So are you saying that all the proof of his atrocities are a complete farce ?


I said "the rights or wrongs" I didn't say that it was illegal. And if IRC, were not the British troops in Yugoslavia on behalf of NATO ? As far as I can remember, the British had no "active" part in that war at all.

Like I have already stated, I detest Blair, but he's not a man hell bent on genocide, which Milosevic was... He even admitted it at one stage. I don't see any reports of British troops carrying out "Ethnic Cleansing" in Afghanistan or Iraq. So if I were you I'd be making that appointment PDQ...

Certainly. The free press requires the liberty to go about their job unhindered to gather all the relevant facts. But The Guardian being writen by left wing lunatics who think they know best for everyone, seek to impose their views on others, restricting the personal and economic freedom which they themselves require to function.

So can you provide me with any proof that they did occur? I have posted a link site with EXTENSIVE proof of documented articles, showing how the usual propaganda was used to turn Milosovic into the next 'Hitler' (this term usage was extensive in many tabloid articles at the begining of 1999), saying that he ate babies and exterminated muslims.

Most, if not all of the reporting at the time showing so called 'atroctites' has been proven to be at best, wildly exagerated, and at worst damn lies. See IAC website that I posted a link to for further details.

So you were talking morally? As far as i am aware under international law, illegal has more importance than 'rights and wrongs'

I never said that the British were at war in Yugoslavia. But to expand on your point, using NATO rather than US/Brit forces was simply a way of creating an illusion that there was an alliance in force. It was a method being tested for future use - unfortunatley for US/Britain, the French weren't too happy to go along with the latest excapades.



Source please?

Neither do I. But there was the carpet bombing of Afghanistan, killing thousands of civillians. Intentional targeting of civilians in Yugoslavis and Afghanistan.

You could even call the genocide of the Kurds by the Turks British assissted.
Oops, hang on just one minute, thats not genocide because we're freinds with Turkey.

Good job you're not me then, isn't it? Maybe try reading between the lines, and look just a little outside the box. You will find enlightenment Mr. Jelster.

Hahahahaha!! Classic, I think the truth comes out a little here - left wing being the dirty word.

I take it that you can backup your claims about the Guardian? Or maybe even dispute a single article that has been printed within?

Jordan... You have in the past ojected to my stroppiness and to that end I do think that you are out of order telling akbar..."don't be idiotic"


Just my opinion of course. :?

I don't like the Guardian either, largely because they cannot spell.

How in the world does a newspaper "impose its views" on anyone? Do you have to read it?

* Checks Helens post for spelling/grammatical errors * :wink:

I like the Guardian, it adds another viewpoint and helps create balance.

What I do find odd is that akbarhussain has posted continually just in one political thread and nowehere else. Does he actually own an SV? Or even any bike? :-k


.

Jordan did say that the writers seek to impose their views. Of course, the newspaper itself is incapable of imposition.

At my uni, The Guardian was always free in the union shop. That's because very few people would buy it. And that's generally because the standard of writing was poor. I don't know if it still is poor, I haven't read it for seven years.