in Media Global Watch Bulletins
TiM GW Bulletin 2000/1-3
Jan. 8, 2000
of the Grdelica Train
Gen. Clark Misled the World
NATO Has No Intention of Honoring
Kosovo Armistice Agreement; Also, See The
Pentagon Press Briefing Transcript...
FROM PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Topic: BALKAN AFFAIRS
Also, check out: "Toward
a New Multipolar World of the 21st Century"
1. NATO's Gen. Clark Misled the World about
Grdelica Train Bombing
2. NATO Has No Intention of Honoring
The Pentagon Press Briefing Transcript
4. Widow of Grdelica Train Victim
Jan. 8, 2000
1. NATO's Gen. Clark Misled the
World about Grdelica Train Bombing
FRANKFURT, Jan. 6 A videotape shown by NATO to explain the
killing of at least 14 civilians aboard a train on a bridge in Serbia last April was shown
at triple its real speed, the German daily Frankfurter Rundschau reports in its
Thursday, Jan. 6 edition.
The alliance had sought to excuse the killing of the civilians by saying
the train had been traveling too fast for the trajectory of the missiles to have been
changed in time.
NATO warplanes fired two missiles at the 50 metre (yard)-long bridge over
the Juzna Morava River at Grdelica Klisura, some 300 kilometers (180 miles) south of
Belgrade on April 12 during its campaign to force Belgrade's troops to leave Kosovo.
supreme commander in Europe, US General Wesley Clark shortly afterwards showed two
videotapes of the train appearing to be traveling fast on the bridge, and said it had then
been impossible to alter the missiles' trajectories.
The Frankfurt newspaper said the two videotapes were both shown at three
times normal speed.
A spokesman for NATO'S military command in Mons, Belgium, acknowledged in
a telephone interview with the Agence France Presse that those images had been altered by
"a technical problem."
TiM Ed. A "technical problem?"
In plain English, such a technicality is called - LYING. And DENYING the
truth. Which is why we contemporaneously (!)
called the NATO/Pentagon spokespeople the "lie and deny" PR news spinners (see http://www.truthinmedia.org/Kosovo/war-peace.html
). We knew that the filth would ultimately
ooze out. Sooner, rather than later, thanks
to the Internet. Just as in the case of
Clark's boss and sponsor Bill Clinton who once said "I did not have sex
with that woman" (Lewinsky).
Yeah, right. And the sun will
rise in the west.
The Grdelica bridge train footage, recorded by a camera installed in the
warhead of one of the missiles that destroyed the bridge and train, was altered during the
process of being copied for screening, said the NATO spokesman.
He said NATO was aware of the problem since last October but did not
consider it "useful" to disclose it. "We did not deem it useful to go
public with this information after we noticed it," the Frankfurt newspaper quoted a
US air force spokesman in Europe as saying.
TiM Ed. "Useful?" Of course, not.
Not if you're in the "lie and deny" business. Since when is telling the truth "useful"
to war criminals? (also check out the "Clinton General", S99-119, "Peace"
13, Item 1, July 4, among some other TiM pieces about Gen. Clark's rise and fall from
The Frankfurt newspaper also said the US Air Force, which carried out the
bombardment, had not noticed for some months that the tape had been speeded up, and also
attributed it to a technological error.
TiM Ed.: Well, judge this NATO/Pentagon "BS" for yourself, from
a Jan. 6 Pentagon press conference
excerpt, which we enclose at the end of this Bulletin.
Whoever the USAF pilots were that carried out this heinous strike against
Serb and other civilians deserve the same fate as that of the German war criminals who
were hanged also for "only following orders."
But not before those who gave the orders to bomb Serbia, such as
"Adolf Clinton," "Madam Halfbright," William Cohen, Wesley Kanne
Clark, Sam Berger, or others now engaged in a cover-up of their mass murder, get to have
God's justice served to them first.
For additional personal gut-wrenching
stories concerning this particular NATO strike, check out the TiM
editor's lectures, such as - http://www.truthinmedia.org/Tour-de-Canada/tor-12-99.html.
NATO Has No Intention of Honoring Kosovo Armistice Agreement
PHOENIX, Jan. 7 - Russia and Yugoslavia will pose new challenges to NATO's
authority in Kosovo by mid-summer if the Western military alliance doesn't permit Yugoslav
soldiers back into the enclave as mandated by U.N. terms that ended the conflict there
last summer, the WorldNetDaily's Jon E.
Dougherty reported on Jan. 7, the Orthodox Christian Christmas Day..
"At issue is whether NATO is prepared to honor Annex 2 of U.N.
Security Council Resolution 1244, signed June 15, 1999, which states Yugoslavia was to be
permitted to send a small, lightly armed contingent of soldiers to Kosovo to guard
cultural sites, the country's territorial borders, and to help clear landmines by June
2000," the WND report said.
However, U.S. Gen. Wesley Clark, supreme commander of NATO forces in
Europe, says that the alliance is not prepared to honor the agreement.
TiM Ed.: Let's freeze this frame for a moment
General," NATO's "Supreme
Being," as some of his subordinates have derisively referred to Clark, said it's
okay to go back on one's word of honor. No surprise there, given that men like Clinton or
Clark have no honor
(especially in light of the preceding Grdelica train/bridge
"The Yugoslav Army will not be authorized to return to Kosovo,"
Clark told the Montenegrin daily newspaper Monitor. "If by chance it tries, it will
Ominously, Clark's statement came on the heels of statements made by a
number of Yugoslav and Russian officials indicating they intend to hold NATO and the U.N.
to their word.
In mid-December, Gen. Nebojsa Pavkovic, commander of Yugoslavia's Third
Army, restated an earlier prediction, made shortly after NATO forces ended its 1999
bombing campaign, that he intended to lead Serb troops back to Kosovo by June 2000 (S99-142, KFOR
In addition, Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, said in an interview
with Politika Magazine last
month that NATO's current occupation of Kosovo was "temporary," and that
"nobody can take [Kosovo] away from us" (also see Serb General Tells KFRO to Leave Kosovo - S99-142, KFOR
"Peacefarce" 36, Item 1, Aug. 29 and TiM's "Tour de Serbia", the Nis Stage, when the TiM editor met with
Complicating the situation is Russia's renewed involvement in Yugoslavia,
which began to shift Dec. 22, four days after elections in the Russian Duma. Those
elections saw significant victories for nationalists who support new hard line policies
directed against the West and enjoined by interim president Vladimir Putin.
The official Russian news agency, ITAR-Tass, reported Dec. 22 that the
head of the Defense Ministry's Main Directorate for International Military Cooperation,
Col. Gen. Leonid Ivashov, said that Russia "will revise the forms and degree of its
participation" if NATO refuses to honor the U.N. agreement with Belgrade.
Ivashov added, "Russia is not considering any ways of its withdrawal
and exit from Kosovo," signaling Moscow's intent not to withdraw Russian troops from
Kosovo as planned, but would "stop cooperating" with NATO.
The next day, Tass reported, Russian Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev,
leading a delegation of high ranking military officers, traveled to Belgrade for talks
with Milosevic to discuss, among other things, bilateral relations with Belgrade and the
situation in Kosovo. Following those talks, Milosevic honored the visiting Russian
officers and praised renewed Moscow-Belgrade military cooperation.
3. The Pentagon Press
WASHINGTON, Jan. 6 Here are some excerpts from the barbed-wire
exchanges which took place between the media and the Pentagon spokesmen on Jan. 6, about
the three-fold speeded up video of the strike on the Grdelica bridge on April 12:
N E W S B R I E F I N G
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (PUBLIC AFFAIRS)
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20301
DoD News Briefing P.J. Crowley, PDASD PA and Craig Quigley, RADM, USN,
DASD PA Thursday, January 06, 2000 - 2:00 p.m. EST
was a German newspaper report that some of the video from -- gun camera video of a
misguided -- of a mishap during the Kosovo conflict was played for the public at something
like three times normal speed. Is that report
correct? And if so, why did that happen, and
what was the impact?
I have been largely away from the office this morning. Thankfully, P.J. Crowley has not, and he has had
time to look into that in detail. So I will
punt to my compatriot here on that issue.
Mr. Crowley: The
short answer is, it is the normal way that the intelligence system processes gun camera
footage that starts as 8mm gun camera footage, and that gets translated, through something
called the Common Intelligence System, or CIS, which is a Unix-based computer software
system, and then ultimately down to a PC, where analysts can study the video. As that happens, there is an acceleration and a
compression of the video, so in this particular case, the video started at the 8mm format
at roughly 15 seconds in length. When it went
through first iteration to the CIS, it was compressed to 6.5 seconds. When it was further compressed to the PC, it got
down to about the four-second clip that everyone saw on television on April 12th.
This is the way that the system works for all gun camera footage, so there was no
manipulation by the authorities in Europe, and in fact I would say that there's nothing
new here. Media that have already gone
through this, with the air forces in Europe -- for example, Der Spiegel sent some experts
down to Ramstein. We walked them through how
the system works -- worked, and showed them, in essence, what happens as you go through
these iterations. The computer itself starts
to drop off frames to deal with the compression
And so this is -- what was unusual about this video
clip was you had the single point of reference being the train, and as you saw in the
clip, the train at various points jumped slightly That's because the computer itself
dropped frames out in order to deal with this requirement for compression. So this is the way that our intelligence system
operates in terms of translating gun camera footage and getting it to the PCs where
intelligence analysts can make quick assessments of the gun camera footage, you know, to
benefit the operation.
when this footage was first shown and briefed at NATO headquarters the next day, on the
13th, General Clark made the point that the weapon systems officer on the F-15 had only a
second or so to see the train and possibly react, not enough time to have a reaction. If
it turns out that there was actually more time, does that change that?
Mr. Crowley: No. Jamie, good question. It doesn't change the basic facts of what happened
on April 12th. The pilot and the weapon
system officer -- in fact, the weapon system officer is looking through a screen that is
five inches by five inches. He's focused on
the bridge, which is his target for that mission. And
this in no way changes the basic facts that they were not able to divert the missile
before the train came into their field of vision
you could clear up one other thing. On the
clip that was released by NATO the next day, we saw the train on the screen crossing the
bridge. And on the clip there were also white
brackets and a cross-hairs in the middle. Which
-- does the weapon systems officer on the plane see everything that was released in that
video, or only what's in that bracketed area, the smaller area in the middle?
Mr. Crowley: Not
being a pilot, I don't know that I'm particularly qualified. We can take that question and try to find out. My presumption is he's only seeing what's in the
brackets, which is a miniaturized version of what we happened to see on television. But I would probably ask an expert before making
Quigley, do you by any chance -- do you know if that is the case, or do you have to take
The weapons systems officer or the pilot?
they see everything that was in the field of vision on the video that was released, or
only what was in the smaller area in the brackets?
My understanding is the five-by-five area.
Mr. Crowley: Yeah. Tim just handed me something. The weapon system officer does not see the entire
panorama presented by the video file available on the Internet. The WSO, or "Wizzo," sees only the image
presented inside the four corner markers. So
that's a five inch by five inch monochrome cockpit monitor
are you saying that this was not -- this video was not speeded up -- because the SHAPE
folks say it was -- at least twice as fast as it actually happened?
Mr. Crowley: Well,
Jack, in the -- you know, there is a compression and acceleration that goes through the
normal process as this goes from 8 millimeters, through the CIS, to the intelligence
analyst's PC. So, yeah, it roughly ends up
being something like 2.7 times as fast
they also said that other video, which we saw, was not speeded up the way this was: 2.7 this was; other video, not 2.7. So there was a difference in this presentation
than in the other presentations
Mr. Crowley: I
can only attribute that to the speed with which we tried to get the video from the
intelligence community so that we would all have the benefit of seeing it
-- I don't know that anyone -- well, some -- never mind.
I won't ask it that way.
So the issue is why didn't NATO, if in fact this was
different, at different speed than was presented on other days, and this was one of those
three big critical mistakes that NATO made; why didn't NATO tell us that this one was
speeded up, whether by accident or not, where the other ones were not?
Mr. Crowley: Well,
first of all, let me correct the premise in your question.
This was not speeded up on purpose. There
is a normal acceleration that goes in through this process of converting the gun-camera
footage, you know, for the benefit of the intel analyst.
You know, I --
other video that they showed was not. So this
was at a different speed than the other video, which is commonly shown at these briefings. So it had the effect, whether it was intended or
not, of speeding up the video by 2.7 times
Mr. Crowley: It
did speed up the video. But it didn't change
the basic facts of the incident, which is that the pilot and weapon systems officer did
not see the train come into their field of view and were not able to divert the missile
back to the point of why didn't NATO tell us this? They knew it in October when they had a
query from Der Spiegel and acknowledged to Der Spiegel, but to no one else, that,
"Whoops! We showed you something that
was nearly three times faster than we thought"?
Mr. Crowley: I
would say, Jack, you know, the folks at Ramstein Air Base are standing by to walk any news
media, who are interested in this story, as they did with Der Spiegel, through the entire
process of how this transpired
It happens that, for example, Frankfurter Rundschau
was not interested in going through the same careful study that Der Spiegel was
wait a minute, P.J., can I just follow up on that? You're saying you're waiting for news
media to show up. If you knew you had a
mistake, honest though it was, you wouldn't come out on your own initiative and --
Mr. Crowley: I'm
not saying -- Barb, I would say there was a mistake.
Again, there was no manipulation of this video. This is the way that when start with what -- 8mm
gun-camera footage and go through two -- material that goes to the desk of an intel
analyst, this is what you have. I can't speak to the difference between this video and
other video that was shown during the Kosovo conflict.
question is why would neither NATO nor USAFE or the Department of Defense, once they knew
that this situation was not what it was represented to be in public back in April, do you
not think it's a problem with credibility to not overtly come out and say, and simply wait
for people to come and ask you, even after you know?
Mr. Crowley: I
would say, first of all, this has not been a major subject of media interest since the end
of the Kosovo conflict. Secondly --
Mr. Crowley: Well
excuse me. Let me finish. Now, to the first news organization that looked
at this, Der Spiegel, they went to Ramstein, we carefully walked them through this. We're not hiding anything. But by the same token, this is not an area that
has been of significant news media interest up until now
I'm confused about some of the terminology you've used here today. You described the process by which the train video
was used as the "normal" process. Is
Mr. Crowley: Remember
what gun-camera footage is to allow the pilots, the weapon system officers, the intel
analysts to have a quick review of a mission in a campaign.
And so you take the 8mm gun-camera footage off the weapon system, you plug
it into something called the Common Intelligence System, which is a UNIX-based system. That basically -- you first now take the video,
load it into the computer, and then you ship that to the PC of the intel analysts. During the course of those two translations -- to
use my word -- you've got this compression and acceleration
I understand that; I understood the technology of it, which seems fairly straightforward. My question is, you have characterized this as the
"normal process" for the treatment of gun camera video. My question to you --
Mr. Crowley: Within
the intelligence community; yes.
Q: Right. And -- I mean -- all right Is it the normal
process for the distribution of gun-camera video, which is done all the time, which was
done at the Gulf War, which was done in Kosovo, which is done out of training, it's done
in a number of different contexts -- is the process you just described, this two-step
production which results in a 2.7 percent acceleration of the video -- is that the normal
process for the handling of gun camera video that is distributed to the public?
Mr. Crowley: Well,
I can't speak to that, Roberto. I --
me. Then let me ask you to take the query.
Mr. Crowley: I
understand the premise of your question, which I really can't answer, which is, at the
point that you took gun camera footage from the intelligence analyst and prepared it to
put it on and distribute it to -- and show it to the news media, if in fact in other cases
we have then adapted that video to normal speed and did not do so in this case. I'm not equipped to answer that question.
I just ask you -- this is a straightforward public affairs question.
Mr. Crowley: Sure
is strictly within your department as to what your policy is on the distribution of gun
camera video and in what format it's given to the public.
Your explanation of these events is incomplete without telling us whether
this gun camera video and the process you describe as normal for intelligence purposes is
the normal process for distribution to the public, so that, like, every bomb we've seen
going down a stack and into a building for all these years is actually three times faster
than it really happened.
Mr. Crowley: We
will take the question whether in this particular case, we failed to do something we have
done in other instances
you get the answer to that within this news cycle?
Mr. Crowley: Yes
I follow up on that? If SHAPE knew about this
in October, can you also tell us when the Department of Defense found out about this?
Mr. Crowley: We'll
take the question.
it the contention, P.J., by both NATO and the U.S. that regardless of how fast this gun
camera video was replayed, that the weapons officer still only had one second in which to
make that decision; that he saw the train only one second before impact, regardless of how
fast this tape was replayed?
Mr. Crowley: It
does not change the basic facts of the incident, which is that the pilot and weapon
systems officer did not have time to divert the missile that had already been fired before
the train came into their field of view.
talking about the first AGM-130 shot. There
was a second AGM-130 shot after the first
Mr. Crowley: I
think the clip that we're talking about, my recollection is that it's the first one
first. But then, in the second, the train is
now stopped on the bridge. It is obscured by
smoke, perhaps, but it is on the bridge, and there's a second shot. And what are you saying about the weapons officer
on that one?
Mr. Crowley: I'm
-- we're dealing with the issue. I'm not here
to do a mission debrief, I'm just here to say based on the Frankfurter Rundschau report
there was no manipulation to this video, as we've talked about
I guess one of the questions is, there were two pieces of video released that day, the
next day. Are they both -- were they both
subject to the same acceleration effect?
Mr. Crowley: I
will presume yes. I don't know. You know, I didn't ask a question about the second
piece of --
also, will you -- as long as you're taking questions and queries, we'd like to be, if
possible, provided with a tape of this event that occurs in -- that's slowed down to what
is real time and shows precisely what the pilot actually saw so that we can make an
intelligent evaluation --
Mr. Crowley: Again,
I would think that you basically saw what the pilot saw.
You know, the speed doesn't alter the basic facts that the --
told me that they only saw what was in the brackets, and what the video that was released
showed a much wider field. We'd like to be
able to show the public what it is the pilots or the weapons systems officer saw in the
actual time that he saw it so the people can make their own judgment about whether the
statements that you've said are reasonable
Mr. Crowley: I
understand what you're looking to do. I'm not
sure whether we have the ability to do that or not, but we'll look into it
both -- on both tries
you asked SHAPE whether or not this situation occurred in any other released video?
Mr. Crowley: I
think that's related to what you've already asked. We'll --
shown other AGM-130s
Mr. Crowley: We
will see whether there was something that has been done to other video that, because of
the speed of getting this out, was not done in this particular case. We've already taken that question. Yes.
anyone done a frame by frame analysis that you can tell us exactly how much time the pilot
had from the time the train entered the view and the time that the bomb was launched?
Mr. Crowley: Again,
I don't think that we're here to get into a mission debrief of exactly what the pilot did
and did not do, see and did not see
Mr. Crowley: The
heart of this is simply whether this video was manipulated, and our answer is no, it was
not, definitively not
Q: Right. I understand that.
But what you're standing on is saying that the basic facts haven't changed. But we feel misled.
And so now we kind of want to have something concrete --
Mr. Crowley: Well,
again, I think probably the best people to go through review of this particular episode,
for example, would be General Leaf, who is the commander at Aviano, or one of the senior
leaders at USAFE
And they are prepared to go through this whole
incident with you, if that's what you want to do
General Clark used this video as evidence to support his contention that, look, the
weapons officer did not have the ability to keep this from happening and the train from
being hit --
Mr. Crowley: Let's
stay -- let's --
no, no, but that's -- he used --
Mr. Crowley: I
understand, but let's stay where, you know, we here at this podium today can deal with. I cannot give you a mission debrief pertaining to
the pilot's actions --
that's what General Clark did at the time --
Mr. Crowley: I
understand that. You know, the report today
is suggesting that we manipulated this video. We
if I'm understanding right, you're telling us that intel officers are routinely looking on
their computer screens at video that's been sped up and compressed. Frames, as I understand what you said, have been
dropped out. Does it give anybody in this
building concern that people are making judgments, whether in Kosovo or anywhere else,
based on their examination of video that's going almost three times faster than real time,
that has had frames cut out? I mean, as a layman, that gives me a lot of concern
Mr. Crowley: Well,
no. But the primary purpose of this is to
judge the success of a particular mission. You
know, where you aiming at the right target? Did
you hit the target? Does that target need to
be re-struck? So an analyst is going through
to evaluate -- or based on the video, did you see any threats that you have to advise your
crew members to be careful about if you're operating in the same area? So first and foremost, this is about helping
analysts with -- who are making recommendations on missions as part of the conflict
if they're looking at video to help them decide which targets to strike, that's not sped
up as well? For example, the mistake that was
made on the Chinese embassy -- were they looking at video that was run three times faster
than normal and deciding that that wasn't the Chinese embassy, that it was a real target?
Mr. Crowley: Let's
not stray too far afield here
I'm concerned about some of the use of words here, P.J., and I just want to tell you how
your statement appears to conflict with what they are saying in Europe. And maybe we can clear this up easily
They are saying that the video was not intentionally
manipulated, that they accidentally put out video that was 2.7 times faster than what they
normally showed to the press briefing. They
didn't intentionally do it. They did
manipulate the video by accidentally putting this out.
It wasn't intentional, they claim; there was no malice, there was no
manipulation intended. But they did
accidentally put it out at a different speed. That's
a different story than what you are maintaining here
Mr. Crowley: We
have taken the question as to whether there is something that we have done in other
instances, that we failed to do in this instance, which would get at whether, you know,
this video is in some way different in its presentation than other examples that we showed
during the various briefings during the Kosovo conflict.
I would argue with you that if it is a normal process of working through
compression and acceleration of intelligence data that is reviewed by analysts, that's not
manipulation. That is how, you know, you go
through these various computer iterations and get to a product. The product was presented
as the intelligence analyst normally would see it, and that is not a manipulation
Now, whether we should have backed that down to a
slower speed so it's seen in real time -- a fair question, and which we've already taken.
But I, again, challenge the assumption that we have in some way manipulated this in a way
of trying to mislead people. We have not
said that this product is -- its primary purpose in the way it's -- not
"manipulated" but -- excuse me -- the way it's formatted, is for strictly sort
of war-fighting purposes, accessing damage, et cetera. In that instance, and in several
other instances, both in Kosovo and in other conflicts, gun camera footage has been used
by military leaders to make policy points about collateral damage, about the intent of the
pilots and weapons officers in a certain incident, it's been used to clarify and explain
rules of engagement. Is there some other
formatting that is developed for that purpose? I
mean, is this stuff really dual use, or is it inadequate for --
Mr. Crowley: Roberto,
let me presume something here; that depending on the time it takes in order to make a
presentation, I suppose a question is whether we were able to get our hands on the
original 8mm footage, in which case you can make a dub from 8mm to VHS or to Beta so that
it can be presented to you all, versus in this particular case where we acquired it once
it had gone through this process that is normal for intelligence analysts. It may well be that because of the short circuit
that we took, that meant that we, in essence, got a different product that we didn't
realize. It's quite possible that in the
normal routine of getting gun camera footage, as General Wald presented to you here many
times, we were working off of the original 8mm gun footage where the compression had not
are indicating knowledge of this question that you've taken. I mean, is that --
Mr. Crowley: I
am just offering a possible explanation before you will allow me to get off the podium so
I can go research the answers to --
Mr. Crowley: --
the many technical -- the many questions that we have already taken
you can go and --
Mr. Crowley: (Inaudible.)
right. (Inaudible) -- I just might point out
one thing; it's not really a question.
But you may recall, when this tape was briefed the
next day by General Clark, when he began his briefing, he didn't have the tape. And he
said that he hoped to have it before the end of the briefing. And at some point before the
end of the briefing, the tape arrived.
said it was hung in his computer assistant. So
Mr. Crowley: I
think it's important to make one final point here
In the intervening time, since the
Kosovo conflict, I have heard no one suggest that this crew operated in error. I think everyone has understood that they launched
a missile based on the field of view that they had at the time and that there was not
sufficient time, once that missile was launched, to divert it once they saw the train. So, under the circumstances and the fog of war, I
have heard no one blame this crew for making an error, based on the information that was
available to them in the cockpit when they made the decision to launch the missile
goes to the second missile also?
Mr. Crowley: Again,
I have heard no -- you know, I think people understood, based on the information that this
crew had in the cockpit at the time that they launched the missile -- and it was only
after they launched the missile, that they saw the train come into view
Other topics? Jamie?
Q: Regarding the Middle East peace talks
4. Widow of Train
Victim Speaks Out
NIS, Jan. 8 We've just received a letter in reaction to this
TiM GW Bulletin from Stela Jovanovic who was widowed by NATO's strike on the Grdelica
train. We bring it to you in translation from
Serbian. But first an introduction to Mrs.
Jovanovic, and some background information about how she lost her husband. Here's an excerpt about it from the TiM
editor's recent lecture (Toronto, Dec. 12, 1999):
"Stela Jovanovic is one of the most popular TV personalities in
Nis, the third largest city in Serbia. She
has won a number of international awards for her documentaries. You can see her here with yours truly on the set
of a Nis TV studio, just before the airing of an hour-long live talk show about the Truth
in Media activities.
After the program, as we walked through downtown
Nis, Stela told me how it happened
Her husband was called up as a reservist. He was on his way to join his army unit when the
train was struck. His body was never found. Stela said she had searched frantically through
every car on that train wreck. All in vain. So he is now officially listed as 'missing' by the
Stela's 16-year old daughter refuses to accept
her Dad's death. She got quite cross with her
Mom that evening when she dressed in black for our TV show ('black' - color of mourning in
And now, here's Stela's letter
Targets or Mistakes
NIS, Jan. 8 - Targets or mistakes
difference does that make to me and to my girls? To
me, none whatsoever. Because I am convinced
that that there are evil people in this world who have already changed my life and that of
my daughters in the worst possible way.
But maybe it would make a difference if the truth
were spoken, out loud. And if you were to
read this letter of mine to those who ordered (the Grdelica train strike), and to those
who pressed the button firing the deadly missiles.
We have accepted the death which has been dealt
to us in this life. Maybe those who are
responsible for our sorrow, and who will answer for it before God or man, have not
accepted their sin as a deathly sin that it is
lives lost which cannot be brought
Maybe their excuse is the little rectangle with
black borders on a video film; maybe they are able to reduce their world to a rectangle on
the computer screen; maybe that's where they manage to find an excuse for what they've
done and what they will be doing - for the pain and suffering they have caused and will be
causing as long as levers of weapons are in their hands.
Oh, how I long to be able to tell them that lives
and people aren't computer games; that lives of two girls of 16 and 18 years of age mean
much, much more than that. Because they no
longer have the father who nurtured them in this life; who carried them in his arms from
the moment they arrived in this world; who dreamt with them a thousand dreams about the
future together, and they with him.
I am setting myself aside and the 26 years I had
spent with him, because I must learn to wear my sorrow in private. But I don't know how I will be able teach that
lesson to the kids. I am trying to view the
film of their lives the way some Pentagon people look at their 8mm films and at the little
rectangles on their screens. And then make
their decisions about if someone will live or die.
And I am teaching my children that pain is
something one must experience. But not when
someone's mindless games and decisions govern other peoples' lives.
The truth about the target or the wrong
Why are they shying away from the truth?
The truth will arrive; it must arrive
And what will they do when it catches
up to them?
Is that, for us nameless pilot, who knows that he
saw a train full of people, at least a little bit afraid of the truth and of his own
thoughts, which he must have, despite being a professional soldier? Is he at least a little bit afraid of his own
realization that he has made some, to him nameless people, terribly unhappy and their
lives miserable, because of his mistake or a deliberate hit? How does one live with such realization, I would
really like to hear him explain to me?
I would like to send to him, and I will send to
him, pictures of my daughters. Their names
are Milica and Smiljka. They are 16 and 18
years of age. And because of him or them;
because of his or their decision; they will spend the rest of their lives without a
Does he think, do they think, that that's an easy
thing to do? Do they think that you can also
reduce such pain to a small rectangle on a computer screen? Do they really believe that that rectangle is an
excuse for a deathly sin they've committed? Do
they really believe that somebody, anybody
can free them of that responsibility? Are there people in this world who are without
I don't think so.
I don't think that there are people without souls. Souls cannot be hidden. And there is no such thing as a perpetual lie. Nor will their hidden truth change my life, but
theirs. That is why they are hiding the
truth. That is why they are trying to come up
with every excuse imaginable. Because they
know that there are no excuses!
I wish I could send to them the photos of the
people they've killed with their "small rectangular computer screens." I wish I could send them to all their screens as
small computer icons, so that they have to look at them every day of their lives. Until the pictures of the dead people enter their
souls and stay with them day and night.
Maybe such pictures would prove to them that they
do have a soul and conscience? Maybe when
they look at the faces of their loved ones, and they must have at least someone they love
and with whom they share their lives, maybe then things would be a little harder for them,
Things will never get easier for me, nor for my
children. Which is why I wish to give them
their truth and their lies as the most terrible curse which they will have to bear for the
rest of their lives.
As for ourselves, despite such mindless people,
we will manage. Somehow. As we have so far.
Because we have something they don't - a soul! And that's enough for this life.
Stela Jovanovic -Nis-Yugoslavia
P.S. Bob, if you wish, you may translate this
letter. Maybe it will reach someone. Maybe someone will understand that they have a
soul, too. And that would mean that at least
some good would have come from this tragedy.
TiM Ed.: Mrs. Jovanovic also said she would send us some photos. We will post them at our Web site when we get
them. So that the NATO murderers who are
responsible for the Grdelica strike, and the bombing of other civilian targets in Serbia,
can download them and paste them up as little icons on their "rectangular computer
screens." Just as Mrs. Jovanovic wished
them to do. In the meantime, the killers can
choose for their icons some of the 400 images of their crimes against humanity which are
already posted - http://www.truthinmedia.org/Kosovo/War/PhotoAlbum/photos-war-index.html
Also, check out... CIA
and KLA Ties, His Disgrace, Artemije,
How Gen. Clark Misled the World, Death on the Danube,
Racism of the New World Order, Death
of the City, Cavorting with
the Enemy (Albright), Toward
a New Multipolar World in the New Millennium, Stitching
Together the New World Order Flag, Chinese
Embassy; Slovakia; bin Laden and Bosnia, Criminals
Return to Scene of Their Crimes, Truth
in Media Statement on the Kosovo War, "Wither
Dayton, Sprout New War?", "On
the Brink of Madness", "Tragic
Deja Vu's," "Seven
U.S. Senators Suggest Ouster of Milosevic", "Biting
the Hand That Feeds You", "A
Balkan Affairs Potpourri", "Put
the U.N. Justice on Trial", "International
Justice 'Progresses' from Kidnapping to Murder", "Milosevic:
'A Riddle Wrapped in a Mystery'...", "Kosovo
Lie Allowed to Stand", "New
World Order's Inquisition in Bosnia", "Kosovo
Heating Up", "Decani
Monastery Under Siege?", "Murder
on Wall Street", "Kosovo:
'Bosnia II', Serbia's Aztlan", "What
If the Shoe Were on the Other Foot?", "Serb
WW II General Exonerated by British Archives," "Green
Interstate - Not Worth American Lives", "An
American Hero or Actor of the Year?" (A June '95 TiM story)
Tito's Greatest Crime?", "Perfidious
Albion Strikes Again, Aided by Uncle Sam",
Sanctions, Now!" (1993)
Or Djurdjevic's WASHINGTON TIMES columns: "Chinese
Dragon Wagging Macedonian Tail," "An
Ugly Double Standard in Kosovo Conflict?", "NATO's
Why Are We Involved?", and "Ginning
Up Another Crisis"
Or Djurdjevic's NEW DAWN magazine columns:
Factory," and "A
New Iron Curtain Over Europe"