Forum

profile |  register |  members |  groups |  faq |  search  login

Some posts submitted to Oliver Kamm's blog but not approved

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> your letters
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
themaras



Joined: 21 Jan 2004
Posts: 12
Location: Oxford, UK

Post Post subject: Some posts submitted to Oliver Kamm's blog but not approved Reply with quote

In the "Balkans deniers" comment section
-------------------------------------

Daniel Simpson: Is there
Quote:
well-documented evidence in the public domain at the time of writing
that proves that 8000 were executed? The Judgement itself makes no such claim. Where are we to look for it?

What H&P set out to do was not to prove that "8000 were not murdered". Their expertise is in media analysis. They set out to show that the claim of 8000 executions is supported by propagandists who have "a dog in the fight" despite the nuances of the evidence, while at the same time the violent deaths of others (those that cannot serve propaganda purposes or even ran counter to the desired conclusion) are ignored. It is not, in other words, just a glitch or a coincidence that we are not having this discussion about the Krajina victims (and who minimises and downplays their suffering), it is what one would expect of a well-funded, politically powerful propaganda structure tasked with an important mission.
---------------------------

Mr Kamm points to a Neil Clark article and then says :
Quote:
he stated the number of victims at Srebrenica as "between 2,000 and 4,000 men and boys.

The actual quote from Clark's article is:
Quote:
In the case of the worst massacre with which Milosevic has been accused of complicity - of between 2,000 and 4,000 men and boys in Srebrenica in 1995.

Some people may not see a difference between what Clark wrote and what Mr Kamm said he wrote. I do. It is the difference between being killed and being massacred.

In the case of official enemies' crimes, the difference is always overlooked as if it wasn't there. In the case where the killing is done by our forces or our allies, endless media inches are devoted to the subtle differences between the two and we are all educated in the variety of apparently lawful, very regrettable but always repeated, ways that civilians' lives can be snuffed out in a war zone.
Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:57 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
themaras



Joined: 21 Jan 2004
Posts: 12
Location: Oxford, UK

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

The second one of the two above has now been approved.
Tue Dec 08, 2009 4:14 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
themaras



Joined: 21 Jan 2004
Posts: 12
Location: Oxford, UK

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Another one waiting for approval in Balkans deniers
-----------------------

Geschichte, I am not about to close down an avenue of rational enquiry just because someone, somewhere misused it. If one were to go down that road, where would one stop? On Clark's views, we are all welcome to quote him accurately and criticise what he actually said.

Mr Kamm, since you bring up the subject of aggression, would you welcome an advisory opinion from the ICJ on whether the UK was the aggressor in 2003?
Tue Dec 08, 2009 4:16 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
themaras



Joined: 21 Jan 2004
Posts: 12
Location: Oxford, UK

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Another one waiting for approval in Balkans deniers
-----------------------

If I may respond to Hasan Prishtina's comment that
Quote:
that the deaths of the "2000 to 4000 men and boys" constitute, in Mr Tsikas's terms, "killing" rather than "massacre."


I can't understand how you deduced this. It's quite clear that Clark calls those deaths a massacre. It's equally clear that I have called those deaths a massacre, a hideous war crime, a crime against humanity and strong evidence of a genocide operation.

What I pointed out was that a Clark claim that 2000 to 4000 people were massacred was turned, by Mr Kamm, into a claim that only that many people were killed, irrespective of the circumstances. Clark may well believe that the total death toll is not more than 4000 (we can ask him) but that specific quote cannot be used to support that without further clarification.
Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:13 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
themaras



Joined: 21 Jan 2004
Posts: 12
Location: Oxford, UK

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

I now get a funny pop-up saying "can't accept this data". so I emailed Kamm

Now approved
---------------------

Ian Cresswell says
Quote:
"this is how they avoid having to explain how they died if not murdered."


They have, explicitly. In places, they talk of (sourced) estimates of 2000 combat deaths to which they add the "8000 executions". Their simple point is that membership in lists, exhumation and identification does not amount to proof of execution.

Daniel writes :
Quote:
To be clear, the ICTY’s summary sheet says [10]: “The Tribunal has established beyond a reasonable doubt that the vast majority of those killed were not killed in combat, but were victims of executions.”


I have the full Krstic judgement in front of me. The phrase "vast majority" occurs a few times. The only occurrence in a relevant context is this passage:

Quote:
"Professor Brunborg testified that, conservatively estimated, a minimum of 7,475 persons from Srebrenica are stilllisted as missing, based on the cross-referencing of ICRC lists and other sources and that it is likely that the vast majority of these missing people are deceased. "


Furthermore, in para 80, we find this:

Quote:
However, as already noted, experts were able to conservatively determine that the minimum number of bodies in the graves exhumed was 2028. Although the Trial Chamber cannot dismiss the possibility that some of the exhumed bodies were killed in combat, it accepts that the majority of the victims were executed.


Allowing for subsequent finds, I cannot see how the phrase "vast majority" (as opposed to "majority") in the context of executions can be linked to the Krstic judgement and appear in the Outreach" document.

An interesting article by Geoffrey Robertson has appeared in the New Statesman. It details the Foreign Office's construction and management of a "line" to deny the Armenian genocide. Perhaps Mr Kamm will write on this or Prof Hoare will comment on whether this is equivalent to Holocaust denial.
Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:50 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> your letters All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2005 phpBB Group
    printer friendly
eXTReMe Tracker