Where I've been, where I am

Thu Mar 19 15:06:44 CDT 2009

John, since you already know the truth about what happened there, and  
I don't, of course no dialogue is possible on the matter. You have  
Bosnian friends who told you what really happened there, I have no  
Bosnian friends nor Serbian friends either. So I really have no  
personal or second hand knowledge about it.  You are right when you  
say I am ignorant about it and of course you are under no obligation  
to try and enlighten me, so I will find my own books.

Lawrence

On Mar 19, 2009, at 2:45 AM, Carvill John wrote:

>
> I am sorry but I want no further dialoge with you on this matter.  
> Find your own books. You are approaching the debate from a position  
> of almost total ignorance, and your pro-Chomsky bias seems the  
> overriding factor.
>
> Much as I abhor the invasion of Iraq, is surely does not count as  
> genocide, whereas the actions of the Serbs in Bosnia clearly do  
> constitute genocide. If you cannot see a distinction between  
> Srebrenica and Iraq then there is no hope for you.
>
> Chomsky, and the right-wing nutsjobs posing as left-wingers in  
> 'Living Marxism' magazine, are not the same. The latter have a pro- 
> Serb agenda, whereas Chomsky is (a) ill-informed, and (b) childishly  
> absolutist in his decrying of US 'Imperialism'. If he was really on  
> the ball, he would have been criticising Britain/the US for not  
> doing *enough* in teh region. Why let Sarajevo, a Eurpoean capital,  
> suffer a siege lasting 4 years?
>
> What Chomsky, LM, and youselves have in common, is that the issue of  
> Bosnia is a political football. Try talking to people who have been  
> in those camps which were filmed by ITN, and you might get a very  
> different perspective, one less attenuated by cheap rhetorical  
> sophisrty such as "oh if Srebrenica was genocide, why oh why won't  
> anybody call what the Americans have done in Iraq genocide?". Grow  
> the fuck up.
>
> Chomsky may not be a Holocaust denier, as yuo said he'd been accused  
> of being, but he denies genocide, and is therefore in this instacne  
> at least, a genocide denier. He and Johnstone don't outright deny  
> the events, but they try to spin them, to muddy the waters. History  
> will judge them, and you.
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------
>> CC: pynchon-l at waste.org
>> From: lebryan at speakeasy.net
>> To: johncarvill at hotmail.com
>> Subject: Re: Where I've been, where I am
>> Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 01:43:37 -0700
>>
>>
>> Aside from two visits to Dubrovnik after the Bosnia conflict was  
>> over,
>> I have never been in that area of Europe.
>>
>> After reading the references provided by Richard Ryan and Paul
>> Nightingale it would seem that you must have read the original
>> Guardian and the retractions. Chomsky is a very careful writer and
>> speaker and tries to be precise. He seems to have never denied that a
>> massacre occurred there but seemed reluctant to call it genocide. One
>> of the main themes in his communications has been to point out the
>> hypocrisy of much that is written by one side or the other. If the
>> Serbs killing 8,000 in Srebrinica is genocide then why isn't the
>> untold number of people killed in Panama under Bush or untold number
>> of Iraqi soldiers killed in Gulf War One or untold number killed in
>> etc. also labeled genocide? To label what our American troops did
>> 'genocide' upsets a lot of people. (By the way, I am not claiming
>> those were genocide.) So perhaps the debate is not whether of not the
>> massacre happened but how to label it.
>>
>> In any case I think I'll try to find a copy of Johnstone's book and
>> read it myself. If you have a book to recommend presenting a  
>> differing
>> point of view, please post it and I will read it also.
>>
>> It should be clear that even if we were there at the time it would be
>> difficult to see the big picture of what happened. Milosevic is dead.
>> It would have been interesting to see what defense he planned to
>> present if any.
>>
>> It took some time to find Chomsky's letter defending Johnstone's  
>> book,
>> but here is the URL.
>>
>> http://www.manifest.se/balkan/chomsky.html
>>
>> Also a letter from some of the other signers to the Swedish publisher
>> regarding the aftermath of The Guardian's retraction.
>>
>> http://www.birn.eu.com/en/1/285/1486/
>>
>> Lawrence, trying to figure out why Dave Monroe thinks my rather plain
>> white underwear is unusual and wondering what he was doing nosing
>> around in my underwear drawer...
>>
>>
>> On Mar 18, 2009, at 2:35 PM, Carvill John wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> You're teh one that seems to be launching ad hominem attacks. I am
>>> not an 'anti-Chomskyite', I used to enjoy his stuff. But he is dead
>>> wrong on the Balkans, and that's an area I (unlike you or Chomsky)
>>> happen to know something about, first-hand, so it's hard to ignore.
>>>
>>> < about what really happened there and compare them with> Chomsky's
>>> opinion. By the way, where did you see a "recent> pronouncement" of
>>> his on Bosnia/Serbia/Kosovo?>>
>>>
>>> I 'got my facts' from reading the newspapers, reading books,
>>> watching documentaries, visiting Bosnia, Croatia, etc., having
>>> numerous Bosnian friends, marrying a Bosnian woman, etc. etc. Ok?
>>> How about you?
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know if 2005 is 'recent' enough for you, but in November of
>>> that year, Chomsky and Diana Johnstone (rabidly pro-Serb author and
>>> friend of Mira Milosevic) forced the Guardian newspaper in teh UK to
>>> retract and apologise for a story which claimed that Chomsky had, in
>>> referring to the Srebrinica massacre, "placed the word 'massacre' in
>>> quotes". Chomsky may not have *literally* placed the word 'massacre'
>>> in quotes in the cousre of the disputed interview, but neither did
>>> the journalist involved actually claim that he had literally done
>>> so, she was merely making a point about CHomsky's general attitude
>>> to teh matter, which includes supporting Living Marxism magazine in
>>> its claims that ITN's footage of Serbian prsion camps was faked (but
>>> lets not dig up that old story please).
>>>
>>> Here's an excerpt from that article (now deleted from teh Guardian
>>> website after pressure from Chomsky):
>>>
>>> These days, [Chomsky's wife] Carol accompanies her husband to most
>>> of his public appearances. He is asked to lend his name to all sorts
>>> of crackpot causes and she tries to intervene to keep his schedule
>>> under control. As some see it, one ill-judged choice of cause was
>>> the accusation made by Living Marxism magazine that during the
>>> Bosnian war, shots used by ITN of a Serb-run detention camp were
>>> faked. The magazine folded after ITN sued, but the controversy
>>> flared up again in 2003 when a journalist called Diane Johnstone
>>> made similar allegations in a Swedish magazine, Ordfront, taking
>>> issue with the official number of victims of the Srebrenica
>>> massacre. (She said they were exaggerated.) In the ensuing outcry,
>>> Chomsky lent his name to a letter praising Johnstone's "outstanding
>>> work". Does he regret signing it?
>>>
>>> "No," he says indignantly. "It is outstanding. My only regret is
>>> that I didn't do it strongly enough. It may be wrong; but it is very
>>> careful and outstanding work."
>>>
>>> How, I wonder, can journalism be wrong and still outstanding?
>>>
>>> "Look," says Chomsky, "there was a hysterical fanaticism about
>>> Bosnia in western culture which was very much like a passionate
>>> religious conviction. It was like old-fashioned Stalinism: if you
>>> depart a couple of millimetres from the party line, you're a
>>> traitor, you're destroyed. It's totally irrational. And Diane
>>> Johnstone, whether you like it or not, has done serious, honest
>>> work. And in the case of Living Marxism, for a big corporation to
>>> put a small newspaper out of business because they think something
>>> they reported was false, is outrageous."
>>>
>>> They didn't "think" it was false; it was proven to be so in a court
>>> of law.
>>>
>>> But Chomsky insists that "LM was probably correct" and that, in any
>>> case, it is irrelevant. "It had nothing to do with whether LM or
>>> Diane Johnstone were right or wrong." It is a question, he says, of
>>> freedom of speech. "And if they were wrong, sure; but don't just
>>> scream well, if you say you're in favour of that you're in favour of
>>> putting Jews in gas chambers."
>>>
>>> Eh? Not everyone who disagrees with him is a "fanatic", I say. These
>>> are serious, trustworthy people.
>>>
>>> "Like who?"
>>>
>>> etc. etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> Hotmail® is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast.
>>> http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_70faster_032009
>>>
>>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Express your personality in color! Preview and select themes for  
> Hotmail®.
> http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/LearnMore/personalize.aspx?ocid=TXT_MSGTX_WL_HM_express_032009#colortheme