At 18:06 12/10/00 -0400, Proyect wrote:
>Burford:
> >The statements of Miroslav Filopovic on his release, show the positive side
> >of the revolutionary change in Yugoslavia, for the purposes of rebuilding
> >unity between the peoples of former Yugoslavia.
>
>False. The imperialist takeover in Eastern Europe has produced nothing but
>ethnic violence.
It would be counter-productive if Proyect and I try to force each other to
accept the other point of view. That is improbable. But Proyect's methods
of arguing are so strange, consisting of quoting sources which "speak for
themselves" and self evidently support his position without serious argument.
And as here, countering an opposing view by changing the proposition.
I was referrring to the statements of Filopovic a journalist just released
from prison. Proyect says this is false by making an allegation about the
imperialist take-over of Eastern Europe!
Or is Filopovic an imperialist?
> The Serbs were the most tolerant
>people in the Balkans.
Then they will be eager to consider the truth about the atrocities
committed in their name. Not for the sake of justifying NATO cluster bombs.
That was not the proposition made by Filopovic which Proyect claims he is
commenting on. The proposition is that by being open about atrocities, some
reconciliation and unity among the neighbouring people of the west Balkans
could once again be possible as it was under Tito's Yugoslavia.
> Besides the action of the Serb army in Kosovo was to
>eliminate a rightwing insurgency funded by drug sales and organized by the
>CIA and German intelligence.
Which would explain why the Serb army leadership wished to suppress reports
of how, in order to achieve this goal, it used exemplary atrocities to
expel hundreds of thousands contrary to the constitution of the Federation
of Yugoslavia? Proyect's reasoning is circular and impenetrable.
How can workers of all countries unite, if they commit atrocities against
each other?
I can understand that Proyect sees the present revolution in Yugoslavia as
predominantly negative - a counter-revolution. But does he say there are
not positive aspects to it at all? Does he think that Filopevic should be
put back in prison?
Chris Burford
London
