Thursday, July 17, 2008
VERY UNPUBLISHED LETTER ON NATO VIOLATING THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF SERBS BY DISSECTING THEM
Dear Editor,
In April the Yugoslav war crimes prosecutor, published her autobiography.. In it is an admission that, because of information supplied by "reliable journalists" (i.e. western ones), she has known for years that the KLA, under the authority of the NATO occupiers, kidnapped at least 300 Serb teenagers & perhaps 1,300 of them, dissected them & sold the parts to hospitals in the NATO countries. She did a very cursory investigation which proved it happened & immediately stopped.
Had this happened under the rule of Adolph Hitler it would, correctly, be denounced as one of the worst obscenities of the Holocaust. Had anything even remotely comparable been happening under Chinese rule in Tibet it would have had banner headlines in every western newspaper. Had Mugabe or the President of Sudan done it they would have been indicted for crimes against humanity.
The fact that this was carried out under the authority of our government & allies, with the knowledge of western journalists & beyond doubt of western intelligence & funded by western health services does not make it less newsworthy. Democracy depends on the people being told the truth. Why has this been reported on the Internet & Pravda but absent from virtually all print & broadcast media across the NATO countries?
Yours Sincerely
Neil Craig
This letter went out a few days ago 28 newspapers across Scotland, the UK & the US in emails headed "War crimes unreported when "Our" side does them". It is a slight variation in a similar letter sent out on 7th April to 19 papers under the title "NATO protects organleggers".
So far as I can determine not only were neither of these letters, nor another one about Nasir Oric published by any media outlet but total world newspaper coverage of this atrocity can be seen on a Google News search & is almost entirely limited to Serbian & Montenegrin papers.
Having had a considerable number of letters published over the years I would estimate I have had above a 50% publication rate, though much lower when dealing with national papers outwith Scotland (papers do like their letters to be local). In this case we have 47 letters & apparently not one of the recipients thought them publishable. I can say without any question whatsoever that it is a statistical impossibility that this is chance. It is undeniable that virtually the entire western press is complicit in a deliberate programme of censorship of what they know to be a NATO authorised atrocity of a level, of obscenity that even Hitler never sank to.
The newspapers involved in censoring this genocide include (in Scotland) Herald, Scotsman, The Scottish Daily Mail, Scottish Sun, Daily Record, The Sunday Post, Scotland on Sunday (in the UK) Guardian, Independent, Times, Telegraph, Sun, Express, Sunday Times, Economist, Daily Mail, BBC,(in the US) Wall St Journal, San Francisco Chronicle, Time, Star, New York Times & LA Times.
I will not claim to be surprised at this total contempt for honest journalistic standards by all these papers as both titles I used show. I am a little disappointed that they all failed the test set.
Let nobody suggest that any reports about alleged abuses in Darfur or Tibet or Zimbabwe or wherever that get spread across the papers are, (even when they are not proven faked), in any way whatsoever motivated by a desire to report real news.
In April the Yugoslav war crimes prosecutor, published her autobiography.. In it is an admission that, because of information supplied by "reliable journalists" (i.e. western ones), she has known for years that the KLA, under the authority of the NATO occupiers, kidnapped at least 300 Serb teenagers & perhaps 1,300 of them, dissected them & sold the parts to hospitals in the NATO countries. She did a very cursory investigation which proved it happened & immediately stopped.
Had this happened under the rule of Adolph Hitler it would, correctly, be denounced as one of the worst obscenities of the Holocaust. Had anything even remotely comparable been happening under Chinese rule in Tibet it would have had banner headlines in every western newspaper. Had Mugabe or the President of Sudan done it they would have been indicted for crimes against humanity.
The fact that this was carried out under the authority of our government & allies, with the knowledge of western journalists & beyond doubt of western intelligence & funded by western health services does not make it less newsworthy. Democracy depends on the people being told the truth. Why has this been reported on the Internet & Pravda but absent from virtually all print & broadcast media across the NATO countries?
Yours Sincerely
Neil Craig
This letter went out a few days ago 28 newspapers across Scotland, the UK & the US in emails headed "War crimes unreported when "Our" side does them". It is a slight variation in a similar letter sent out on 7th April to 19 papers under the title "NATO protects organleggers".
So far as I can determine not only were neither of these letters, nor another one about Nasir Oric published by any media outlet but total world newspaper coverage of this atrocity can be seen on a Google News search & is almost entirely limited to Serbian & Montenegrin papers.
Having had a considerable number of letters published over the years I would estimate I have had above a 50% publication rate, though much lower when dealing with national papers outwith Scotland (papers do like their letters to be local). In this case we have 47 letters & apparently not one of the recipients thought them publishable. I can say without any question whatsoever that it is a statistical impossibility that this is chance. It is undeniable that virtually the entire western press is complicit in a deliberate programme of censorship of what they know to be a NATO authorised atrocity of a level, of obscenity that even Hitler never sank to.
The newspapers involved in censoring this genocide include (in Scotland) Herald, Scotsman, The Scottish Daily Mail, Scottish Sun, Daily Record, The Sunday Post, Scotland on Sunday (in the UK) Guardian, Independent, Times, Telegraph, Sun, Express, Sunday Times, Economist, Daily Mail, BBC,(in the US) Wall St Journal, San Francisco Chronicle, Time, Star, New York Times & LA Times.
I will not claim to be surprised at this total contempt for honest journalistic standards by all these papers as both titles I used show. I am a little disappointed that they all failed the test set.
Let nobody suggest that any reports about alleged abuses in Darfur or Tibet or Zimbabwe or wherever that get spread across the papers are, (even when they are not proven faked), in any way whatsoever motivated by a desire to report real news.
Comments:
<< Home
Paraphrasing 2 mainstream journalists toeing the official NATO narrative after I phoned their headquarters with this story:-
"Are you seriously suggesting that all NATO countries and media outlets somehow *conspired* to cover up such a heinous crime?"
and this...
"So what are you suggesting here, a massive *conspiracy* on the part of every Western government?"
Mainstream Journalism 101:-
When required to lie through one's teeth on behalf of your employers, remember to use the word *conspiracy* - it's the best *red herring* around.
"Are you seriously suggesting that all NATO countries and media outlets somehow *conspired* to cover up such a heinous crime?"
and this...
"So what are you suggesting here, a massive *conspiracy* on the part of every Western government?"
Mainstream Journalism 101:-
When required to lie through one's teeth on behalf of your employers, remember to use the word *conspiracy* - it's the best *red herring* around.
# posted by 
: July 18, 2008
: July 18, 2008
This is pretty much what what their mentor A Hitler said:
"the sound principle that the magnitude of a lie always contains a certain factor of credibility, since the great masses of the people in the very bottom of their hearts tend to be corrupted rather than consciously and purposely evil, and that, therefore, in view of the primitive simplicity of their minds they more easily fall a victim to a big lie than to a little one, since they themselves lie in little things, but would be ashamed of lies that were too big"
"the sound principle that the magnitude of a lie always contains a certain factor of credibility, since the great masses of the people in the very bottom of their hearts tend to be corrupted rather than consciously and purposely evil, and that, therefore, in view of the primitive simplicity of their minds they more easily fall a victim to a big lie than to a little one, since they themselves lie in little things, but would be ashamed of lies that were too big"
You're quite right. It's amazing how much Hitler's and Goebbels' propaganda techniques in Nazi Germany have been taken up by the mainstream media over the last few years in defense of the indefensible - their support for vicious fascist killers like Thaci.
On a lighter note, I have some jokes for you:-
What's the difference between a mainstream media journalist and a prostitute?
You know when a prostitute will screw you.
How do you get a one-armed journalist out of a tree?
Wave to him.
A car was involved in an accident in a street. As expected a large crowd gathered. A newspaper reporter, anxious to get his story could not get near the car.
Being a clever sort, he started shouting loudly, "Let me through! Let me through! I am the son of the victim."
The crowd made way for him.
Lying in front of the car was a donkey.
A shy guy goes into a bar and sees a beautiful woman sitting at the bar. After an hour of gathering up his courage, he finally goes over to her and asks tentatively. "Would you mind if I chatted with you for a while?"
To which she responds by yelling, at the top of her lungs, "No, I won't sleep with you tonight!"
Everyone in the bar is now staring at them. Naturally, the guy is hopelessly and completely embarrassed and he slinks back to his table. After a few minutes, the woman walks over to him and apologizes. She smiles at him and says, "I'm sorry if I embarrassed you. You see, I'm a journalist and I've got an assignment to study how people respond to embarrassing situations."
To which he responds, at the top of his lungs, "What do you mean $200?"
Post a Comment
On a lighter note, I have some jokes for you:-
What's the difference between a mainstream media journalist and a prostitute?
You know when a prostitute will screw you.
How do you get a one-armed journalist out of a tree?
Wave to him.
A car was involved in an accident in a street. As expected a large crowd gathered. A newspaper reporter, anxious to get his story could not get near the car.
Being a clever sort, he started shouting loudly, "Let me through! Let me through! I am the son of the victim."
The crowd made way for him.
Lying in front of the car was a donkey.
A shy guy goes into a bar and sees a beautiful woman sitting at the bar. After an hour of gathering up his courage, he finally goes over to her and asks tentatively. "Would you mind if I chatted with you for a while?"
To which she responds by yelling, at the top of her lungs, "No, I won't sleep with you tonight!"
Everyone in the bar is now staring at them. Naturally, the guy is hopelessly and completely embarrassed and he slinks back to his table. After a few minutes, the woman walks over to him and apologizes. She smiles at him and says, "I'm sorry if I embarrassed you. You see, I'm a journalist and I've got an assignment to study how people respond to embarrassing situations."
To which he responds, at the top of his lungs, "What do you mean $200?"
# posted by : July 18, 2008
: July 18, 2008 << Home
