NATO's behavior in these cases has been consistent, and follows this basic sequence:
1) outright denials
2) claiming that Serb forces were operating in the area, or blaming the Serbs outright
3) being forced to admit that this was not the case, and saying that "we're still investigating at this time"
4) admitting some culpability, but claiming that the target was a legitimate military target.
We then branch off into:
5) claims that "human shields" were involved, or
6) pure stonewalling (i.e. refusal to provide any further info), or
7) grudging admissions of guilt, with a token expression of "regret" followed immediately by the statement that it's all Milosevic's fault.

>Alan wrote:

It would have been easy to depict those occurences as 'serb manipulations' and insinuate the the Serbs themselves have bombed their own civilians. This is the pathetic logic used by some in this very NG at each newly discovered massacre site in Kosovo. It has not been Nato's stance, although Nato badly needs public support for its operations.

>John wrote

Your statement is incredibly ironic, given what actually did happen. NATO did EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING--claiming that the Serbs had shelled their own people--with regard to the bombing of downtown Pristina, the attack on the Albanian refugee column, the destruction of the passenger train on the railway bridge, the cluster bombing of Albanians in Korisa, etc, etc, etc. Did you really miss these performances, or are you so intent on exonerating NATO that you've put them out of your mind?

>Alan wrote
Furthermore, the news media in Nato countries have never failed to report Serbia's reports on damages caused to civilians.

>John wrote

Just like they do not fail today to show the distress of Serb civilians fleeing Kosovo or KLA militia behaving like......Serb paramilitaries.

>John wrote

The emphasis placed on these stories comes nowhere near the sensational coverage given to allegations of ethnic cleansing and atrocities by the Serbs during the bombing. Personally, I've seen very little coverage of the KLA's violence either now or before the war began.

>Alan wrote

Due to the absence of free press coverage in Serbia during the bombing, we have in fact been saturated with Serb controlled coverage from the ground.

> John wrote

Yes, you were told it was "Serb controlled", thereby making it seem as though it had been heavily censored. On the other hand, "NATO controlled" reports were passed on to us without any such labels.

>Alan wrote

The only uncensored images and reports we got were those showing the refugees pouring into Macedonia, Albania and Montenegro. There has hardly been a day in that period where some Serb official or another did not show on various networks to defend the Serbian positions.

> John wrote

wall of suspicion has (of course) been extended to the War Crimes Tribunal, preemptively deriding any conclusion that UN sponsored organisation might come to.

>John wrote

I choose to put my confidence in our democratic institutions, and remain as vigilant as I can to prevent those institutions from being squatted by criminals, thieves and liars.

> John wrote

You and I can do very little to prevent it.

>Alan wrote

This is the logic that keeps WWII revisionnists ticking: "it is not because millions of testimonies have been recorded and not because the winning side shows images and records from extermination camps that such extermination has taken place".... Will you personally be in the camp of the revisionnists after all this is over, documented, prosecuted and judged ?

> John wrote