Paris, anyone?

[Pabmusic]

I wasn't trying to undermine them and I don't know how you get the idea I was trying to do that. I thought I was adding to the discussion.

Of course when you say Newton got "many things right" you ought to add "to the best of our current knowledge"! and we still don't know what the "nature of gravity" is!!!

Sorry, Richard. Wrong end of the stick again My mind's not working as well as it might.

You're absolutely right in your last sentence.

[teamsaint]

I wasn't trying to undermine them and I don't know how you get the idea I was trying to do that. I thought I was adding to the discussion.

Of course when you say Newton got "many things right" you ought to add "to the best of our current knowledge"! and we still don't know what the "nature of gravity" is!!!

Well quite. Certainties are very disturbing, as a rule.

[french frank]

This article is quite useful on the subject and on the complexity of internal and external pressures on the Yugoslav federation after Tito's death. What is clear is that Bosnia and Kosovo now contain an extensive US military presence as part of the NATO strategy of surrounding Russia militarily (as we see also in Ukraine), which would have probably have been more difficult to achieve had the federation remained intact.

I will read this more closely - or at least the first part, as I doubt I have time to read a small book.

The first point I noticed was that there is a factual basis to it which I recognise (from my limited reading of the subject). But what I didn't recognise (because I'm not American I didn't pay much attention to what the American media were saying) is the picture he represents of gross distortions and lies. When I read Noel Malcolm's History of Bosnia I was dissatisfied with it because it seemed to me clearly biased against the Serbians and that was not what I wanted because it was also my leaning, and therefore I wanted to read a knowledgeable commentator who was either completely impartial, or even biased towards the Serbians (in order to understand their arguments). But reading this review article - and looking quickly at the other work by the two authors - I see a common thread of 'biased reporting' - but simply from the 'other side'. I wouldn't swallow that either because the views depend on interpretation of the facts, and that interpretation is influenced by the socialist viewpoint. No matter what part of the world - Jugoslavia, Vietnam, Rwanda - the western powers are the villains. It seems to go some way towards supporting aeolium's earlier contention - which you challenged.

I visited the Balkans shortly after the war, including Vukovar (which I chose in preference to Dubrovnik which had had money for restoration poured into it) and Sarajevo. I was on my own and spoke to a lot of 'ordinary people' who I met on trains. I got a 'feel' for the uneasiness of the place. I don't blame that on the Western powers, nor yet on the Serbians.

If you're talking about 'colonialism' and 'imperialism' - look no further. The Austro-Hungarian/Catholic influence in Croatia, the Russian/Orthodox influence in Serbia, the Ottoman Turk/Muslim influence in Bosnia (and Kosovo and Albania). If Slovenia and Croatia wanted to be free of Communist/Serbian/Russian influence and move towards Europe and the EU, that's no surprise. As the article said, Slovenia was the richest, most productive region in the federation and had long resented the amount of its wealth being sucked (as they saw it) towards Belgrade. No wonder they were first to jump ship.

The major fact that 'kept the federation together' was Communism (particularly in its more benign form under Tito). When the Soviet bloc in eastern Europe began to disintegrate, that was indeed a sign to the various nationalists in Jugoslavia that they might achieve independence. Whoever was to gain or lose, the West or Russia, that seems to me secondary to the wishes of the people who lived there. And, yes, there would be difficulties in certain areas where the the ethnic groups had intermixed (but possibly mainly a problem for the Serbs?).

The irony is that Catholic, Orthodox or Muslim - they are all of the same race: Slavs. Yet they self-identify by their ethnic group. In Macedonia and Montenegro, the majority self-identify as Macedonian or Montenegrin (though my hunch is that, tribally, many are Serbs - but have you ever read any of the Wikipedia Talk pages dealing with the Balkans?!!)

In short, I cannot see that the people of the region themselves had either interest or desire in remaining in a federation such as Jugoslavia. What the Western powers did to facilitate the break-up seems, to a large extent, irrelevant: that is not to pass judgement on specific actions by either side in the conflict - the bombing of Kosovo or the siege of Sarajevo.

[Cornet IV]

A pity that the Guardian article fails to mentions the erosion of freedoms that the politicians have been carrying out under the name of the war on terror.

Teresa May's statement should have us worried, but it seems to have got lost in the public outpourings, which I suppose is what the politicians want.

The politicians will never change things without being kicked by the people, when they have finally taken enough **** from all those with an interest in conflict. Northern Ireland comes to mind.

Cogent points, teamsaint.

I lived in the US when the Gee Dubya/Cheney "Patriot" legislation was enacted. It immediately was obvious that this was a singularly pernicious piece of law but such was the national hysteria at the time that it was passed with only scant consideration; Benjamin Franklin's perceptive maxim conveniently was ignored. The "terror" element has proved a very useful vehicle for UK (and other) politicians in seeking further to control the freedoms of the populace and Ben Franklin's sage advice remains unheeded.

I find Dave's capitulation to the Hacked Off brigade and the whole Leveson affair to be wholly at odds with his suddenly becoming another Charlie and thoroughly sickening. But then, when was he not a charley?

Teresa May has the potential of being advanced from a singularly ineffective Home Secretary to a very dangerous person indeed. We have every reason to be worried.

Harold Macmillan was PM when I first voted (in the days when we grew up at 21) and there have been several general elections since then which seemed of above-average import at the time. However, I can remember no election as finely balanced or whose outcome might have such profound consequences as that which is imminent. Regardless of the outcome, that arrogant collection of parasites in Westminster still won't "geddit", regardless of the amount of kicking from us.

[jean]

...If you're talking about 'colonialism' and 'imperialism' - look no further. The Austro-Hungarian/Catholic influence in Croatia, the Russian/Orthodox influence in Serbia, the Ottoman Turk/Muslim influence in Bosnia (and Kosovo and Albania). If Slovenia and Croatia wanted to be free of Communist/Serbian/Russian influence and move towards Europe and the EU, that's no surprise. As the article said, Slovenia was the richest, most productive region in the federation and had long resented the amount of its wealth being sucked (as they saw it) towards Belgrade. No wonder they were first to jump ship...

In the early 1990s I was living in a small town in the Veneto and I knew many Croatian refugees there, and heard their first-hand accounts of the atrocities perpetrated in the course of that phase of the war. Their experiences made our agonising over what motives we might have in recognising an independent Croatia seem a bit irrelevant. Weren't we concerned at the time that in doing so we might seem to endorse the Croatian leadership's Nazi past? But what had that to do with what was happening now?

I never really understood how Slovenia made the break with so little bloodshed.

[Richard Barrett]

that interpretation is influenced by the socialist viewpoint

Certainly. But practically everything we read is "influenced by the capitalist viewpoint", so often as to pass usually without comment. This I think is the main reason that opinions such as those expressed in the articl would be regarded by some as "blaming the Western powers for everything." That's not how I read it at all; it seems to me a rather balanced and unbiased account. But you will no doubt say that's because my own opinions are unbalanced and biased. To say the least, the fragmentation of the former Yugoslavia coincides to a suspicious degree with the agenda of the USA, NATO and EU in that part of Europe.

I cannot see that the people of the region themselves had either interest or desire in remaining in a federation such as Jugoslavia.

Many of them may have changed their minds in the meantime I think, particularly since 2008, or at least that's my impression having been living in Belgrade for over a year now and travelling around Serbia and the other former Yugoslavian countries quite frequently. This is a whole other discussion though.

[Richard Tarleton]

Thank you for the Douglas Adams quote, Pabs. Lucid, civilised and witty, as ever.

I see the Pope has added his voice in support of reasoned debate. The Vatican scrambling to explain what he meant, as opposed to said, and did

[jean]

Apologies if this has been posted already, but if so I can't find it:

...What made us laugh the most, is that the bells of Notre Dame rang in our honor ... for a week now, Charlie has been moving far more than mountains across the world. For a week now, as Willem has shown us so magnificently in his drawing, Charlie has many new friends. Some anonymous, and some global celebrities. Some humble and some affluent. Some miscreants and some religious leaders. Some sincere and some akin to jesuits. Some who will be with us for the rest of our lives, and some who are just passing by.

We take them all on board today, we have neither the time nor the heart to separate them out. But that doesn't mean that we are fooled. We wholeheartedly thank those in their millions whether simple citizens or embodying institutions who are truly at our sides, who deeply and sincerely "are Charlie." They will know who they are. Pissing off the others who don't give a fuck anyway...

[Not sure I can parse that last sentence!]

[Lento]

On a happier note, the new concert hall has been opened, although it's still not completely ready, to say the least. Richard Morrison in The Times is massively impressed, however, and suggests it should inspire a new one in London (he suggests the disused Smithfield Market area).

http://http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto...cle4324425.ece

[jean]

Thread about it here:

http://www.for3.org/forums/showthread.php?12660-Philharmonie-de-Paris-A-Womb-Within-A-Shambles

[aeolium]

But reading this review article - and looking quickly at the other work by the two authors - I see a common thread of 'biased reporting' - but simply from the 'other side'. I wouldn't swallow that either because the views depend on interpretation of the facts, and that interpretation is influenced by the socialist viewpoint. No matter what part of the world - Jugoslavia, Vietnam, Rwanda - the western powers are the villains. It seems to go some way towards supporting aeolium's earlier contention - which you challenged.

ff, you might be interested in these articles about the misrepresentations and obfuscations of both Herman and Chomsky with respect to several genocidal crimes, not merely those in Bosnia (sorry - the last is another long one!):

http://www.monbiot.com/2011/06/13/naming-the-genocide-deniers/

https://bosniangenocide.wordpress.com/2012/06/17/chomskys-genocidal-denial/

http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/chomsky.htm

The last detailed article about Chomsky and Herman's belittling of the Khmer Rouge crimes (and in some cases justification of their actions) I think shows these writers for what they are, namely, propagandists. As the article says, "Chomsky excels at illuminating crimes...but only the crimes of the right villains. Unlike the crimes of the West, the crimes of the Khmer Rouge were not to be illuminated." It an unfortunate truth that those responsible for writing an important book about propaganda, Manufacturing Consent, are themselves guilty of the kind of misrepresentations they ascribe to others.

[french frank]

I never really understood how Slovenia made the break with so little bloodshed.

Long way from Belgrade so no Serbian invasion and fewer internal divisions? That said, even there there were signs of friction in gang warfare and graffiti. And there seems to have been some deliberate official discrimination against very small minorities, too small to make much trouble.

[Richard Barrett]

I don't have the knowledge to say anything about Cambodia but I think it's worth pointing out that the controversy about Srebrenica is not limited to Chomsky vs. the rest of the world, that there are indeed legitimate questions to be examined in connection with the events that took place there, and that a rational examination of facts and opinions isn't really advanced by using language like "genocide denial" - as even your linked articles show, it is not such a simple matter of dismissing Chomsky as a propagandist on the one hand or venerating him as infallible on the other.

[jean]

http://www.monbiot.com/2011/06/13/na...ocide-deniers/

https://bosniangenocide.wordpress.com/2012/06/17/chomskys-genocidal-denial/

http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/chomsky.htm.

Very interesting.

I read a book once - I can't remember its title, unfortunately - detailing Chomsky's way of dealing with linguists who dared question any aspect of Transformational-generative Grammar.

I used to try to keep Chomsky's authoritarian behaviour in an academic context separate from his political writings, but I'm increasingly convinced there's not much to choose between them.

[french frank]

Certainly. But practically everything we read is "influenced by the capitalist viewpoint", so often as to pass usually without comment.

But that doesn't amount to any more than that the socialist viewpoint, when given a chance to express itself, is another viewpoint (I'm neither a proponent nor a keen supporter of capitalism - in fact a peaceful socialist world might suit me very well).

This I think is the main reason that opinions such as those expressed in the articl would be regarded by some as "blaming the Western powers for everything." That's not how I read it at all; it seems to me a rather balanced and unbiased account. But you will no doubt say that's because my own opinions are unbalanced and biased.

I was neither figuratively nor explicitly blaming the Western powers for everything. But yes, to an extent, 'By their quoted sources shall ye know them.' I would not quote from convinced capitalists to support my point of view.

To say the least, the fragmentation of the former Yugoslavia coincides to a suspicious degree with the agenda of the USA, NATO and EU in that part of Europe.

I think I'd have to say that that is possibly to say the most rather than the least: that it looks suspicious ... But even if it was - to a certain degree - in line with the agendas of the USA, NATO and EU (or agenda if they are regarded as one) that doesn't in itself invalidate them, does it?

Many of them may have changed their minds in the meantime I think, particularly since 2008, or at least that's my impression having been living in Belgrade for over a year now and travelling around Serbia and the other former Yugoslavian countries quite frequently.

'May' have changed their minds. 'May not'. But in any case if 'many' had, that would be with hindsight. Like 'many' have changed their minds about Europe. Unfortunately, time and politics wait for no man.

I will say that I don't think Western intervention necessarily improved the situation. But denying that the Serbians (and some Serbs) wanted the Balkans to become a Greater Serbia, and that that would have suited the Russians more than the Americans, seems to be at odds with the facts.