The Rat Mladic arrested: now watch for the apologists and deniers

May 26, 2011 at 11:53 pm (apologists and collaborators, Chomsky, fascism, Jim D, serbia, stalinism, terror, thuggery, truth)

The war criminal and mass-muderer Ratko Mladic has, at long last been arrested. Justice has been delayed, but hopefully will now be done.

Meanwhile…

“…Countdown begins now for the Noam Chomsky article
daydreaming about Bush being deported to the Hague for trial, and saying
the entire Bosnian conflict is America’s fault -  posted by happyroach at 9:25 AM on May 26″

Readers may rest assured that Shiraz will be monitoring the inevitable apologists, revisionists and deniers, with hawk-like vigilance, and keeping you posted.

42 Comments

  1. charliethechulo said,

  2. Mr Jolly not Jelly said,

    there will probably be a comment is fuckking werthless piece of shit by that piece of shit neil Clark very soon in the gUaRDIAn.

  3. Mr Jolly not Jelly said,

    you shud also wotch out for the stinking corpses that are the anti-muslim, culture-warrior racist types of scum as well — you know the sort — they usually post and comment at the likes of Hp Sauce and that.

  4. Lee said,

    So, an old man who was merely helping to defend his country from foreign aggressors is arrested because the current Serbian regime now wants to join the EU.

    Srebenica was only a tiny part of the 1300 year old conflict between supremacist Islam and the rest of the world.

  5. Mr Jolly not Jelly said,

    just 30 supporters of Ratko Mladic, gathered in central Belgrade to protest his arrest on Thursday.

    In a note posted on YouTube with his video of the small band of “hooligans” in Republic Square, Mr. Sekeljic — a Serbian blogger who contributes to the Web site of B92, a Serbian broadcaster — explained that they drunkenly sang “racist” folk songs extolling Serb nationalism. He added that “although the scene is unpleasant,” he was glad that there was no sign of the serious unrest “the Western media feared.”

  6. Mr Jolly not Jelly said,

    that Lee cuernT is a spamming cunTbot — just cutting and pasting the same green ink scrawl shite in blerggh’s comment white space all over the shop. He shuD be killed.

  7. tyresome points said,

    In latest news, Matthew Hopkins condemns AWL for obsessive anti-communism.

  8. Mick Woods said,

    Lee enriched the debate with both the following….
    “So, an old man who was merely helping to defend his country from foreign aggressors is arrested because the current Serbian regime now wants to join the EU.”
    No he was collaborating with a foreign power to carve up his country- he was a Bosnian.

    “Srebenica was only a tiny part of the 1300 year old conflict between supremacist Islam and the rest of the world.”
    Is it a Eustonite or an EDL’er? Can you tell the difference? Bosnia was a multi-ethnic state where the various population groups got along reasonably well over several hundred years until it was destroyed by Serb and Croat secessionists and fascists.
    If I came out with some bollocks like the holocaust being just one incident in the 2000 year Jewish Conspiracy against christianity you’d think I was a loony or a fascist…. I hope.

  9. sackcloth and ashes said,

    ‘So, an old man who was merely helping to defend his country from foreign aggressors is arrested because the current Serbian regime now wants to join the EU’.

    I wasn’t aware that Bosnian Muslims were ‘foreign aggressors’. Thanks Lee. Can you lick my windows clean as well?

    ‘Srebenica was only a tiny part of the 1300 year old conflict between supremacist Islam and the rest of the world’.

    And your parents were brother and sister.

  10. Lee said,

    I’d argue that Bosnian Muslims are foreign aggressors as the descendants of the imperialistic Ottomans, but that’s open to interpretation…howewer, NATO were foreign aggressors – you can’t deny that point.

    Oh, and by the way, there’s no need to be obnoxious – it adds nothing to your argument.

  11. sackcloth and ashes said,

    ‘Is it a Eustonite or an EDL’er? Can you tell the difference?’

    Seeing as most Eustonites backed the Bosnian cause when the far left aligned with the Tories, and were prepared to hand over BIH to Milosevic and his proxies, I’d say the answer is ‘Yes’.

    • Mick Woods said,

      Quite right sackcloth- I expressed myself badly in my last post by failing to distinguish between the original Eustonites, many of whom were sincere but IMO misguided and the post 9/11 remnants who hang out at places like HP who are mostly islamophobes and OTT zionists.

      • sackcloth and ashes said,

        There are unfortunately some Islamophobes on HP who take advantage of the open comments policy. Their rancid views are not those of the mainstream posters (despite claims to the contrary by the so-called ‘Socialist Unity’ crowd), and for my part I give them grief whenever I can.

      • socialrepublican said,

        No, S & A. That will no longer cut it. There is a culture of Neo-Birtherism at HP, above and below the line that through sins of omission and comission the writers have nurtured.

        Compare the responce by the OP writers to fuckwits lefties like Skidders, where there is a chance to bash the left and when Evan, or Trespasser or AOS or Alcuin or Nick SA or certain Ultra Zionists advocate muderousness towards Muslims or their personal bete noire. If they came from the left, they would find Brownie, Gene, Alex and other OPs all over them and would pobably be banned sharpest.

        This is, in some, masochism and in others, Libby for instance, “plain speaking, common sense blah blah blah”. Hasan and yourself and some others might well patrol the boxes but you really don’t get any meaningful support. fro the OPs. They feed the Neo-Birthers a constant diet to embolden their worldview, they choose a editorial line that keeps these individuals coming back. They might think it is a cost of doing business thing but now it is their only business.

        This has always been the case at HP, but

  12. modernityblog said,

    As expected, but in a round about way, an American “It happened in Europe, let’s forget about it, wasn’t important for us” type of attitude:

    “(2) This European fixation on apprehending Mladic was the ultimate exercise in “Looking Backward, not Forward.” His accused crimes took place more than 15 years ago in a war that has been over for more than a decade. He’s now 75 years old, completely stripped of any remnants of power, and reportedly in ill health (“he appeared disoriented and tired, and [] one of his hands appeared to be paralyzed, possibly because of a stroke”). Moreover, his trial is certain to spawn extreme divisiveness, potentially opening up still-sensitive wounds in that region, given that — like Slobodan Milosevic, whose arrest sparked widespread Serbian anger — Mladic is still considered a hero by many Serbian nationalists:”

    http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/05/27/mladic/index.html

  13. Jim Denham said,

    Noam Chomsky (‘Failed States’, Penguin, 2006):
    “It is perhaps worth mentioning an astonishing justification for the bombing contrived by some of its supporters, though not put forward by British and American authorities: that the NATO attack was justified by the crimes at Srebrenica, or Bosnia generally. Suppose we try to take the argument seriously. If we do, it is easy to show that the same humanitarians should have been calling even more stridently for the bombing of Washington and London. To metion just the most obvious reasons, as the war drums were beating over Kosovo in early 1999, Indonesia began to escalate its crimes in East Timor. Its record in early 1999 waas far more criminal than anything reported from Kosovo, even putting aside the fact that this was illegally occupied territory. Furthermore, the Indonesian military openly announced that much worse would come unless the Timorese agreed to annexation by indonesia in an August referendum – and they lived up to their word. Their earlier crimes in Easdt Timor go vastly beyond Srebrenica or anything plausibly attributed to Serbia. And crucially, these crimes, approaching true genocide, were supported throughout by the United States and Britain (also France and others), continuing right through the atrocities of August-September 1999, which finally aroused sufficient protest that Clinton called off the hounds. The conclusion follows at once, and suffices to reveal the shocking immorality of the Srebrenica excuse for bombing.”

    Condensed version: OVER THERE! OVER THERE!

  14. sackcloth and ashes said,

    http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20060425.htm

    NC: If you look at the coverage, for example there was one famous incident which has completely reshaped the Western opinion and that was the photograph of the thin man behind the barb-wire.

    DM: A fraudulent photograph, as it turned out.

    NC: You remember. The thin men behind the barb-wire so that was Auschwitz and ‘we can’t have Auschwitz again.’ The intellectuals went crazy and the French were posturing on television and the usual antics. Well, you know, it was investigated and carefully investigated. In fact it was investigated by the leading Western specialist on the topic, Philip Knightly, who is a highly respected media analyst and his specialty is photo journalism, probably the most famous Western and most respected Western analyst in this. He did a detailed analysis of it. And he determined that it was probably the reporters who were behind the barb-wire, and the place was ugly, but it was a refugee camp, I mean, people could leave if they wanted and, near the thin man was a fat man and so on, well and there was one tiny newspaper in England, probably three people, called LM which ran a critique of this, and the British (who haven’t a slightest concept of freedom of speech, that is a total fraud)…a major corporation, ITN, a big media corporation had publicized this, so the corporation sued the tiny newspaper for lible. Now the British lible laws were absolutely atrocious. The person accused has to prove that the, what he’s reporting is not done in malice and he can’t prove that. So and in fact when you have a huge corporation with batteries of lawyers and so on, carrying out a suit against the three people in the office, who probably don’t have the pocket-money, it’s obvious what is going to happen. Especially under these grotesque lible laws.

    So yes, they were able to prove the little newspaper…and couldn’t prove it wasn’t done out of malice, they were put out of business. There was just euphoria in the left liberal British press. You’ve read The Guardian and The Observer, they thought it was wonderful.

    Chomsky denied that Year Zero was happening in Cambodia. Nearly thirty years later, he was a genocide denier over Bosnia.

    An utter shit. To paraphrase a line from a recent film, Chomsky is what happened when a shit took a shit.

    • Santa said,

      But he slipped, if you watch interview (on YouTube) “Noam Chomsky on Serbian Death Camps” at 0:12 (more precisely from 0:11 to 0:13) said:
      “(…) tin man in the CONCEN….. aaagh… behind barbwire (…)”.

      So, it was the concentration camp after all !!!
      Now, lets stop for the second and think through – why the hell this, once brilliant intellectual now trapped in his own “double-blackmail”, as Žižek calls it, lies in such a shameless fashion ?!

  15. Marx against intervention said,

    Do you think Bush and Blair as well as Mladic should be tried for war crimes Jim?

    Or do you think their role in Iraq was progressive?

    Seems you’re the one trying a backdoor defence of your wider politics here…

    • Santa said,

      Seems to me that many would be very happy to watch (on TV of course) our fellow men, people across the globe get slaughtered by all sorts of maniacs, only because they don’t wish “these capitalist” take advantage of that and intervene !?

  16. holy joe said,

    “Oh, and by the way, there’s no need to be obnoxious – it adds nothing to your argument”
    I think you’ll find that if Jim, Jelly, Sackcloth and co have one defining political goal, it would be the refutation of that particular point..

  17. Jim Denham said,

    AgainstMarxism: As is well known, I (and the organisation I belong to, the AWL) opposed the Iraq war. Blair and Bush deserve to be brought to justice for many, many crimes against the working class (including, but not limited to, “war crimes,” though *not* in connection with Bosnia).

    But that ain’t going to happen this side of the revolution. Is that an argument for opposing the prosecution of the likes of Mladic?

    You seem to be edging dangerously close to a Chomskyite revisionist/apologist position, AgainstMarxism.

  18. Marx against intervention said,

    So do you support putting Bush and Blair on trial for war crimes at the Hague alongside Mladic, Jim? And if you do – why do you support the retention of US-led troops in Iraq and Afghanistan? You oppose the war crimes but support the war? A curious position.

    My position is clear – I support trying Mladic and Blair. Yours is rather unclear. You try to support imperialism in the abstract as a progressive force, citing examples like the colonisation of India and the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan as lesser evils, and yet demur from openly owning up to bing pro-war.

    Chomsky will always be worthy of praise for his expose of US-armed and funded and UK-backed genocide in East Timor. His massive work on that issue never seems to get attention here. Curious…

  19. Jim Denham said,

    AgainstMarxism: read what I said at #17.

    Where have I ever supported “the occupations of Iraq and Afghanisatn as lesser evils”???? Just one single, solitary quote, please.

    My question to you is: given that Blair is *not* going to be put on trial for *anything* this side of the socialist revolution, do you support bringing Mladic to justice here and now?

  20. Marx against intervention said,

    Jim you say you support the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan as progressive hisorically. Ditto for the colonisation of India. A bit hard to do this without supporting ‘our’ troops.
    Why can’t Blair be brought to trial?
    Pinochet was almost brought to trial.
    Blair could be arrested in a country which took a stand against war crimes after visiting and not expecting it.
    Would you support this?
    I support Mladic going on trial.
    You seem to support Blair going on trial – in the abstract. Just as you oppose the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan in the abstract, in an ideal world, but oppose ending them in practice.

  21. Jim Denham said,

    Against Marxism says: “Jim you say you support the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan as progressive hisorically”

    Where do I say that?

    And while you’re at it, try answering my question to you at the end of #19.

  22. Trotsky against intervention said,

    I support bringin Mladic to justice here and now.
    Do you support bringing the war criminals Blair and Bush to justice here and now?
    In Sweden I underatand some lawyers have talked of trying to get him arrested under national laws which allow the arrest of war criminals from other nations. Would you support such an arrest?
    And logically if you oppose Blair’s invasion as an Iraq as a war crime you want US-led troops to leave, right?
    And if you think Blair’s a war criminal you would never have campaigned for his reelection would you?
    Hmmm…

    It seems like justice has to wait under after the socialist revolution for the imperialist leaders of the West – because until then they’re a lesser evil, along with imperialism itself, in regions like the Middle East…

  23. Jim Denham said,

    AgainstTrotsky

    You still haven’t given me a quote about where I’m supposed to have supported the invasion and /or occupation of Iraq. You can’t because there isn’t one. And there isn’t one because I didn’t.

    But now I’ve finally extracted a straight answer from you over Mladic, I’ll give you one in return:

    YES (re Blair and Bush);

    I think the invasion of Iraq was wrong for a range of reasons and I opposed it and marched against it. I do not believe it was a “war crime” in and of itself and I do not fetishise the slogan “troops out NOW” in Iraq or anywhere else.

    And like most Marxist socialists in Britain for the last 90 years I’m generally in favour of a class vote for Labour – the crimes of Blair (not just, or even mainly, “war crimes”) nototwithstanding.

  24. Emma Goldman said,

    Wasn’t Mladic just copying what Trotsky did at Kronstadt?

  25. holy joe said,

    “As is well known, I (and the organisation I belong to, the AWL) opposed the Iraq war”
    Yes, given your manner of displaying this opposition, by constantly savagely attacking all those who also opposed it as scabs, wankers, tossers, appeasers, apologists etc, while lavishing those who supported it, like Hitchens and Geras, with the most flowery praise, might have led to some confusion. Of course, maybe you think that, unlike the Libyan conflict, the Iraq war wasnt’ such a big thing and therefore a little disagreement is valid.

  26. Jim Denham said,

    Holy One: “scabs, wankers, tossers, appeasers, apologists”… I don’t recall using any of those words about anyone during the Iraq war, even though I strongly disagreed with many of the arguments being used by people like the Stop The War Coalition crowd. Come to think of it, I may have called Galloway a “scab” over his scabbing on the Iraqi trade union movement (the Abdullah Muhsin “quisling” affair). But other than that, I didn’t use such terminology over Iraq.

    I think you’re confusing Iraq and Libya (where I most certainly *have* used those words). But then, specifics and details are not the strong suit of many “anti-impewialists”.

  27. Trotsky against intervention said,

    Jim, you have argued on this very blog against the withdrawal of US and Uk forces from Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Rather curious though have Jim can give political support to one war criminal (eg Blair, by campaigning for an unrepentant defender of the war like Blairite Oona King) and then condemn those who support another (Mladic).

  28. Trotsky against intervention said,

    ‘lavishing those who supported it, like Hitchens and Geras, with the most flowery praise’

    Yeah, funny how they don’t count as scabs for defending a war crime. In fact they’re exemplary figures…

  29. Jim Denham said,

    AgainstTrotskyism: “Yeah, funny how they don’t count as scabs for defending a war crime. In fact they’re exemplary figures…”

    Ehhh…you’ve simply lost me now, AgainstTrotskyism..

    Send me another argument to destroy, please. I’m only too happy to educate you, but I can only do that if you’re coherent and ask sensible questions..

  30. holy joe said,

    ” don’t recall using any of those words about anyone during the Iraq war, even though I strongly disagreed with many of the arguments being used by people like the Stop The War Coalition crowd.”
    Yes, my point was that you never have, and never would, use such terms to describe those who enthusiastically supported the Iraq war like Hitchens and Geras. In fact you treat them with utter reverence, which, were I given to your approach to political analysis, I might project as an indication of what your “objective” position on Iraq was.
    And incidentally I do speak with an effete lisp and can’t pronounce my “r”s properly, so I find your references to “anti-impewialists” immensely hurtful.

  31. Mr Jolly not Jelly said,

    WELL SED socialrepublican. altough too gentle in your argument.

    I note that the cunt sashcloth and bashes hasn’t come back at you. that is because he is a coward and a cunt. A lickpittal piece of shit to be sure.

  32. maxdunbar said,

    Why are we always held responsible for the shit in Harry’s Place comment boxes?

    It seems they get the anti-Muslim bigots, we get the totalitarian-left scum

  33. socialrepublican said,

    @Will

    Notices too that the actual thread where HP discuss Mladic’s arrest is another opportunity to bash the leftist denialist and ignore the far more developed and manifest rightest kind. Richard Franos, undeniable a crank, lasted a few weeks with his genocide denialist from the “left”, in somparison, the Neo-birthers are ball-cupped and left unanswered, their ideology tacitly legitimised by the near total silence of the OP writers.

    The rightist mythology of the Balkan wars and it’s wider frame of approaching Eurabia is now mainstream in the states and in several EU countries. The major parties of the nationalist right in the UK hold it in various forms (UKIP, BNP, the EDL street armies, the some of the Libertarian wing of the Tories party). This is a growing phenomena within an incresingly popular and radicalised Nationalism, a pre-emptive example of mass violence against a domestic other to be excused and applauded.

    But no, to HP what this is really about is more self abasement before their Neo-birther audience and those oh so delicious Tory wits about those bloody lefties.

    Thing is Skidders and other Swuppies, denies or at least fetes and provides cover to deniers of these examples of genocide, in part to defend the wider narrative of omi-US control of all history and the subsequent manicheanism and in part to irritate decents and un-decents who aren’t so flippant. The true believers in Slobbo’s brand of “purified” Socialism are widely held as cranks. I mean, Neil Clark?

    The point is not to give away any ground to their conceived enemies i.e. other lefties and to defend the alt narrative out of the denialist communites of the left, not because they are right but because they just differ somehow from the hegomon which , in this case, pretty much the truth. It is childish, disgusting but nevertheless shallow.

    The rightist denialists to which HP accomodate believe because a central tenent of the faith is supported by the lie that “It was all the Muslims fault”, because “self defence” is neccesary. For them, this deceit is a major historical event that validates their poison, just as the Salafist version of the Wars of Succession validates the militant Islamist worldview of grand historical struggle

    I’m perfectly willing (as if anyone cares) to accept that S&A either has not seen my comment or just doesn’t think it’s weird syntax doesn’t merit an answer. I would just add why have people like Short Order Chef, Mod, Marko and the Spitoon writers won’t touch HP with a barge pole?

    • modernityblog said,

      Soc Rep,

      “why have people like Short Order Chef, Mod, Marko and the Spitoon writers won’t touch HP with a barge pole?”
      the
      Good question, and you are the first to ask it.

      Basically, I got very,very tired of the racism in HP’s comments boxes and the almost obsessive fixation with “scary Muslims”.

      My remonstrations were ignored, so there was no use in hanging around to watch more Daily Mailism come out.

      I used to like HP for the variety, years back, but the whole tone changed and it was decidedly unhealthy, so I left.

      In truth, I’ve done that with a few sites.

      I don’t mind disagreements, I’ll even put up with a few tories (Edmund Standing for one), but there are lines I won’t cross.

      I don’t like or genuinely participate with those that push anti-Jewish racism (under any guise), SU blog, many more, etc, anti-Muslim bigotry (HP), have a tolerance for neofascists (CifWatch) or who’s comments boxes are littered with middle class cranks & misanthropes (Dave Osler’s)

      I am not sure if others will understand, but that’s my view.

      I will often visit sites I dislike, profoundly, but that’s research, not participation.

      I hope answers your question.

  34. Mr Jolly not Jelly said,

    here is a link to a Zizek essay from 1999 that is worth the few minutes it will take to read it all

    http://lacan.com/zizek-nato.htm

    “Threatened by Serbian nationalism, even Slovenian and Croatian nationalism preserved a respect for Titos Yugoslavia, in any case for its fundamental principle, that of the federation of equal constituent states with full sovereignty, including the right to secede. Whoever overlooks that, whoever reduces the war in Bosnia to a civil war between various “ethnic groups,” is already on the side of the Serbs. Because in no way was the difference between Milosevic and other national leaders only quantitative. No, Yugoslavia was not hovering on the edge, betrayed equally by all national “secessionists.” Its dissolution was much more a dialectical process. Those that “deserted” Yugoslavia were reacting to Serbian nationalism — that is, to those power groups that were endeavoring to liquidate Tito’s legacy. Thus the worst anti-Serbian nationalist stands closer to Tito’s legacy than the present Belgrade regime, which maintains itself, in the face of all “secessionists,” as the legitimate and legal successor of the former Yugoslavia.
    It Was Serbian Aggression Alone, and Not Ethnic Conflict, That Set off the War.
    It must be remembered above all that Tito constructed his federation in conscious opposition to pre-war Yugoslavia, which was based on the hegemony of the Serbs as the “founders of unity.” The Serbs were at that time the only state-building nation. After the Second World War, Tito wanted to replace this Serb-dominated Yugoslavia with a federal one, a free association of equal and sovereign states that would even have the right of secession. Milosevic’s grab for power was in contrast the attempt to rebuild pre-war Yugoslavia, and with it the hegemony of the Serbs. The various “secessionists” were reacting against this attempt at restoration. Their demands were anchored firmly in the principles of Tito’s Yugoslavia.
    All that yakking popular on the Left about the Ustasche symbols in Tudjman’s Croatia doesn’t change in the slightest that Serbian aggression against Bosnia in 1992 did not spring out of a conflict between ethnic groups. It was purely and simply the attack of Serb-dominated pre-war Yugoslavia against Tito’s post-war Yugoslavia.”

    • Mick Woods said,

      On the whole this is correct I think with the exclusion of the unsupportable ignoring of the rights of the very large non-slavic, Albanian minority in Jugoslavia. It is interesting that Mladic, via his son, is denying any involvement in the massacre which took place after Srbrenica. I could never understand why the serbs did this, it simply made no sense given the war was effectively over at this point and the belligerents were “tidying up” and creating the post-war entities which had been imposed by imperialism.
      Fx. operation storm was pretty svavge but pales into nothing compared with this massacre which was essentially meaningless. These people were pretty unpleasent but FFS they weren’t stupid.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 514 other followers

%d bloggers like this: