>Jeg mener det var riktig av KK å angripe Nato-løgnpropagandaen i forbindelse
>med flybombing av kosovoalbanske flyktninger ved Djakovica, og å gjøre dette
>raskt, knallhardt og presist.
Jeg regner med at dette er til meg. Det er knapt min jobb å forsvare NATO,
som jeg fortsatt er motstander av. Når det er sagt: Independent i
Storbritannia er meget kritisk, se tidligere krigsreportasje v/ Robert Fisk,
http://www.itk.ntnu.no/ansatte/Andresen_Trond/kk-f/fra060499/0177.html
lagt ut av meg på KK-forum.
Her kommer dagens artikkel om temaet. Jeg tolker Independent
slik at de mener at NATO nå etter forholdene er noenlunde åpne og
sjølkritiske etter at saka har ført til oppvask for åpen scene
og interne undersøkelser:
> In an unprecedented act of openness in wartime,
> Nato yesterday used dramatic cockpit video and a
> wealth of forensic detail to lay to rest arguments
> over how alliance warplanes could have bombed
> civilian Kosovars at two separate sites.
(se mer nedenfor....)
Sammenlign dette med "åpenheten" og "sannferdigheten"på den andre sida ("Vi
skjøt ned 17 Nato-fly i dag", "1000 sivile er drept til nå av bombene"). Har
KK tenkt over hva som kan bli avdekket når internasjonale media en dag kan
få komme inn i Kosovo og virkelig begynne å rapportere fritt om omfanget av
de grufulle ting som maskerte serbiske (para)militære nå foretar seg. 6000
muslimske menn ble myrdet i Srebrenica under bosnia-krigen. Antagelig er
omfanget større i Kosovo. Dette er like eller mer dramatisk enn Deir
Yassin-massakren og fordrivinga av palestinerne i 1948.
Men KK prioriterer i stedet å kritisere bombeangrep mot jugoslaviske
industrianlegg og infrastruktur, som de facto dreper og gjør
hjemløse (men NB! uten å fordrive) en *brøkdel*
av de folkemasser som rammes i Kosovo. Kjemisk forurensing, eller oljesøl,
fra et bomba industrianlegg er viktigere enn den rabiate utryddelsespolitikk
som flyktningene kan fortelle om. Tror KK at det meste av dette er
røverhistorier? At folk dikter fritt når de står foran kamera og gråtende
forteller om hvordan de var vitner til grotesk mishandling og drap på
familiemedlemmer og andre?
Hvilket ettermæle risikerer KK å få p.g.a. dette, i front med eksilserbere
(med samme mentalitet som israelerne:"Det er tidligere begått urett
mot oss, så vi kan gjøre hva faen vi vil, dessuten er vi serbere pokker så
tøffe krigere, etc etc.") og NKPere som er politisk blinde på det ene øyet?
Jeg sier ikke at det ikke er propaganda på NATO- og den albanske sida også
(sjølsagt er det det!), men KK må nå prøve i noen grad å balansere sin
Nato-kritikk med stillingtagen mot terroren og fordrivelsen av ei hel
befolkning.
Hvorfor har ikke avisa hatt i det minste noen *få* oppslag som er kritiske
til parolen om betingelsesløs stopp i luftkrigen? Hvorfor legger dere ikke
opp til debatt? Tror dere ikke det finnes radikale folk, som er
Nato-motstandere og som ikke har noen illusjoner om USAs motiver etc.,
som ikke er entusiastiske "bombe-tilhengere" -- men som likevel mener at
bombinga nå - slik situasjonen er blitt - ikke skal stoppes *uten*betingelser*?
Er ikke dette også et legitimt standpunkt i KKs leserkrets? Se f.eks Ørn
Olafssons innlegg på KK-forum,
http://www.itk.ntnu.no/ansatte/Andresen_Trond/kk-f/fra060499/0202.html
Og når trykker dere Oddmund Garviks innlegg? (Eller har jeg oversett det i
avisa, *har* det stått på trykk?) Det ble sendt inn for 6(?) dager sida, og
ligger på KK-forum, se
http://www.itk.ntnu.no/ansatte/Andresen_Trond/kk-f/fra060499/0112.html
> Hvis de hadde dukka opp, ville de ha fått spalteplass.
sa du om det du kaller "bombetilhengerne". Javel, trykk Garviks innlegg! Eller, hvis det var for langt, be ham lage en kortere versjon! Og inviter noen
debattanter og lag ei dobbeltside med dem. Hvorfor ikke?
Bedre avis blir det også.
Trond Andresen
****************************
>War in The Balkans - The convoy
> massacre: Nato offers its
> evidence
>
> By Stephen Castle in Brussels
>
> In an unprecedented act of openness in wartime,
> Nato yesterday used dramatic cockpit video and a
> wealth of forensic detail to lay to rest arguments
> over how alliance warplanes could have bombed
> civilian Kosovars at two separate sites.
>
> It produced a US Air Force commander from Nato's
> theatre of operations at Aviano air base in Italy at a
> crowded press conference in Brussels.
>
> Demonstrating the alliance's determination to bring
> to a close Nato's biggest public relations disaster of
> the four-week air campaign, he gave an apparently
> full and frank description of how F-16 and Jaguar
> aircraft targeted two different convoys near the
> town of Djakovica.
>
> Brigadier General Dan Leaf gave a detailed account
> of last Wednesday's tragedy, using video imagery
> from aircraft and a transcript of pilots' radio
> conversations.
>
> The flight-suited general, who has flown many
> combat missions over Yugoslavia, said he had spent
> five days assembling and analysing the evidence of
> the day Nato warplanes attacked two target areas in
> Kosovo, dropping nine 500lb laser-guided bombs. He
> said: "It is possible there were civilian casualties at
> both locations."
>
> The explanation did clear up some of the worst
> contradictions between Nato's first muddled
> account, the evidence produced by Serbian television
> and statements from refugees who survived the
> bombing.
>
> But the general was still unable to identify exactly
> how many civilian vehicles were hit by Nato planes,
> and how many casualties had been caused. "This is a
> very complicated scenario and we will never be able
> to establish all the exact details," he said.
>
> General Leaf also suggested that some of the
> destruction seen on Serbian television, and witnessed
> by bussed-in Western reporters, may have been
> caused by the Serbs themselves. "I cannot explain
> the bodies shown on Serb TV," he said. Belgrade
> claimed that Nato killed more than 80 ethnic
> Albanian refugees, though the journalists taken to the
> scene said many bodies appeared to have been killed
> by machine-guns or mortars. The general insisted
> the planes involved in the attack had used
> laser-guided bombs.
>
> The general accepted responsibility for some of the
> casualties and appealed for the public's
> understanding.
>
> "The world knows that battle is a complex, dynamic
> and demanding environment," he said. "For all our
> efforts, we will never be perfect. We don't claim to
> be perfect, we claim to be dedicated to do the best
> job possible."
>
> Nato's newest and fullest explanation of the convoy
> bombing raised fresh questions about air crews'
> ability to identify targets safely. Reports that pilots
> from RAF Harriers had warned that civilian vehicles
> were among one of the convoys have not been
> denied.
>
> One source said this information may have been sent
> to the airborne command and control centre rather
> than direct to the F-16 pilots involved in the attack,
> and that this fatal delay was one reason for the
> disaster.
>
> General Leaf admitted that on 14 April, Nato made
> two separate attacks on convoys. That explained the
> confusion over the release last week of a tape of a
> pilot's debriefing, produced by Nato, which referred
> only to one attack at 10.30am. That was north-west
> of Djakovica by an F-16 which had been ordered to
> find and attack enemy forces.
>
> The pilot saw "very graphic and very horrifying"
> evidence of burning villages, then watched figures
> leave one house, get into a vehicle and drive away.
> He concluded that the vehicle was involved in the
> attacks.
>
> He launched a laser-guided GBU-12 bomb, and
> called in a second aircraft. After a 10-minute
> reconnaissance, the second aircraft made a second
> attack on vehicles parked in a C-shaped farm
> courtyard. Yesterday Nato still insisted it was
> correct to target these vehicles.
>
> The second, more serious incident was south-east of
> Djakovica, where a very large convoy was spotted
> by another F-16 pilot. General Leaf said the "20
> vehicles were uniform in shape and colour. They
> were maintaining steady spacing and pace,
> characteristic of military movement".
>
> When the pilot consulted airborne command and
> control, he was told: "We just received word that
> this is a VJ [Yugoslav army] convoy". That attack
> began at 12.19 and was suspended at 12.58, after
> the command and control centre in Italy ordered
> new checks on the identity on the composition of
> the convoy.
>
> The attack was aborted when more sophisticated
> reconnaissance from an OA-10 aircraft revealed that
> there was a mix of civilian and military vehicles.
>
> General Leaf said he watched the video tape of the
> attack with the crews involved, and they agreed "it is
> possible these were tractor-type vehicles", but he
> added: "From the attack altitude, to the naked eye
> they appeared to be military vehicles."
>
> Six days of accusation and counter-claim: how
> the story of a tragic error unfolded
>
> Wednesday 14 April, 3.53pm: Belgrade claims Nato
> missiles hit a refugee convoy in Kosovo, killing 64
> people and wounding 20 in two attacks. 'We have no
> information about these reports,' says the Nato
> spokesman, Jamie Shea.
>
> Wednesday, 6.06pm: Nato sources unofficially admit
> their aircraft were in the area. By 7pm Nato says:
> 'We can confirm we attacked a military convoy in
> the area.' Jamie Shea later says: 'Nato doesn't attack
> civilian targets, full-stop.'
>
> Wednesday, 8.05pm: Tony Blair says: 'We cannot
> take at face value any claim made by the Serb
> authorities.' An hour later, the Pentagon says that
> there was an 'indication' that Serbs attacked the
> convoy.
>
> Thursday, 8am: Nato says civilian casualties may
> have occurred after planes attacked a convoy of
> vehicles. By 11am the Foreign Secretary, Robin
> Cook, says: 'It is not possible to guarantee there will
> be no civilian casualties.'
>
> Thursday, 12.30pm: Nato admits one of its planes
> mistakenly bombed a refugee convoy. By 2pm it
> gives details of a 'tragic accident' and plays a
> recorded interview with a US F-16 pilot. By Sunday,
> it says the recording 'may be unrelated'.
>
> Yesterday: Nato provides what it says is a full
> account of the bombing. It admits to 'intelligence
> failure' and provides graphic details to show its pilots
> were involved in numerous air strikes. Concedes
> there could have been civilian casualties.