« business as usual | Main | just don't go there »

August 01, 2006

Comments

Phil

But how many of the people in Britain who would have rejected his earlier opinions as disgraceful apologetics for Serbia now believe he has the definitive word on the attack at Khaim?

One wonders also how many of the people in Britain who hung on his every word wrt Serbia now think he's a disgraceful apologist for imperialism.

jamie

Yes, there is that isn't there? I notice that there isn't much about Gen MaKenzie at antiwar.com these days, not like when he was sticking up for Slobbo.

Paul Lyon

Since what Mackenzie said about Nasar Oric is both the truth (according to what I have seen) and also good reason for rejecting the claim that the massacre at Srebrinca was genocide rather than revenge killing, at least part of jaime's point here escapes me.

jamie

I wasn't commenting either way on the accuracy of Gen McKenzie's claims. It's just that here in the UK it's exactly the kind of people on the pro-war left who condemned him as an apologist then who are now swearing that he's an unimpeachable source.

Phil

rejecting the claim that the massacre at Srebrinca was genocide rather than revenge killing

In other words it was Lidice, not Auschwitz.

Paul Lyon

In other words it was Lidice, not Auschwitz.

Not quite a fair comparison: Lidice was occupation troops and a resistance, where the latter had killed a high-ranking official of the occupiers, whereas Srebrenica was part of a civil war.

Chris Bertram

I'm sorry, but Paul Lyon's apologetics for massacre here are on a par with the kind of Qana-denial that's going on on pro-Israeli blogs. The evidence against Oric has been tested in court and a verdict has been reached. It doesn't support the claim that MacKenzie makes that Oric was responsible for killings on a scale with the Srebrenica massacre. Moreover there's no legal contrast between genocide and revenge killing, a single act can be both.

Phil

Denial's nothing new. I've been following events in what used to be Yugoslavia for the last 25 years, and I've heard quite a bit of it along the way - I remember a Croatian friend swearing blind to me that Pavelic wasn't really a collaborator, Mihailovic was the real fascist, and so on.

The technique doesn't change. Whatever your side is supposed to have done, it never happened.
Or: it happened, but the other side did it.
Or: your side did do it, but it wasn't as bad as it's being made out.
Or: they did it, but they had good reason.
Or: they did it, but the other side did something worse.
Or if all else fails: they did it, and it was just as bad as it's being made out to be, but the specific description/analogy/metaphor being used by your opponent is invalid, so you win on points.

The only thing that's unusual about Srebrenica denial is the people doing it. We're all chetniks now, indeed.

Paul Lyon

``I'm sorry, but Paul Lyon's apologetics for massacre here are on a par with the kind of Qana-denial that's going on on pro-Israeli blogs.''

I wasn't offering apologetics for massacre. But I will take it, that, as you called it masscre and not genocide, you agree with my characterization. I don't want to see the former term debased, so that it loses its true meaning and becomes just another term for mass killing. What happened in Rwanda was genocide. What happened in Srebrenica was not.

Phil

What happened in Rwanda was genocide. What happened in Srebrenica was not.

The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia thought differently (as I'm sure you're aware). I'd be curious to know on what grounds you feel competent to challenge its ruling.

The comments to this entry are closed.

friends blogs

blobs

Blog powered by Typepad

my former home