> Of course this has nothing to do with the fact that NATO aircraft were
> engaged in mass bombing, often 24hrs a day, with an assortment of
> weapons, probably including napalm, which despite being banned in 1977
> was used to cruel effect in Iraq in 1991.
>
> NATO made vast numbers of unsubstantiated accusations during the
> campaign, because these were presented in a formal, well presented PR
> forum, with kind assistance from ITN, BBC, CNN, the public were by and
> large bound to beleive them. These media companies handed over free of
> charge, vast amounts of air time, often on NATO terms at times NATO
> dictated. In a free society equal time would have been allocated to
> NATO's critics.
>
> Recall the claim that Ibrahim Rugova was dead ? A lie
> Recall the claim that the Serbs bombed a refugee convoy ? A lie
> Recall the initial denial about the Chinese Embassy? A lie
> Recall the claim about only military targets? A lie
> Recall the claim about 700 bodies dumped in a well? A lie
> Recall the promise that no TV stations would be attacked? A lie
>
> You and other non thinkers, are only too willing to uncritically
> accept NATO's "explanation" for the burnt buildings and mass refugee
> columns.
>
> NATO being run by western imperialist powers, has no monopoly on
> truth. NATO is comprised of the very same powers and institutions that
> supplied arms to Indonesia and Iraq whilst they were at the height of
> their crimes.
>
> Whilst Suharto was encouraging the genocide of East Timorese, British
> Aerospace, the SAS and many other western bodies, were happily
> "assisting" the regime, yet constantly denied any complicity.
>
> The same journalists and commentators that were ostracised for
> publicising this some 20 yrs ago, are right now condeming NATO, yet
> despite their obvious track record, you`d prefer to side with the
> liars.
>
> Very curious.
>
> You beleive NATO if it makes your life easier.
>
> Hugh