From: mayer@sono.uucp (Ron Mayer)
Subject: Re: Rape After Rape After Rape and Propoganda
Followup-To: alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,alt.discrimination
Organization: Acuson; Mountain View, California
	<BzGoKJ.6wt@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 05:10:27 GMT



Disclaimer: I think the Serbian government is incredably evil, and
would like to see it fall, so please don't see this posting as
sympathizing with the Serbian army.

In article <BzGoKJ.6wt@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk> dam@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (David Morning) writes:
>>> [horrendously disgusting rape stories from Serbia]
>> [someone pointed out that much of the posting was probably propoganda]
>
> Are you saying its untrue, or just closing your eyes and ears?

     "Truth is the first casualty of war." 

The point is that governments often resort to various extremely
dramatic reports of questionable credibility to further their political
agendas.  It's simply such a good strategy for a waring country to
spread rumors about how evil his opponent is, that we should not
discount the possibility that outrageous stories of torture may be
exaggerated or outright lies.

When hearing extremely dramatic stories like the one just posted, keep
in mind that those accused are just average people like any other
soldier.  If it sounds plausible that an average person could commit a
similar action in the similar circumstance, then yes, it's probably
true.  If not, its probably exaggerated.

Perhaps the best test would be to ask is:
        Do you think your own country's soldiers would
        commit such an act in a similar situation?
Below I'll try applying this test to a couple pieces of suspected
propoganda which were recently used by a relatively reputable
government, and see how well this test separates truth from propoganda
by comparing it's results with information about the accusations made
available when the propoganda was no longer of any use.


I'm not denying that the Serbs have been raping civilians.  Soldiers
apparently do this when invading other countries.  Apparently some
members of the US military did this in Viet Nam.  This does not justify
the actions, but simply points out that it is a credible accusation.

But do I believe that "When she was left alone, she asked if she
could breast-feed the baby.  Then a Chetnik cut the child's head off
with a knife.  He gave the bloody head to the mother."?  No, I'd
suspect that no matter what an average soldier has been trained to
do, he would not commit such an action.

Admittedly the Serbian army, like any army, may have a few psychopaths
who would commit such an act; and that the worst cases would be those
used for propaganda; but this should be blamed on the individual
soldier and not used as a justification for a war. 

I oppose the Serbian government primarily because I see no reason why
Serbia has a right to govern the the other states such as Slovenia,
Croatia, etc, who have distinct cultures and who do not want to be
governed by Serbia; and because of it's oppressive attitudes to it's
racial minorities.  I wouldn't really mind if we leveled their army
much like we did to Iraq's (actually I haven't studied the issues here
enough to know if I could really support such devastation, but what
I've read so far suggests that it could be at least as just a war.)
IMHO the sensationalistic propaganda just detracts from the more
legitimate justifications for a war.



One good example of accusations of extreme violence being used to
convince a country's people to support a war is the claim that Iraq
took "312 babies" in a hospital and ``They took the babies out of the
incubators and left the babies on the cold floor to die.  It was
horrifying.''

Sick.  But is it all true, is it partially true, or is it just
propoganda?  Applying the test I proposed above above: "Would our
average soldier dump hundreds of babies out of incubators?".  No, that
would be really sick.  "Would our soldiers occupy hospitals and
preferentially use them for their own needs?"  Probably.  This gets
pretty close to what apparently actually happened in this case.

People who kept up with the story eventually learned that a) the
hospital didn't have the close to the capacity for 300 babies in
incubators, b) the doctor to whom the report was attributed to denied
saying anything about 312 babies, and had no ideas of the causes of
death of the dead babies that he saw, c) a senior staff member who left
the hospital stated that no incubators had been taken, and d) there is
no eyewitness or testimony sustaining the charges.



Another example for this test on is change in our government's
position on whether or not Sadam Hussein used chemical weapons on the
Kurds.  Due to the media's propoganda before the gulf war, everyone
"knows" that Sadam Hussein was "the next Hittler" who "used chemical
weapons on his own people and the Kurdish minority".  Again, how much
of this should we believe.

Using the same test: "Would our government oppress relatively large
ethnic groups for national security reasons?"  Yes, as we did to many
japanese people in WWII.  "Would our military kill a bunch of our
citizens who fighting for autonomy from our government?"  Yes, as we
did in the civil war.  "Would we use chemical weapons in a war?"  Yes,
like like England's W. Churchill who said "I am strongly in favour of
using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes" when asked if chemical
weapons could be used "against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment."
"Would our military use chemical weapons against our own people?"
Probably not, way too messy.

Do I believe Iraq's government was oppressing the Kurdish minority?  Yes.
Do I believe Iraqi soldiers killed many of them due to the fact that they
were striving for autonomy?  Yes.   Do I believe the Iraqi military
used chemical weapons in it's war with Iran?  Yes.   Do I believe
Sadam Hussein committed every single atrocity that he was accused of?  No.

How about the specific case of chemical weapons against the Kurds?
For that answer I'll refer you to reports from our own military:

}AP-Iraq-ChemicalWeapons 12-17 0685
}By JOAN MOWER
}
}WASHINGTON (AP) - A military study says the United States had no
}conclusive evidence when it accused Iraq of using chemical weapons
}against its Kurdish minority in September 1988.
}
}The report, written by three analysts at the U.S. Army War College
}before Iraq invaded Kuwait on Aug. 2, also says that ``contrary to
}general belief, Iraq's rulers enjoy significant popular support.''
}
} [...]
}
}The war college report, which was declassified and released to the
}public in the summer, raises questions about whether Saddam used
}chemical weapons against the Kurdish minority in Iraq in fall 1988.
}
}``Having looked at all of the evidence that was available to us, we
}find it impossible to confirm the State Department's claim that gas
}was used in this instance,'' the authors said.
}
}``To begin with, there were never any victims produced. International
}relief organizations who examined the Kurds ... failed to discover
}any,'' the report said. It said the claims rest solely on testimony of
}the Kurds, who have long sought autonomy from Iraq.
}
}AP-NY-12-17-90 0115EST

    Ron Mayer
    sun!sono!mayer

  "You can't make egg nog without nutmeg, and you some people say you
   can't have Christmas without an egg nog.  The Russians were trying
   to steal Christmas.  We stopped them."
      - A US Army Helicopter pilot justifying our action in Grenada
        [Grenada produces much of the world's nutmeg.]
        Quoted in "An_American_Life", autobiography of:
       Ronald Reagan.
Xref: sparky alt.activism:19550 bit.listserv.catholic:3361