITH DUSKA JURISHIC" when he said that in Bosnia aint happend the holocaust.Chomsky says that in Bosnia happend ethnic cleanseaning!!What supposed to be clean!?Bosnian people!? :blink: You can understand how was i dissapoint with this.I cant believe what i hear from the man who was my some kind idol.I understand him very clearly what he said, becouse in the studio during the show was professional translater,so i didnt miss the point. :angry:

What is your opinion about this?

[Bilan]

Is there a link to your source that backs you up?
Or another source?

[Avtomat_Icaro]

Well...wasnt the Holocaust specifically the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis? I think what Chomsky probably said that genocide didnt occur there. The UN have totally toned down the original defition of genocide so that the big powers at the time (USSR, US, UK, France) could stay out of harms way, as in being put to justice for genocide. So now it isnt always as clear to say what is genocide and what isnt. When is it specifically genocide and when is it ethnic cleansing?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hajduk, unless we can check this ourselves we can only put this down to language problems.

In English a holocaust is the industrialised mass murder of a certain group of people, in their hundreds of thouands, if not millions, aimed at completely wiping them off the face of the earth. There has only been one of these so far in human history (as far as we know): the systematic mass slaughter of the Jews in WW2. That word is in fact synonymous (i.e., 'means the same as') with this mass slaughter. So, not surprisingly, if this is what Chomsky said, he would be correct.

'Ethnic cleansing' means the systematic removal of one or more groups of people to leave behind in the area only one 'ethinic' group. The word 'cleanising' is not being used literally; it is what we call a 'political euphemism' -- a word that is used in place of another word, in this case to try to disguise what is going on.

That may or may not involve the deaths of many thousands.

So, Chomsky is not denying that many thousands of Bosnians were murdered, or forced out, only that it does not rank with the mass slaughter of the Jews, or of the Armenians in Turkey, or the Tutsis in Rwanda. [Or even the million who have now been killed in Iraq.]

But even there, in the middle two cases, this is called a 'genocide'.

You do not gain anything by misnaming a terrible crime so that it diminshes what happened to the Jews in WW2.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 12:13 pm
Well...wasnt the Holocaust specifically the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis? I think what Chomsky probably said that genocide didnt occur there. The UN have totally toned down the original defition of genocide so that the big powers at the time (USSR, US, UK, France) could stay out of harms way, as in being put to justice for genocide. So now it isnt always as clear to say what is genocide and what isnt. When is it specifically genocide and when is it ethnic cleansing?
So only the Jews have exclusive right on holocaust,is that what you try to say :o

[hajduk]

You speak Rosi about semantic meaning of word holocaust,i don¨t understand,i mean thats not some kind lingvistic stuff we talk,are you going to sleep well after this words you wrote.Imagging that you survive something like that i think that you will crucified Chomsky.So please leave that talk when you go on lingvistic seminar.We talk about people who are been slaughtered.And i will say you again about ethnic cleansing, what suppose to be clean :angry: we talk about some dirt on table or we talk about humans :angry: please explain that but dont tell me again about semantic meaning.Also,do you think that only jews have copyright on holocaust?!!!

[Avtomat_Icaro]

Originally posted by hajduk+July 17, 2007 02:58 pm--> (hajduk @ July 17, 2007 02:58 pm)
[email protected] 17, 2007 12:13 pm
Well...wasnt the Holocaust specifically the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis? I think what Chomsky probably said that genocide didnt occur there. The UN have totally toned down the original defition of genocide so that the big powers at the time (USSR, US, UK, France) could stay out of harms way, as in being put to justice for genocide. So now it isnt always as clear to say what is genocide and what isnt. When is it specifically genocide and when is it ethnic cleansing?
So only the Jews have exclusive right on holocaust,is that what you try to say :o [/b]
Yes they do have that exclusivity...the Holocaust is a specific genocide. I think you are mixing up the terms. The Holocaust is one example of a genocide/ethnic cleansing, the situation in Bosnia might have been another ethnic cleansing, but it might not have been genocide.

Here look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing

[hajduk]

So Rosi only the rank is issue,so if million bosnians die then we can say that we have a holocaust?!!TITO DRAGI!! :o Do you hear yourself what you talkin about? :blink:

[hajduk]

Originally posted by Avtomat_Icaro+July 17, 2007 03:08 pm--> (Avtomat_Icaro @ July 17, 2007 03:08 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 02:58 pm

[email protected] 17, 2007 12:13 pm
Well...wasnt the Holocaust specifically the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis? I think what Chomsky probably said that genocide didnt occur there. The UN have totally toned down the original defition of genocide so that the big powers at the time (USSR, US, UK, France) could stay out of harms way, as in being put to justice for genocide. So now it isnt always as clear to say what is genocide and what isnt. When is it specifically genocide and when is it ethnic cleansing?
So only the Jews have exclusive right on holocaust,is that what you try to say :o
Yes they do have that exclusivity...the Holocaust is a specific genocide. I think you are mixing up the terms. The Holocaust is one example of a genocide/ethnic cleansing, the situation in Bosnia might have been another ethnic cleansing, but it might not have been genocide.

Here look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing [/b]
Ok thank you,next time we will let the war criminals to kill us more for the rank,so i hope so then we have exclusive rights on holocaust, thank you Icaro you are the KING :wacko: i didnt recognise you.Thank you very very much.I hope so that you will never see that what i saw in war,thank you. You are the KING of knowledge :wacko: TITO DRAGI i cant believe what you saying.Is there some colledge for that kind of talk?!! :blink:

[hajduk]

Bite the hand try on www.youtube.com and then try to find Chomsky or BHT1 on youtube

[Andy Bowden]

I havent read his book on it, but I think Norman Finkelstein writes about the politicization of the Holocaust, that is making the Nazi holocaust of the Jews unique and unprecedented in human history.

His argument is while genocides have unique differences from one another it is inaccurate to claim the Nazi holocaust is any worse from the genocide of Native Americans, or the slavery/exploitation of Africa.

And that by putting the Nazi holocaust of the Jews above all others, it is used as a justification by Israel for its own abuses on the basis that if they do not take such actions the holocaust will be repeated eg Abba Ebans claim that the 1948 borders were and are 'Auschwitz Borders'.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 17, 2007 03:32 pm
I havent read his book on it, but I think Norman Finkelstein writes about the politicization of the Holocaust, that is making the Nazi holocaust of the Jews unique and unprecedented in human history.

His argument is while genocides have unique differences from one another it is inaccurate to claim the Nazi holocaust is any worse from the genocide of Native Americans, or the slavery/exploitation of Africa.

And that by putting the Nazi holocaust of the Jews above all others, it is used as a justification by Israel for its own abuses on the basis that if they do not take such actions the holocaust will be repeated eg Abba Ebans claim that the 1948 borders were and are 'Auschwitz Borders'.
Thank you Andy you are the first who talk like human :D not like some fake activist.I mean this seriosly,i am not sarcastic this mean lot to me and people who lost somebody in bosnian holocaust,explain to others what you and i talkin about,please :D

[Andy Bowden]

I think what your getting at is that the crimes against Bosnia-Herzegovna by Milosevics Chetnik* regime should be recognised as being similar to the crimes of the Nazis against the Jews?

I don't know the % of Bosnians who were killed by the Chetnik regime, but I think roughly a half of European Jews were killed by the Nazis. So you could definitely compare the East Timorese genocide (a third of the population killed) or the Native American genocide even more so (virtually all Native American Indians) with the Nazi holocaust.

The Nazi Holocaust was undoubtedly the first time genocide was practiced on an industrialised scale - but unfortunately it was not the last, as East Timorese or Rwanda will testify.

I dont know about what Chomsky has wrote about on the Balkans but there is a worrying trend among Left intellectuals to play down the prison house of nations that Milosevic had perverted Yugoslavia into. For example, because 'only' 6,000 Kosovars were found in mass graves, that was ok :wacko:

Granted it wasnt as much as the US claimed - but Milosevic still carries the responsibility for destroying limited Kosovar autonomy under the Yugoslav constitution established by Tito.

*A Chetnik is a Serb ultranationalist, its important to make the distinction between the Chetniks and Serbs.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 17, 2007 04:11 pm
I think what your getting at is that the crimes against Bosnia-Herzegovna by Milosevics Chetnik* regime should be recognised as being similar to the crimes of the Nazis against the Jews?

I don't know the % of Bosnians who were killed by the Chetnik regime, but I think roughly a half of European Jews were killed by the Nazis. So you could definitely compare the East Timorese genocide (a third of the population killed) or the Native American genocide even more so (virtually all Native American Indians) with the Nazi holocaust.

The Nazi Holocaust was undoubtedly the first time genocide was practiced on an industrialised scale - but unfortunately it was not the last, as East Timorese or Rwanda will testify.

I dont know about what Chomsky has wrote about on the Balkans but there is a worrying trend among Left intellectuals to play down the prison house of nations that Milosevic had perverted Yugoslavia into. For example, because 'only' 6,000 Kosovars were found in mass graves, that was ok :wacko:

Granted it wasnt as much as the US claimed - but Milosevic still carries the responsibility for destroying limited Kosovar autonomy under the Yugoslav constitution established by Tito.

*A Chetnik is a Serb ultranationalist, its important to make the distinction between the Chetniks and Serbs.
Andy you are the man,my man thank you :D just continue like that thank you again :D

[hajduk]

40 000 bosnians been killed and that number is not for shore could be much higher,becouse chetnicks hide the bodys everywhere in Bosnia and most of those graves is hard to find becouse of course chetnicks wil not show to us where they barried the corpses,so the whole state of Bosnia is one big graveyard. <_<

[Andy Bowden]

I heard there was some controversy regarding the number of dead, that 200,000 had died was claimed originally, but it has been lowered to 100,00?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_War#Casualties

The death toll after the war was originally estimated at around 200,000 by the Bosnian government. They also recorded around 1,326,000 refugees and exiles.

Research done by Tibeau and Bijak in 2004 determined a number of 102,000 deaths and estimated the following breakdown: 55,261 were civilians and 47,360 were soldiers. Of the civilians: 16,700 were Serbs while 38,000 were Bosniaks and Croats. Of the soldiers, 14,000 were Serbs, 6,000 were Croats, and 28,000 were Bosniaks.[21]

Another research was conducted by the Sarajevo-based Research and Documentation Center (RDC) that was based on creating lists and databases, rather than providing estimates. ICTY&#39;s Demographic Unit in the Hague, provide a similar total death toll, but a somewhat different ethnic distribution.[22] As of October 2006 the count of the number of casualties has reached 97,884.[23] Further research is ongoing.

On June 21 2007, the Research and Documentation Center in Sarajevo published the most extensive research on Bosnia-Herzegovina&#39;s war casualties titled: The Bosnian Book of the Dead - a database that reveals 97,207 names of Bosnia and Herzegovina&#39;s citizens killed and missing during the 1992-1995 war. An international team of experts evaluated the findings before they were released. More than 240,000 pieces of data have been collected, processed, checked, compared and evaluated by international team of experts in order to get the final number of more than 97,000 of names of victims, belonging to all nationalities. Of the 97,207 documented casualties in Bosnia-Herzegovina, 83 percent of civilian victims were Bosniaks, 10 percent of civilian victims were Serbs and more than 5 percent of civilian victims were Croats, followed by a small number of others such as Albanians or Romani people. The percentage of Bosniak victims would be higher had survivors of Srebrenica not reported their loved-ones as &#39;soldiers&#39; to access social services and other government benefits. The total figure of dead could rise by a maximum of another 10,000 for the entire country due to ongoing research.

Like I said, I&#39;ve seen people take this as somehow a good thing - http://grayfalcon.blogspot.com/2004/11/bos...l-revealed.html (http://grayfalcon.blogspot.com/2004/11/bosnia-death-toll-revealed.html)

It appears to be a Libertarian, anti-war (though presumably not anti Milosevics war) blog which somehow accepts 100,000 dead as being ok compared to 200,000 :wacko:

Theres a good book about the war in the Balkans done by the Australian DSP, http://www.resistancebooks.com/catalog/pro...?products_id=65 (http://www.resistancebooks.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=65)

[hajduk]

And if Kosovo get independecy chetnicks will do holocaust again,this time over the Kosovo nation but also there is the speak from republic Srpska that indenpendency of Kosovo will got influeneces on Bosnia and that means they will do again holocaust on bosnian people :angry:

[Andy Bowden]

Kosova has been described as the "Jerusalem" of Serbia, as it supposedly represents the cradle of the Serbian nation; So theres a similarity to Zionism there, who gives a fuck if the indigenous population want independence, this is ours sacred land etc.

Theres more to this similarity between Zionism and Chetnik racism, for example an article making an equivalence between remembering the Srebrenica massacre and supporting Al Qaeda :rolleyes:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/julia/gorin_2005_07_11.php3

Likewise Ariel Sharons declaration an independent Kosova would be a terror state,

http://www.serbia-info.com/news/1999-04/06/10570.html

And Sharons comparison between the Kosvars and the Palestinians, and the compartive situation Milosevic and successive Israeli leaders found themselves in while dealing with an internal colony.

"Israel should not legitimise Nato’s aggression, led by the United States … Israel could be the next victim of the sort of action now going on in Kosovo … Imagine what would happen if one fine day the Arabs declared autonomy for the Galilee and links with the Palestinian Authority"

http://mondediplo.com/1999/05/10isbox

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hajduk:


So Rosi only the rank is issue,so if million bosnians die then we can say that we have a holocaust?&#33;&#33;TITO DRAGI&#33;&#33; Do you hear yourself what you talkin about?

Eh?

I already said that denying it was a holocaust is not to minimise it, or let the murderers get away with it.

Or do you think that you are safer if you use that word to describe things?

And it&#39;s not a matter of ranking, or the name; whatever it is called it was a crime of terrible proportions done to the Bosnians.

But, the name we use to describe it is the least important thing.

Nor is it that this name is the exclusive property of the Jews; it is that the crime done against them was unique in human history, so far as we know.

If we do not use &#39;holocaust&#39; to descibe what was done to the Jews, and only that, if we use it to describe any mass killing, then we will need to invent a new word that will be used only for what happened to the Jews (unless it is repeated on another group, someday), to distinguish it from all the rest.

And what happens if we all agree to call the crime against the Bosnians a holocaust?

What will that have achieved?

Only this: a new name for the terrible crime done to the Bosnians.

Will that bring a single one back?

Will it stop the Serbs if they try again?

But it will minimise the monumental crime done to the Jews.

As horrible as was the crime done to the Bosnians, it does not in any way match that done to the Jews.

And it is not a matter of semantics, as you allege. It is a matter of not minimising what was done to the Jews.

If the word &#39;holocaust&#39; is used in any which way we like, then that crime becomes all the less unique.

[grove street]

Where is the out cry for the tens of thousands of Serbs, Roma (Gypsies), Armenians and Jews who were kicked out of their houses or killed by US backed Croation Fascists, Albanian terrorists and Bosnian Islamic extermists?

There was atrocoties on both sides, but lets no forget who started the Balkan war. It was America&#39;s successful attempt at destroying the last Socialist country in Europe- Yugoslavia.

Many leftists are critical of the claims of Serbian genocide most importantly Michael Parenti.

[RGacky3]

Its purely a matter of definition, not at all anything to do with it being right or wrong, of caorse its horrible, but it does&#39;nt fit a certain definition, of coarse its subjective, and really it does&#39;nt really matter, I can say the colombine massacure was a holocaust, it does&#39;nt change anything, I can say the killing of indians was not a holocaust, but still think that it was horrible, maybe just as horrible and immoral as the killing of jews during the Nazi era, but what defines a holocaust has nothign to do with the ethics of it, just the definition, its pointless really.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Grove Street, why you call Yugoslavia socialist is mystery.

[Hiero]

I dont know about what Chomsky has wrote about on the Balkans but there is a worrying trend among Left intellectuals to play down the prison house of nations that Milosevic had perverted Yugoslavia into. For example, because &#39;only&#39; 6,000 Kosovars were found in mass graves, that was ok

Play down? These left intellectuals like Chomsky and Parenti are trying to understand the situation, something the US government and NATO do not want people and the mainstream press to do. They have to sift through imperialist propaganda that attitributes everything to Milosevic&#39;s "ultra-nationalism" something that has yet to be provern. Yet at the same time then ultra-nationalism of other leaders from the various countries and the fascist albanian KLA is described as self-autonomy.

These leftist intellectuals are doing the job people like you are too scared to do. We have a real problem in the West that when people try to understand a controversial situation, if they do not immediatly condemn the pre determined "monster, butcher, tyrant" then they are trying to cover up or play down a genocide. This is dangerous because it is trying to force a conclusion before investigation. It has become more common after 9/11, understanding becomes terrorism and first strike action is patriotism.

I think you should at least read some work by Chomsky and Parenti before you comment. Actually go learn the arguement they are putting forward, you will be very surprised, I know I was and I changed my position. On this site people are keen to say people in OI "that&#39;s US government propaganda", except when it comes Yugaslavia, they take the position straight from Washington.

If you actually read Chomsky and Parenti they actually say Milosevic did have many errors, they are not saying he was a great leader of anything. The reason it is controversial is because they focus on US and NATO war crimes. They also expose the ultra-nationalism and racism of other national leaders in the Balkans who were promoted as freedom fighters. They were actually helping the US destroy any socialist and welfare policies that were left over and began implementing capitalism.

http://www.michaelparenti.org/yugoslavia.html


- but Milosevic still carries the responsibility for destroying limited Kosovar autonomy under the Yugoslav constitution established by Tito.

The fascist and CIA backed KLA wanted indepedence. Independence was allowed only for nations under the constitution, not people. Milosevic acted under the consitution in Kosovo.

[Andy Bowden]

The fascist and CIA backed KLA wanted indepedence. Independence was allowed only for nations under the constitution, not people. Milosevic acted under the consitution in Kosovo.

Up until 1989 Kosova had some regional autonomy, although was not recognised as a Republic within Yugoslavia (under the Yugoslav constitution, Republics have the right to secede from the federation).

The autonomy Kosova had was revoked by the central authorities in 1989. Alongside it was a campaign of national-repression by the Serbs, with the firing of teachers, imprisonment of political prisoners right up until the NATO bombing in 1999 where Milosevic used the bombing campaign to force out over half the Kosovar population (forget nonsense about the KLA forcing them out, or fleeing NATO bombs. Most NATO bombs hit civilian targets in Serbia).

It was not just the KLA that wanted independence; 98% voted for it in the 1991 referendum, on an 80% turnout. Thats not some CIA/KLA/Islamist conspiracy etc, its mass support for independence that originated because of Serb chauvinism.

If Parenti, Chomsky etc want to help people "understand" then they should also be dealing with the rights to self-determination in Yugoslavia. Its not an either or argument between recognising that NATO will use humanitarian crisis as an excuse to push forward their own agenda and consistently defending peoples rights to self-determination regardless of whether or not the country they are seceeding from is "socialist", which Milosevics Serbia was not.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 17, 2007 04:59 pm
Hajduk:


So Rosi only the rank is issue,so if million bosnians die then we can say that we have a holocaust?&#33;&#33;TITO DRAGI&#33;&#33; Do you hear yourself what you talkin about?

Eh?

I already said that denying it was a holocaust is not to minimise it, or let the murderers get away with it.

Or do you think that you are safer if you use that word to describe things?

And it&#39;s not a matter of ranking, or the name; whatever it is called it was a crime of terrible proportions done to the Bosnians.

But, the name we use to describe it is the least important thing.

Nor is it that this name is the exclusive property of the Jews; it is that the crime done against them was unique in human history, so far as we know.

If we do not use &#39;holocaust&#39; to descibe what was done to the Jews, and only that, if we use it to describe any mass killing, then we will need to invent a new word that will be used only for what happened to the Jews (unless it is repeated on another group, someday), to distinguish it from all the rest.

And what happens if we all agree to call the crime against the Bosnians a holocaust?

What will that have achieved?

Only this: a new name for the terrible crime done to the Bosnians.

Will that bring a single one back?

Will it stop the Serbs if they try again?

But it will minimise the monumental crime done to the Jews.

As horrible as was the crime done to the Bosnians, it does not in any way match that done to the Jews.

And it is not a matter of semantics, as you allege. It is a matter of not minimising what was done to the Jews.

If the word &#39;holocaust&#39; is used in any which way we like, then that crime becomes all the less unique.
Rosi dont be like Chomskx just said it was holocaust in Bosnia,is that you hurt so much to say? :mellow:

[hajduk]

Like i wrote in working actions forum about Enver Hodža i said again Enver Hodža was a type of busines man who whants to make agression on ex-Yu becouse Albanian organise crime whant to make crime terminal in Kosovo,then and now with Marti Ahtisari project.

[NorthStarRepublicML]

the Holocaust is a genocide specific to the Jews of the Europe, the word itself means "to purify by fire" .....

Porrajmos is a term specific to the genocide of Roma and Sinti peoples of Europe during the same period, the word means "the great devouring"

some people also call the Armenian Genocide "the first Holocaust" ....

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hajduk:


Rosi dont be like Chomsky just said it was holocaust in Bosnia,is that you hurt so much to say?

I am sorry, I cannot follow what you are trying to say here.

[Avtomat_Icaro]

Originally posted by hajduk+July 17, 2007 03:20 pm--> (hajduk @ July 17, 2007 03:20 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 03:08 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 02:58 pm

[email protected] 17, 2007 12:13 pm
Well...wasnt the Holocaust specifically the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis? I think what Chomsky probably said that genocide didnt occur there. The UN have totally toned down the original defition of genocide so that the big powers at the time (USSR, US, UK, France) could stay out of harms way, as in being put to justice for genocide. So now it isnt always as clear to say what is genocide and what isnt. When is it specifically genocide and when is it ethnic cleansing?
So only the Jews have exclusive right on holocaust,is that what you try to say :o
Yes they do have that exclusivity...the Holocaust is a specific genocide. I think you are mixing up the terms. The Holocaust is one example of a genocide/ethnic cleansing, the situation in Bosnia might have been another ethnic cleansing, but it might not have been genocide.

Here look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing
Ok thank you,next time we will let the war criminals to kill us more for the rank,so i hope so then we have exclusive rights on holocaust, thank you Icaro you are the KING :wacko: i didnt recognise you.Thank you very very much.I hope so that you will never see that what i saw in war,thank you. You are the KING of knowledge :wacko: TITO DRAGI i cant believe what you saying.Is there some colledge for that kind of talk?&#33;&#33; :blink: [/b]
??? You are confusing me. Im not saying that the crimes didnt happen. Im just saying that you should put the correct nametag on it. The Holocaust is a name, not the act itself. The Holocaust is the name for a specific genocide.

[capitalistwhore]

Hajduk:

What is Ethnic Cleansing?

I know how horrible "ethnic cleansing" sounds, because it is like saying that something needs to be cleaned. In fact, I vote that we never use "ethnic cleansing" as a nice way of saying "ethnic genocide" but sadly the phrase "ethnic cleansing" is used often in the English language. Thank you for showing me how ugly this phrase can be.

But just so you know...

ETHNIC CLEANSING is a type of GENOCIDE. Genocide can be the mass murder of any group. ETHNIC CLEANSING is genocide of an ethnic group. It is actually bigger than genocide, because it often involves the destruction of any cultural remains, such as books, buildings, etc. Chomsky was saying that it was not just a genocide, but an ethnic genocide. He probably does not realize how &#39;ethnic cleansing&#39; can be misinterpreted. He could learn from you&#33;

Why Chomsky does not want to call the genocide a Holocaust

In most of the Western world, the Holocaust has historical implications. I do not believe the victims of the World War II Holocaust are the only people who suffered through genocide that are worthy of the term Holocaust.

What I would like you to think about is that the term Holocaust can not be used in this country without bringing up - even through example - the World War II Holocaust.

If anything, Chomsky is trying to recognize genocides as complex disasters, independent of the Holocaust. The way I interpreted Hiero&#39;s earlier post (correct me if I am wrong) is that people like Chomsky are having discussions with the awareness that most of the Western world has an instant reaction to the word &#39;Holocaust&#39; and does not actually understand the situation. By using &#39;Holocaust&#39; you are engaging in propaganda, instead of educating people on the unique tragedy of the Bosnian Genocide.

Completely independent of politics and activism, wouldn&#39;t you rather people understood the tragedy of Bosnia as the Bosnian Ethnic Genocide and not called it &#39;Bosnian Holocaust&#39; thereby understanding your tragedy only in association with another???

[rebel_lord]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 02:58 pm
So only the Jews have exclusive right on holocaust,is that what you try to say :o

Yeah indeed, the zionazis :-)

rebel_lord

[hajduk]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 18, 2007 04:40 pm
Hajduk:


Rosi dont be like Chomsky just said it was holocaust in Bosnia,is that you hurt so much to say?

I am sorry, I cannot follow what you are trying to say here.
Some of them say that nothing will change if say it was a holocaust in Bosnia or Columbine or over american indians.It will.You know why,becouse if you say that,that mean you Rosi dont acept the politisation of holocaust,that mean you not acept to someone plying fool with you,that mean like that sentences "if you save one man,you are save whole world,if you kill one man,you are kill whole world",comprende?

[hajduk]

Originally posted by Avtomat_Icaro+July 19, 2007 12:13 am--> (Avtomat_Icaro @ July 19, 2007 12:13 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 03:20 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 03:08 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 02:58 pm

[email protected] 17, 2007 12:13 pm
Well...wasnt the Holocaust specifically the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis? I think what Chomsky probably said that genocide didnt occur there. The UN have totally toned down the original defition of genocide so that the big powers at the time (USSR, US, UK, France) could stay out of harms way, as in being put to justice for genocide. So now it isnt always as clear to say what is genocide and what isnt. When is it specifically genocide and when is it ethnic cleansing?
So only the Jews have exclusive right on holocaust,is that what you try to say :o
Yes they do have that exclusivity...the Holocaust is a specific genocide. I think you are mixing up the terms. The Holocaust is one example of a genocide/ethnic cleansing, the situation in Bosnia might have been another ethnic cleansing, but it might not have been genocide.

Here look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing
Ok thank you,next time we will let the war criminals to kill us more for the rank,so i hope so then we have exclusive rights on holocaust, thank you Icaro you are the KING :wacko: i didnt recognise you.Thank you very very much.I hope so that you will never see that what i saw in war,thank you. You are the KING of knowledge :wacko: TITO DRAGI i cant believe what you saying.Is there some colledge for that kind of talk?&#33;&#33; :blink:
??? You are confusing me. Im not saying that the crimes didnt happen. Im just saying that you should put the correct nametag on it. The Holocaust is a name, not the act itself. The Holocaust is the name for a specific genocide. [/b]
Is it so hard to admit that bosnians during chetnicks agression been purife by fire?We dont talk about name we talk about act which is call holocaust,you know why,becouse the international court in Hag said that genocide in Bosnia happend only in Srebrenica(Silver shine town) and nowhere else?Explain to me why court in Hag do that,Icaro?Becouse they didnt have enough proof or becouse they dont whant to admit becouse of politic by Israel.For the first reason i know the court in Hag have enough proof so......

[hajduk]

If you a really activist people go on this site and see for yourself

www.srebrenica.ba

[An archist]

hajduk, no one denies the genocide in Bosnia, the point is that the name &#39;holocaust&#39; is the specific term for the genocide against the jews during the second world war.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by An [email protected] 19, 2007 10:27 am
hajduk, no one denies the genocide in Bosnia, the point is that the name &#39;holocaust&#39; is the specific term for the genocide against the jews during the second world war.
Meaning of the word holocaust like North Star said is to purify by fire,and if you go on the site which are gave on this forum www.srebrenica.ba you will see that holocaust happend also in Bosnia.

[BreadBros]

If you actually read Chomsky and Parenti they actually say Milosevic did have many errors, they are not saying he was a great leader of anything. The reason it is controversial is because they focus on US and NATO war crimes. They also expose the ultra-nationalism and racism of other national leaders in the Balkans who were promoted as freedom fighters. They were actually helping the US destroy any socialist and welfare policies that were left over and began implementing capitalism.

There is a large difference between nationalism that is aimed at liberation and the establishment of autonomy, vs. nationalism that is based on aggression and expansion. One has the potential for progress, one is almost hopelessly a precursor for horrible actions. There are various Palestinian groups that are nationalist in nature, attempting to liberate Palestine from Israeli domination. There are also various Israel nationalist groups, usually aimed at expanding the national borders of Israel or using extreme measures to keep Israel "safe" via the subjugation of Palestinians. Interestingly, neither Chomsky nor Parenti spend much time pointing out and decrying the nationalist nature of Palestinian groups or making excuses for how Sharon or some other leader "is a horrible person but, legally, did not authorize x massacre". They can&#39;t, because the left would never let them get away with it. But since NATO and the US are involved, they can get away with legalistic excuse-making and what not, in order to redirect the focus from the greater reality of the war(s) to making it an opportunity to focus on the US&#39;s actions and in the process overlook the just as horrible nature of the Serbian forces.

Ultimately, this was not a "clean" war in any way...As someone pointed out, Serbian minorities also faced danger. There are no easy sides to take, because it was a thoroughly nationalist war. But by making excuses and overlooking the greater reality, Chomsky is making himself look like a fool.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 11:00 am

If you actually read Chomsky and Parenti they actually say Milosevic did have many errors, they are not saying he was a great leader of anything. The reason it is controversial is because they focus on US and NATO war crimes. They also expose the ultra-nationalism and racism of other national leaders in the Balkans who were promoted as freedom fighters. They were actually helping the US destroy any socialist and welfare policies that were left over and began implementing capitalism.

There is a large difference between nationalism that is aimed at liberation and the establishment of autonomy, vs. nationalism that is based on aggression and expansion. One has the potential for progress, one is almost hopelessly a precursor for horrible actions. There are various Palestinian groups that are nationalist in nature, attempting to liberate Palestine from Israeli domination. There are also various Israel nationalist groups, usually aimed at expanding the national borders of Israel or using extreme measures to keep Israel "safe" via the subjugation of Palestinians. Interestingly, neither Chomsky nor Parenti spend much time pointing out and decrying the nationalist nature of Palestinian groups or making excuses for how Sharon or some other leader "is a horrible person but, legally, did not authorize x massacre". They can&#39;t, because the left would never let them get away with it. But since NATO and the US are involved, they can get away with legalistic excuse-making and what not, in order to redirect the focus from the greater reality of the war(s) to making it an opportunity to focus on the US&#39;s actions and in the process overlook the just as horrible nature of the Serbian forces.

Ultimately, this was not a "clean" war in any way...As someone pointed out, Serbian minorities also faced danger. There are no easy sides to take, because it was a thoroughly nationalist war. But by making excuses and overlooking the greater reality, Chomsky is making himself look like a fool.
Yeah Brad, Chomsky look like a fool and i couldn believe what he saying,becouse i read lot of his boocks, and after that what i hear from him i wanna throw up

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hajduk:


Yeah Brad, Chomsky look like a fool and i couldn believe what he saying,becouse i read lot of his boocks, and after that what i hear from him i wanna throw up

You seem to think things will be better and safer if we use one word to describe the terrible events in Bosnia rather than another.

You are perhaps the only person on earth who thinks this.

And this manic vendetta of yours is affecting your opinion of a man who has done more to expose the crimes of US, UK and Zionist imperial agression than anyone else on the planet.

Forgive me then for concluding that it is your opinions that are foolish.

[BreadBros]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 20, 2007 12:06 am
Hajduk:


Yeah Brad, Chomsky look like a fool and i couldn believe what he saying,becouse i read lot of his boocks, and after that what i hear from him i wanna throw up

You seem to think things will be better and safer if we use one word to describe the terrible events in Bosnia rather than another.

You are perhaps the only person on earth who thinks this.

And this manic vendetta of yours is affecting your opinion of a man who has done more to expose the crimes of US, UK and Zionist imperial agression than anyone else on the planet.

Forgive me then for concluding that it is your opinions that are foolish.
Rosa,

With all due respect...words certainly do have value. You are right though, words can not bring back the dead. That, however, is a strawman response. No one here, not even Hajduk, professed to be interested in the art of necromancy. We&#39;re discussing leftist politics...and how we describe something is certainly intertwined with how we understand that thing and that in turn influences how we act in the present and future.

The fact is that the active party here is not Hajduk (nor the Bosnians) who is merely responding to something he saw. It is Chomsky and the leftist intellectuals who are actively going to measures that border on historical revisionism in order to re-define things to their suiting and using legalistic arguments to justify or excuse this or that.

If the words are of little consequence or value then why do these leftist intellectuals have such a huge emphasis on exactly that, which words are used? And why would you continue to defend them?

It seems to me that Hajduk has exposed something very true. The reason this type of focus on semantics/legalistic terms (based on bourgeois UN law, no less) happens is precisely because these leftist intellectuals are trying to downplay certain events over others. I suppose they wouldn&#39;t be comfortable with, you know, a realistic description of events so they have to fudge things in order to have them fit their warped moralistic worldview where anyone who challenges the US is somehow on "the right side" and not to be challenged by leftists. <_< In other words, too often these leftist intellectuals view the enemy as being the US and not the economic structure that gave forth imperialism in the first place.

I&#39;m not trying to be a jerk, but I just think this whole line of argument is a bit disingenuous.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BB:


You are right though, words can not bring back the dead. That, however, is a strawman response. No one here, not even Hajduk, professed to be interested in the art of necromancy. We&#39;re discussing leftist politics...and how we describe something is certainly intertwined with how we understand that thing and that in turn influences how we act in the present and future.

I could not agree more -- with regard to normal posters.

But Hajduk rebuffs every attempt to show how the word &#39;holocaust&#39; is unique, and we have other words that fit this terrible situation well enough.

But he will have none of it.

So, with him, it is merely a label, perhaps an emotive one.

Hence the line I took.


The fact is that the active party here is not Hajduk (nor the Bosnians) who is merely responding to something he saw. It is Chomsky and the leftist intellectuals who are actively going to measures that border on historical revisionism in order to re-define things to their suiting and using legalistic arguments to justify or excuse this or that.

Well that is a historical point I am not qualified to judge, but I think your description of Chomsky is prejudiclal.

His point is that the western media go over the top with the genocidal crimes of others, but fail to report the even worse ones perpetrated by the US/UK, etc.

So, it&#39;s not an academic, or legalistic point.

It is political, and I think also correct.

This is not to minimise the awful crime carried out in Bosnia; but compared to Iraq, it is nowhere near as bad.

[hajduk]

Then Rosi why the man like Chomsky accepted that politic if he always against her, and how you can think that this politic is correct if you against her becouse you are communist,right?Bread was right it is not about me or bosnians it is about making political on what happend in Bosnia,and that is HOLOCAUST.One question Rosa,are you ever see the holocaust,are you ever see how it loock like when grenade fall and kill your best friend in front of your eyes?Possibly you didnt,so i tell you again if that happends to you or your familly and that you hear Chomsky denied what happend to you or your familly you will crucified him without speaking.Rosa the court in HAG denied what happend in Bosnia and that kind of politic Chomsky accepted.So Chomsky is a fake leftist believe or not.I told you becouse tomorrow this what happend to us,also can happend to enyone else and for that matter for all people in the world we should talk about this and warrning others to keep his eyes open.Listen with all regards Rosa i told you again we not speak about politics we not speak about semantic meaning of the words we speak about people who been killed for nothing,and that mean that we must have respect for them and done justice for them and god way for that is to say that in Bosnia happend holocaust becouse on that way we will destroy the politic which give just for one nation right to say that among them was made holocaust. :mellow:

[hajduk]

Rosi do you see the website i gave on this forum www.srebrenica.ba ?

[RedCat]

If Chomsky was talking about the massacres allegedely performed by Serbs it is clear that he could only deny them, because they were only "fakes" acted by western agencies

[hajduk]

interviev
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEhgwdJldeU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYw8J3mpbzo...related&search= (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYw8J3mpbzo&mode=related&search=)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AapFe-C6tB4...related&search= (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AapFe-C6tB4&mode=related&search=)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaszcGGaNT4...related&search= (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaszcGGaNT4&mode=related&search=)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2oHsRhHAXc...related&search= (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2oHsRhHAXc&mode=related&search=)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pdNdBPYKaQ...related&search= (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pdNdBPYKaQ&mode=related&search=)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=de1TZNX1ojg...related&search= (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=de1TZNX1ojg&mode=related&search=)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9JpEaZ6EU8...related&search= (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9JpEaZ6EU8&mode=related&search=)

[Guerrilla22]

I believe what he actually said is that at the time the US was claiming massive ethnic cleansing operations were happening, there were actually very few under way. Most of the ethnic cleansing didn&#39;t start untill NATO began bombing Serbia. He didn&#39;t deny that it happened.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 07:35 pm
I believe what he actually said is that at the time the US was claiming massive ethnic cleansing operations. Most of the ethnic cleansing
what supposed to be cleaned?

[Bilan]

Originally posted by hajduk+September 13, 2007 10:11 pm--> (hajduk @ September 13, 2007 10:11 pm)
Guerri[email protected] 12, 2007 07:35 pm
I believe what he actually said is that at the time the US was claiming massive ethnic cleansing operations. Most of the ethnic cleansing
what supposed to be cleaned? [/b]
...?
ethnic cleansing

[hajduk]

Originally posted by Tierra y Libertad+September 13, 2007 12:44 pm--> (Tierra y Libertad @ September 13, 2007 12:44 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 10:11 pm

[email protected] 12, 2007 07:35 pm
I believe what he actually said is that at the time the US was claiming massive ethnic cleansing operations. Most of the ethnic cleansing
what supposed to be cleaned?
...?
ethnic cleansing [/b]
yeah what supposed to be cleaned?

[Bilan]

Ethnic cleansing refers to various policies or practices aimed at the displacement of an ethnic group from a particular territory in order to create a supposedly ethnically "pure" society.
The term entered English and international usage in the early 1990s to describe certain events in the former Yugoslavia. Its typical usage was developed in the Balkans, to be a less objectionable code-word meaning genocide

Source. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing)

[Cencus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 04:38 pm
the Holocaust is a genocide specific to the Jews of the Europe
It was not just the Jews who were victims of the holocaust. Just about every group who did not fit the Nazi idea were victims too.

Also overlooked here is the fact that war crimes were committed by both sides, if the Bosnian & Croat forces had been as well organised armed trained and supplied as the Serbian forces I think you would find the civilian death toll ratios a hell of a lot different.

Bosnia was a fucking ugly war with all sides misbehaving not just one. It just so happens that one side was better equipped and supplied than the others.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 02:58 pm
So only the Jews have exclusive right on holocaust,is that what you try to say :o
yes.

Holocaust is a very specific term, referring to one specific part of history. The terms we use to describe similar events in other parts of history include "Genocide" and "Ethnic cleansing"

I assume chomsky had a semantic disagreement (being a linguistics professor) and that he wasn&#39;t really denying that people died.

Saying that "Chomsky denied the holocaust" is hyperbolic bullshit.

[Idola Mentis]

Originally posted by hajduk+September 13, 2007 02:01 pm--> (hajduk @ September 13, 2007 02:01 pm)
Tierra y [email protected] 13, 2007 12:44 pm

...
ethnic cleansing
yeah what supposed to be cleaned? [/b]
Cleansing does not necessarily mean "cleaning" as in purifying. It can also mean "cleaning" as in making something uniform. In this sense, the term certainly fits. I see your objection, though - it does draw on the viewpoint of the perpetrators. It&#39;s only from the "cleanser"&#39;s point of view that the population or territory is made "pure", and thus risks tacitly affirming the perpetrator&#39;s ideology.

Genocide is a better description. A "Gens" is latin for a clan or extended family. So if you subscribe to the nationalist idea of the nation as an extended family, "genocide" would accurately indicate the murder or attempted murder of a nation. Though I&#39;d prefer to simply call a spade a spade - and use the term organized mass murder. But I&#39;m not a native speaker of english, and thus don&#39;t have much authority in the matter.

"Holocaust" means, if I remember right, complete annihilation. As others have pointed out, it has come to indicate the attempted industrialized mass murder of the jews by the nazi regime. I guess not applying it to other mass murders helps accurate communication, though I&#39;m not clear on why that particular disaster needs its own special word. In any case, this exculsivity does not change or make any other mass murders any less evil. A dungheap by any other name would smell as foul.

I don&#39;t see why you are so hung up on what term is used. These acts are in any case horrific to the point of testing the limits of human comprehension. They certainly can&#39;t be captured in any one term.

[hajduk]

first i didnt hung up first
others i mean politicians start to bull around about ethnic cleansening
you still didnt answer me the question WHAT SUPPOSED TO BE CLEANED?
YOU TALK ABOUT SEMANTIC MEANING
i know what the words mean
i speak about politisation of the term where chetnicks use to cover war crimes they commited
for those who think that both sides are guilty i advise him to go on topic Republic Srpska on Learning forum
so to make conclusion
BOSNIANS WAS DIRTY PEOPLE AND THEY SUPPOSED TO BE CLEANED ETHNICLY;RIGHT?
so next time we should let to chetnicks that kill us all and then we will desrve that we can use term holocaust? GREAT

[Eleftherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 12:00 pm
Noam Chomsky DENIED the holocaust in Bosnia and Herzegovina in january 2006 on national bosnian tv BHT1 in political tv show "OPEN TALK WITH DUSKA JURISHIC" when he said that in Bosnia aint happend the holocaust.Chomsky says that in Bosnia happend ethnic cleanseaning&#33;&#33;What supposed to be clean&#33;?Bosnian people&#33;? :blink: You can understand how was i dissapoint with this.I cant believe what i hear from the man who was my some kind idol.I understand him very clearly what he said, becouse in the studio during the show was professional translater,so i didnt miss the point. :angry:

What is your opinion about this?
Hajduk, what happened in Bosniaas not a holocaust, as I don&#39;t think the Serbs systematically mass murdered an extremely large number of Bosnians.

And when Chomsky says ethnic cleansing, he does not mean the Bosnians were scrubed or washed by the Serbs :lol: :lol:. He means they were kicked off their homeland.

[Cencus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 06:22 pm
I speak about politisation of the term where chetnicks use to cover war crimes they commited
for those who think that both sides are guilty i advise him to go on topic Republic Srpska on Learning forum
so to make conclusion

Research done by Tibeau and Bijak in 2004 determined a number of 102,000 deaths and estimated the following breakdown: 55,261 were civilians and 47,360 were soldiers. Of the civilians: 16,700 were Serbs while 38,000 were Bosniaks and Croats.

Hmm ok 38k civilians on one side died, actually at times the Croat forces allied with the Serbs, so maybe we should split that figure. That would give a roughly even number of civilian deaths within each faction. I&#39;m not denying the Serbs were utter ****s but well the numbers don&#39;t lie do they, 16k civilians killed on thier side and 38k on the combined other 2 sides, says ALL factions targeted civilians, indeed ALL three factions have had people charged for war crimes. Ethnic cleansing was practiced by all sides, not just one.

The idea that 38k civilian deaths equates a holocaust would be laughable if it wasn&#39;t so horrible, compare it with 10 million in Hitlers death camps or the million plus in Rwanda then the figure gets some perspective. That is not to say that what went on in that war wasn&#39;t awfull but certainly doesn&#39;t compare.

I would seriously suggest you stop posting on this issue as your judgement is seriously clouded by what appears to be a hatred of Serbs and a very blinkered view of the actions of the Croats & Bosnian state.

[Guerrilla22]

Hajduk, what I&#39;m saying is that Chomsky never denied atrocities in Bosnia, he simply said that the US government great exaggerated what was happening in Bosnia as a pretext to attack the Milosevic regime, which the US wanted out of power.

[Idola Mentis]

first i didnt hung up first
What?

others i mean politicians start to bull around about ethnic cleansening
That&#39;s a concern, yes. But there&#39;s no such thing as a completely neutral term.

you still didnt answer me the question WHAT SUPPOSED TO BE CLEANED?
Several people have answered your question, by pointing out various meanings of the term.

YOU TALK ABOUT SEMANTIC MEANING i know what the words mean i speak about politisation of the term
But you clearly don&#39;t have a good idea of what the words mean. If you don&#39;t trust me, trust the native speakers. Semantics is the science of meaning in language. If you want to find the precise meaning of a term, you use semantics. The "semantic meaning" is not different from the regular meaning.

All terms are political. Some are covertly so, and it&#39;s easy for us to use them to communicate without intending to convey what the term covertly implicates. This is a problem, but it&#39;s one we have to live with.


BOSNIANS WAS DIRTY PEOPLE AND THEY SUPPOSED TO BE CLEANED ETHNICLY;RIGHT?So what people are repeatedly telling you is that no one meant to say that, including Chomsky.


so next time we should let to chetnicks that kill us all and then we will desrve that we can use term holocaust? GREAT It&#39;s not about deserving. It&#39;s about what the word means to a native speaker. Each individual native speaker of a language can&#39;t do much to help this. However, meaning changes over time, and can be collectively influenced by the speakers of a language. If you think something can be gained by diluting the meaning of the term "holocaust" by using it to describe other atrocities, by all means, go ahead. But I suspect the ideological engineering project needed to make a billion english speakers change their usage of such a symbol-heavy term within one lifetime is beyond any power currently on earth. All you&#39;ll get is a lot of confusion.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by Cencus+September 13, 2007 07:30 pm--> (Cencus @ September 13, 2007 07:30 pm)
[email protected] 13, 2007 06:22 pm
I speak about politisation of the term where chetnicks use to cover war crimes they commited
for those who think that both sides are guilty i advise him to go on topic Republic Srpska on Learning forum
so to make conclusion

Research done by Tibeau and Bijak in 2004 determined a number of 102,000 deaths and estimated the following breakdown: 55,261 were civilians and 47,360 were soldiers. Of the civilians: 16,700 were Serbs while 38,000 were Bosniaks and Croats.

Hmm ok 38k civilians on one side died, actually at times the Croat forces allied with the Serbs, so maybe we should split that figure. That would give a roughly even number of civilian deaths within each faction. I&#39;m not denying the Serbs were utter ****s but well the numbers don&#39;t lie do they, 16k civilians killed on thier side and 38k on the combined other 2 sides, says ALL factions targeted civilians, indeed ALL three factions have had people charged for war crimes. Ethnic cleansing was practiced by all sides, not just one.

The idea that 38k civilian deaths equates a holocaust would be laughable if it wasn&#39;t so horrible, compare it with 10 million in Hitlers death camps or the million plus in Rwanda then the figure gets some perspective. That is not to say that what went on in that war wasn&#39;t awfull but certainly doesn&#39;t compare.

I would seriously suggest you stop posting on this issue as your judgement is seriously clouded by what appears to be a hatred of Serbs and a very blinkered view of the actions of the Croats & Bosnian state. [/b]
Republic Srpska is state inside the state of Bosnia and Herzegowina.This entity is made during the agression on Bosnia by genocide,holocaust and exodus of bosnian people from places where they live for long time.By this project which is part of bigger project called THE GREAT SERBIA, bosnian ortodox who liked to called himself Serbs (which they are not becouse they are born on bosnian land) whant to destroy Bosnia and part of bosnian land connect to Serbia.Bosses of this project in Bosnia are Radovan Karadzich,Momchilo Kraishnik and of course Biljana Plavsich.Those people speaking about that Bosnia for centyries belong to Serbs (same story serbian politicians now speak for Kosovo) and by that they are aprove genocide over bosnians which condemned by chetnicks.To cover what they doing they make constitute of Republic Srpska so they can say to the world they are fight for the own land which is not truth.Also those criminals whant to make another entity in Krajina called Republic of Srpska Krajina but bosnian army prevent that to happen during agression.During agression on Bosnia chetnicks with politic whant to present to the world that bosnian soldiers are same like radical muslims so in that manner president of Croatia Franjo Tudjman in agreemnt with Slobodan Miloshevich in Karadjordjevo whant to take part of bosnian land to connect with Croatia so Franjo let radical muslim soldiers called vehhabs to cross the border so they can fight in Bosnia and doing that Franjo and Miloshevich can say to the world that bosnian soldiers are muslim radicals.Politicians from Bosnia and bosnian people dont need this mercenaries to fight for them but C.I.A. say to bosnian politicians that it is better for us to let them to fight becouse if bosnian politicians not agree with this probably bosnians will have problems with American government and that is happend becouse there is lot of chetnicks lobbys in Washington which of course whant to split bosnian land telling to Washington that we are same like Al-Queida whitch is not truth.


But bosnians defend own land by himself and influence of those radical vehhabs in front was very small.But on the other hand Republic Srpska stayed becouse chetnicks killed lot of bosnians on this theritory.
To see how chetnicks killed kids and others bosnian people go on this links

http://youtube.com/watch?v=r74hsAsbqnQ
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Id4wtBJHMdU&mode=related&search=
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Hj25iI7Tdc0&mode=related&search=
http://youtube.com/watch?v=2-reiBVLpL8&mode=related&search=
http://youtube.com/watch?v=E8_vSqzUxWQ&mode=related&search=
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fKuaV1-ILm4&mode=related&search=

here you can see what UN soldiers do when chetnicks killed bosnians
http://youtube.com/watch?v=QZP-LTfrdoo&mode=related&search=

and here you can see vehhab mercenaries who came to fight supported by C.I.A. logistic center in Bosnia
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Wx-REROXvtg

So right now the government of Republic Srpska is in Banja Luka and politicians in this government whant to stopped everything which is god for bosnian people,laws for returners,police laws,social laws for bosnian soldiers etc.They dont give shit about corpses who are barryed all over Republic Srpska which is actually one big grave yard.Politicians from R.S. hide behind democratic and revleft philosophy which is connect with EX-YU symbols, and thry all the time to rationalise chetnicks war crimes saying that on all sides was a war crimes.On bosnian side war crimes happened incidently.On chetnicks side war crimes was systematic by raping bosnian females,killing bosnians which they are finished colledges,stealling,burning the houses,exodus,concetration camps,mass graves etc.

Bosnia and Herzegowina need revolution more then others so my comrades if you whant to help us and support us came in Bosnia in huge number to fight all radicals
so Cencus if you whant to discuse about this go on Learning forum and find topic Republic Srpska the cancer of the Bosnian state

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 01:17 am
Hajduk:

What is Ethnic Cleansing?

I know how horrible "ethnic cleansing" sounds, because it is like saying that something needs to be cleaned. In fact, I vote that we never use "ethnic cleansing" as a nice way of saying "ethnic genocide" but sadly the phrase "ethnic cleansing" is used often in the English language. Thank you for showing me how ugly this phrase can be.



Why Chomsky does not want to call the genocide a Holocaust

In most of the Western world, the Holocaust has historical implications. I do not believe the victims of the World War II Holocaust are the only people who suffered through genocide that are worthy of the term Holocaust.

WORD

[hajduk]

if we considered what Chomsky said about agression on BiH in that meaning we can say that only MERCEDES is a car and other cars are not cars

check this links
http://www.iwpr.net/?apc_state=hsribcr2004&l=en&s=f&o=156177
http://www.counterpunch.org/johnstone10122005.html

[hajduk]

The Greatest Intellectual?
Despite his belief that most journalists are unwitting upholders of western imperialism, Noam Chomsky, the radical’s radical, agrees to see me at his office in Boston. He works
here as a professor of linguistics, a sort of Clark Kent alter ego to his activist Superman, in a nubbly old jumper, big white trainers and a grandad jacket with pockets designed to accomodate a Thermos. There is a half-finished packet of fig rolls on the desk. Such is the effect of an hour spent with Chomsky that, writing this, I wonder: is it wrong to mention the fig rolls when there is
undocumented suffering going on in El Salvador? Ostensibly I am here because Chomsky, 76, has been voted the world’s top public intellectual by Prospect magazine, but he has no interest in that. He believes that there is a misconception about what it means to be smart. It is not a question of wit, as with no 5 on the list (Christopher Hitchens) or poetic dash like no 4 (Vaclav Havel), or the sort of articulacy that lends itself to television appearances, like no 37,
the thinking girl’s pin-up Michael Ignatieff, whom Chomsky calls an apologist for the establishment and dispenser of "garbage". Chomsky, by contrast, speaks in a barely audible
croak and of his own, largely unsuccessful, television appearances has written dismissively: "The
beauty of concision is that you can only repeat conventional thoughts." Being smart, he believes, is a function of a plodding, unsexy, application to the facts and "using your intelligence
to decide what’s right". This is, of course, what Chomsky has been doing for the last 35 years, and his conclusions remain controversial: that practically every US president since the
second world war has been guilty of war crimes; that in the overall context of
Cambodian history, the Khmer Rouge weren’t as bad as everyone makes out;
that during the Bosnian war the "massacre" at Srebrenica was probably overstated.
(Chomsky uses quotations marks to undermine things he disagrees with and, in print at least, it can come across less as academic than as witheringly teenage; like, Srebrenica was so not a
massacre.)
While his critics regard him as an almost compulsive revisionist, Chomsky is more mainstream now than ever as disgust with the Bush government grows; the book he put out after the twin towers attacks, called 9-11, sold 300,000 copies. Given that until recently he worked fulltime
at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, there remain suspicions over how he has managed to become an expert, seemingly, on every conflict since the second world war; it is assumed
by his critics that he plugs the gaps in his knowledge with ideology. Chomsky says this is just laziness on their part and besides, "the best scientists aren’t the ones who know the most data;
they’re the ones who know what they’re looking for."
Still, of all the intellectuals on the Prospect list, it is Chomsky who is most often accused of miring a debate in intellectual spam, what the writer Paul Berman calls his "customary blizzard of
obscure sources". I ask if he has a photographic memory and Chomsky smiles. "It’s the other way round. I can’t remember names, can’t remember faces. I don’t have any particular talents that everybody else doesn’t have."
His daily news intake is the regular national press and he dips in and out of specialist journals. I imagine he is a fan of the internet, given his low opinion of the mainstream media (to summarise: it is undermined by a "systematic bias in terms of structural economic causes rather than a
conspiracy of people". I would argue individual agency overrides this, but get into it with Chomsky
and your allocated hour goes up in smoke). So I am surprised when he says he only goes online if he is "hunting for documents, or historical data. It’s a hideous time-waster. One of the good things about the internet is you can put up anything you like, but that also means you can put up any kind of nonsense. If the intelligence agencies knew what they were doing, they would stimulate conspiracy theories just to drive people out of political life, to keep them from asking more serious questions ... There’s a kind of an assumption that if somebody wrote
it on the internet, it’s true."
Is there? It’s clear, suddenly, that Chomsky’s opinion can be as flaky as the next person’s; he just states it more forcefully. I tell him that most people I know don’t believe anything they read on the internet and he says, seemlessly, "you see, that’s dangerous, too." His responses to criticism vary from this sort of mild absorption to, during our subsequent ratty exchange about Bosnia, the childish habit of trashing his opponents whom he calls "hysterical", "fanatics" and "tantrum throwers". I suspect that being on the receiving end of lots "half-crazed" nut-mail, as he calls it
(he gets at least four daily emails accusing him of being a Mossad agent, a CIA agent or a member of al-Qaida), has made his defensive position rather entrenched. Chomsky sighs and says that he has never claimed to have a monopoly on the truth, then looks merry for a
moment and says that the only person who does is his wife, Carol. "My grandchildren
call her Truth Teller. When I tease them and they’re not sure if I’m telling the truth, they turn to her and say: ’Truth Teller, is it really true?’"
These days, Carol accompanies her husband to most of his public appearances. He is asked to lend his name to all sorts of crackpot causes and she tries to intervene to keep his schedule under control. As some see it, one ill-judged choice of cause was the accusation made by Living
Marxism magazine that during the Bosnian war, shots used by ITN of a Serb-run detention camp were faked. The magazine folded after ITN sued, but the controversy flared up again in 2003
when a journalist called Diane Johnstone made similar allegations in a Swedish magazine, Ordfront, taking issue with the official number of victims of the Srebrenica massacre. (She said they were exaggerated.) In the ensuing outcry, Chomsky lent his name to a letter praising
Johnstone’s "outstanding work". Does he regret signing it? "No," he says indignantly. "It is outstanding. My only regret is that I didn’t do it strongly enough. It may be wrong;
but it is very careful and outstanding work." How, I wonder, can journalism be wrong
and still outstanding? "Look," says Chomsky, "there was a hysterical fanaticism about Bosnia in western culture which was very much like a passionate religious conviction. It was
like old-fashioned Stalinism: if you depart a couple of millimetres from the party line, you’re a traitor, you’re destroyed. It’s totally irrational. And Diane Johnstone, whether you like it or
not, has done serious, honest work. And in the case of Living Marxism, for a big
corporation to put a small newspaper out of business because they think something
they reported was false, is outrageous."
They didn’t "think" it was false; it was proven to be so in a court of law. But Chomsky insists that "LM was probably correct" and that, in any case, it is irrelevant. "It had nothing to do with
whether LM or Diane Johnstone were right or wrong." It is a question, he says,
of freedom of speech. "And if they were wrong, sure; but don’t just scream well, if you say you’re in favour of that you’re in favour of putting Jews in gas chambers."
Eh? Not everyone who disagrees with him is a "fanatic", I say. These are serious, trustworthy people. "Like who?" "Like my colleague, Ed Vulliamy."

Vulliamy’s reporting for the Guardian from the war in Bosnia won him the international reporter
of the year award in 1993 and 1994. He was present when the ITN footage of the Bosnian Serb concentration camp was filmed and supported their case against LM magazine. "Ed Vulliamy is a
very good journalist, but he happened to be caught up in a story which is probably not true."
But Karadic’s number two herself [Biljana Plavsic] pleaded guilty to crimes against humanity.
"Well, she certainly did. But if you want critical work on the party line, General Lewis MacKenzie who was the Canadian general in charge, has written that most of the stories were complete
nonsense." And so it goes on, Chomsky fairly vibrating with anger at Vulliamy and co’s
"tantrums" over his questioning of their account of the war.

I suggest that if they are having tantrums it’s because they have contact with the survivors of Srebrenica and witness the impact of the downplaying of their experiences. He fairly explodes. "That’s such a western European position. We are used to having our jackboot on people’s necks, so we don’t see our victims. I’ve seen them: go to Laos, go to Haiti, go to El Salvador. You’ll see people who are really suffering brutally. This does not give us the right to lie
about that suffering." Which is, I imagine, why ITN went to court in the first place.
You could pick any number of other conflicts over which to have a barney with Chomsky. Seeing as we have entered the bad-tempered part of the interview, I figure we may as well continue and ask if he finds it ironic that, given his views on the capitalist system, he is a beneficiary
of it. "Well, what capitalist system? Do you use a computer? Do you use the internet? Do you take an aeroplane? That comes from the state sector of the economy. I’m certainly a beneficiary of this state-based, quasi-market system; does that mean that I shouldn’t try to make it a
better society?" OK, let’s look at the non-state based, quasi-market system. Does he have a
share portfolio? He looks cross. "You’d have to ask my wife about that. I’m sure she does. I don’t see any reason why she shouldn’t. Would it help people if I went to Montana and lived on a mountain? It’s only rich, privileged westerners – who are well educated and therefore deeply irrational - in whose minds this idea could ever arise. When I visit peasants in southern Colombia, they don’t ask me these questions." I suggest that people don’t like being told off about their lives by someone they consider a hypocrite. "There’s no element of hypocrisy." He suddenly smiles
at me, benign again, and we end it there.

[hajduk]

Letters
Falling out over Srebrenica


Wednesday November 2, 2005
The Guardian

I am a survivor of the Omarska concentration camp. As such I was shocked by some of the views of Noam Chomsky in the article by Emma Brockes. Chomsky describes the revisionist work of a journalist, Diana Johnstone, on the camps and events at Srebrenica 1995. The importance of this issue is not about the number of people who were killed in and around Srebrenica, but about deliberate attempts to at best trivialise, at worst deny, genocidal acts committed by Serb nationalists in Bosnia.

Article continues
If Srebrenica has been a lie, then all the other Bosnian-Serb nationalists&#39; crimes in the three years before Srebrenica must be false too. Mr Chomsky has the audacity to claim that Living Marxism was "probably right" to claim the pictures ITN took on that fateful August afternoon in 1992 - a visit which has made it possible for me to be writing this letter 13 years later - were false. This is an insult not only to those who saved my life, but to survivors like myself.

Ed Vulliamy, Penny Marshall and Ian Williams were the first foreign witnesses to the existence of the camps at Omarska and Trnopolje, where Bosnian Muslims and Croats were incarcerated, tortured and executed in a manner that merits no justification. However, saying that Vulliamy "happened to be caught up in a story which is probably not true" has the effect of excusing these crimes. And because I was incarcerated in Omarska in August 1992, when Vulliamy arrived there, I guess I am also a liar. My experiences in that horrendous period, shared by thousands of others, were far from a "story". My imagination could never have anticipated the gritty taste of the cruelty delivered by an ugly collaboration of strangers alongside neighbours, teachers and schoolmates. My memories don&#39;t come from a storybook.
Kemal Pervanic
Author, The Killing Days: My Journey Through the Bosnia War

http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,474564,00.html

[hajduk]

Wednesday November 2, 2005
The Guardian

Emma Brockes&#39;s report of her interview with me (G2, October 31), opens with the following headline:

"Q: Do you regret supporting those who say the Srebrenica massacre was exaggerated? A: My only regret is that I didn&#39;t do it strongly enough"

I did express my regret: namely, that I did not support Diana Johnstone&#39;s right to publish strongly enough when her book was withdrawn by the publisher after dishonest press attacks, which I reviewed in an open letter that any reporter could have easily discovered. The remainder of Brockes&#39;s report continues in the same vein. Even when the words attributed to me have some resemblance to accuracy, I take no responsibility for them, because of the invented contexts in which they appear.
"Look," says Chomsky, "there was a hysterical fanaticism about Bosnia in western culture which was very much like a passionate religious conviction. It was like old-fashioned Stalinism: if you depart a couple of millimetres from the party line, you&#39;re a traitor, you&#39;re destroyed. It&#39;s totally irrational. And Diane Johnstone, whether you like it or not, has done serious, honest work. And in the case of Living Marxism, for a big corporation to put a small newspaper out of business because they think something they reported was false, is outrageous."

Article continues
As for her personal opinions, interpretations and distortions, she is of course free to publish them, and I would, of course, support her right to do so, on grounds that she makes quite clear she does not understand.
Noam Chomsky
Lexington, Mass, USA

[hajduk]

Originally posted by Tierra y [email protected] 17, 2007 12:05 pm
Is there a link to your source that backs you up?
Or another source?
i put it
just read

[wogboy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 12:21 pm
[QUOTE=Cencus,September 13, 2007 07:30 pm] [Republic Srpska is state inside the state of Bosnia and Herzegowina.This entity is made during the agression on Bosnia by genocide,holocaust and exodus of bosnian people from places where they live for long time.By this project which is part of bigger project called THE GREAT SERBIA, bosnian ortodox who liked to called himself Serbs (which they are not becouse they are born on bosnian land) whant to destroy Bosnia and part of bosnian land connect to Serbia.Bosses of this project in Bosnia are Radovan Karadzich,Momchilo Kraishnik and of course Biljana Plavsich.Those people speaking about that Bosnia for centyries belong to Serbs (same story serbian politicians now speak for Kosovo) and by that they are aprove genocide over bosnians which condemned by chetnicks.To cover what they doing they make constitute of Republic Srpska so they can say to the world they are fight for the own land which is not truth.Also those criminals whant to make another entity in Krajina called Republic of Srpska Krajina but bosnian army prevent that to happen during agression.During agression on Bosnia chetnicks with politic whant to present to the world that bosnian soldiers are same like radical muslims so in that manner president of Croatia Franjo Tudjman in agreemnt with Slobodan Miloshevich in Karadjordjevo whant to take part of bosnian land to connect with Croatia so Franjo let radical muslim soldiers called vehhabs to cross the border so they can fight in Bosnia and doing that Franjo and Miloshevich can say to the world that bosnian soldiers are muslim radicals.Politicians from Bosnia and bosnian people dont need this mercenaries to fight for them but C.I.A. say to bosnian politicians that it is better for us to let them to fight becouse if bosnian politicians not agree with this probably bosnians will have problems with American government and that is happend becouse there is lot of chetnicks lobbys in Washington which of course whant to split bosnian land telling to Washington that we are same like Al-Queida whitch is not truth.


But bosnians defend own land by himself and influence of those radical vehhabs in front was very small.But on the other hand Republic Srpska stayed becouse chetnicks killed lot of bosnians on this theritory.
To see how chetnicks killed kids and others bosnian people go on this links

http://youtube.com/watch?v=r74hsAsbqnQ
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Id4wtBJHMdU&mode=related&search=
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Hj25iI7Tdc0&mode=related&search=
http://youtube.com/watch?v=2-reiBVLpL8&mode=related&search=
http://youtube.com/watch?v=E8_vSqzUxWQ&mode=related&search=
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fKuaV1-ILm4&mode=related&search=

here you can see what UN soldiers do when chetnicks killed bosnians
http://youtube.com/watch?v=QZP-LTfrdoo&mode=related&search=

and here you can see vehhab mercenaries who came to fight supported by C.I.A. logistic center in Bosnia
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Wx-REROXvtg

So right now the government of Republic Srpska is in Banja Luka and politicians in this government whant to stopped everything which is god for bosnian people,laws for returners,police laws,social laws for bosnian soldiers etc.They dont give shit about corpses who are barryed all over Republic Srpska which is actually one big grave yard.Politicians from R.S. hide behind democratic and revleft philosophy which is connect with EX-YU symbols, and thry all the time to rationalise chetnicks war crimes saying that on all sides was a war crimes.On bosnian side war crimes happened incidently.On chetnicks side war crimes was systematic by raping bosnian females,killing bosnians which they are finished colledges,stealling,burning the houses,exodus,concetration camps,mass graves etc.

Bosnia and Herzegowina need revolution more then others so my comrades if you whant to help us and support us came in Bosnia in huge number to fight all radicals
so Cencus if you whant to discuse about this go on Learning forum and find topic Republic Srpska the cancer of the Bosnian state
hajduk>>What I think war in Bosnia was clearly missing were the Yugoslavs. Nobody represented them. When the govt died all these other parties emerged and went on with whatever glorified program they had in mind. I dont like the nationalists. I dont like Izetbetgovic, Karadzic, Tudgeman, Milosevic, Arkan, Cosic...none of them. None of them represented the Yugoslavs nor those people who just wanted to keep living like normal people. I saw one Yugoslav protest in Sarajevo (the concert of YUTEL). I then seen some of the same protesters days later fired on by Karadzic and his goons. Tudgemans agenda can be seen as clearly as the early 80s.

Whatever external powers became involved sided with one of these groups. The powers made sure that Yugoslavia would not come out alive. It was impossible. Dayton made sure that Bosnia would never be united. It isnt the Bosnian Serbs fault. The system is designed to be unworkable. It is only peopel like Komsic that can make change happen, but guys like that are few and far between.

But, failure to keep it all together was also in part, a failure internally. If you look back at the 1930s and the brewing commuinist movement there, you notice a highly organised movement. That movement grew even stronger in organisation during WW2. There was nothing comparable in the 90s, even though I suspect, that the majority of people could have been swayed into it had some party apparatus been in place.

The last war in Bosnia and the break up of Yugoslavia cant compare with the complete destruction, chaos, death, heroism and bravery of WW2. When I read forums it saddens me that people have long forgotten about it. The great battles, great men, all peoples creating a life better than what they had. Now I see destroyed memorials and new plaques of glorified war criminals. It disgusts me, and I am not surprised the degected youth of Bosnia wish so hard to leave. Nor am I surprised with teh waves of Yugo-nostalgia amongst the elderly and those who realised that seperation made life worse.

What Bosnia desperately needs is an organised movement of people...young people from all over the country who are capeable of rising past the rhetoric and media propaganda. What are needed are intelligent people...and a solid, modern, party platform. Believe me, there is a majority of people who will turn to a multi-ethnic (Yugoslav shaped) party. I see evidence all the time.

[DISTURBEDrbl911]

I completely agree with Avtomat
Well...wasnt the Holocaust specifically the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis? I think what Chomsky probably said that genocide didnt occur there. The UN have totally toned down the original defition of genocide so that the big powers at the time (USSR, US, UK, France) could stay out of harms way, as in being put to justice for genocide. So now it isnt always as clear to say what is genocide and what isnt. When is it specifically genocide and when is it ethnic cleansing?
The Holocaust is quite simply a reference to a specific genocide. The UN presently has specific definitions of ethnic cleansing and genocide. I believe that the situation in Bosnia would definitely fall into one of those categories, I admit that I am rather uneducated about the entire situation in Bosnia, so I can&#39;t really comment about specific details. Noam Chomsky, quite clearly knows the difference between genocide and ethnic cleansing, and along with most people recognizes that the Holocaust was a specific genocide of the Jews in WWII. I think that this topic is inherently flawed simply by definition. However, along with the talk of genocide and ethnic cleansing, I am currently very optimistic about the current situation in the US, where a congressional committee just accepted a resolution on the Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire from 1915-1925?. I am very hopeful that it is brought in front of the full congress for a vote and passes, and that the US joins a number of other countries in their recognition of the Armenian Genocide.

[Bandito_]

@hajduk

Take it easy comrade…I am communist from Serbia,and you are probably Moslem from Bosnia.But you must be realistic.You made a couple mistakes in your exsposition.I want to explain people(who are not from Balkan) some mistakes that you write.

First you said,that Serbian army made ethnical cleaning in Bosnia.That isn’t correct,because:

Serbian army was dividing on military and paramilitary troops, who are not participate together in war actions.Military troops,which are went under Slobodan Milosevic coumand,are combat for protect Socialist Federal Republic Yugoslavia,and against national separate.Soldiers,which are went under Milosevic army-JNA, had communist symbols on uniforms.

Another army(paramilitary) was army of president Serbian Radical Party(SRS)- Vojislav Seselj and Vuk Draskovic-Serbian Movement of Restoration(SPO),which are party of right ideology.That two party was fighting for Great Serbia.
So Milosevic wasn’t follower of Chetnics ideology.He was socialist,and he had good relations with many socialist leaders such as: Chinese,Cuban,Vietnam,North Korean…and many other leaders.You can’t accuse Milosevic politic for murders civilian people.Paramilitary army(which leaders was in good relations with west capitalist politicians such as Vuk Draskovic) are responsible for that murders.And of course war profiteer such as Zeljko Raznatovic Arkan.

Second thing,Bosnian and Croatian politicians(Franjo Tudjman and Alija Izetbegovic),are renounce of socialism,and after fall of Berlin wall, turn of to capitalism.
So they are get a lot of many for disperse of Yugoslavia and killing civilian(who are Serbs) in theirs republics.

I can also tell:”That is ethnic cleaning”… :huh: but I wan’t .Because it is not ethnic cleaning of Serbs,Croatians and Moslems.War is war,and war crimes are something different.