Talk:NATO bombing of Novi Sad

NATO war propaganda

I wont change the article anymore, to avoid breaking the 3RR-rule. But I want to say that your claim that "There was very open agenda to strike against civilians. Read the whole article. Most of the bombed objects were civilian infrastructure that have nothing to do with military)" is highly controversial. There might have been collateral damage, but I am very sure that the different NATO air forces did not target the civilian population. MoRsE 21:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

PANONIAN, try to see that I didn't change the outcome of the text that much, it is basically what you said from the beginning, but with a more neutral wording. MoRsE 21:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

NATO did targeted civilians. The bombing had two goals:

• 1. To target Milošević and to force him to withdraw army from Kosovo, and
• 2. To target Serbian civilians and to force them to overthrow Milošević PANONIAN (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

* May 6: NATO bombed the military object "Majevica" in Jugovićevo as well as the civilian residential quarter Detelinara damaging residential buildings and the elementary school "Svetozar Marković".

I have a friend in Novi Sad who told me about Detelinara events on May 6.

The soldiers adapted AA gun on the railroad vehicle, rushed on the tracks and fired on (provoked) the NATO airplanes. This happened close to the residential buildings ..., and the airplanes struck back. The situation was almost similar in the school, but without railroad and rushing. Milošević needed the blood and got it.--Bendeguz 19:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

A Yugoslav soldier provoked NATO plane? Excuse me, but what NATO plane was doing over Yugoslav territory anyway? This story "does not drink water" - old Serbian saying. PANONIAN (talk) 01:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes my dear Panonian, they provoked. What are you doing when you hit the tanks with a stone? You do not fight against them, you just provoke. And what was doing AA gun near by residential area? They looked for trouble, and nothing else. And the NATO "hit out where the louse moves".-old Hungarian saying. And what was doing the Yugoslav Army in the schools, hospitals, and other public buildings?--Bendeguz 22:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The gun was on the railroad that is located between military object (west) and residential area (east). The question whether NATO pilot was just stupid (with no knowledge about sides of the World) or he purposelly shot on residential area could be a subject for long discussion, but the real question is why that pilot was not in his home with his family instead here in his killing machine. Regarding the question what Yugoslav army was doing in schools and hospitals, they were hiding, of course. PANONIAN (talk) 03:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Your talking about a larger topic, I think you better continue this argument on article 1999 NATO bombing in Yugoslavia, where more people can add their opinion. --Göran Smith 16:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I have made a second attempt @ a compromise intro by stating what NATO said (with link), & what the Serb institutions said. Pannonian, the problem with saying that what NATO said is propaganda, is that the same could be said of the Serbian reference - thus I have included both. I think part of the problem of defining the conflict is that many targets have dual military & civilian uses (chemical plants, power stations, telecommunicatins equipment, roads & bridges etc). You'll also noticed that they target specific military targets as well. Hope the new version is acceptable. iruka 02:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

First, you should read the title of this article again and you will see that it do not speak about entire NATO bombing campain, but only about bombing of Novi Sad. Second, the link that you provided - http://www.nato.int/kosovo/history.htm - even do not mention word "Novi Sad" in the text, so I really do not see a relevance of that link, and third: there was ONLY ONE military object in the city that was bombed (Majevica), and all other objects were civilian. So, please try to explain here how bombed civilian houses, schools, roads, etc, could help NATO in the Kosovo war? If you do not know how far Novi Sad is from Kosovo, please check some maps. PANONIAN (talk) 03:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I see a number of flaws in the article as it stands:

• The bombing of Novi Sad was part of overall NATO bombing campaign. There was not a separate campaign for bombing Novi Sad - Novi Sad happened to be just one of the cities affected - thus the distinction you make is an artificial one;
• The weblink provided - http://www.nato.int/kosovo/history.htm - the link to Novi Sad is that it is the NATO press conference for the day which happened to be one of the more heavy bombing days for Novi Sad. Also NATO rarely spoke about specific cities, instead describing the targets in terms of functions;
• There is such a thing as collateral damage. Can you show that the civilian objects that do not also serve a military purpose were deliberately targetted as opposed to being the victim of stray bombs - be aware bombing campaigns are not precision activity. As far as chemical plants, power stations, roads and telecommunications, they can either be used to transport, power, maintain or repair weapons - roads can be use to transport troops, supplies or information (there are supply facilities and military barracks in the Vojvodina region); telecommunications allows information to get to battle planners to Belgrade or other cities far from the frontline.

I hope this answers some of your concerns. I do think the intro needs to be rewritten to reflect NATO's stated objectives and Serb opinions of those objectives. As the article is now, it is POV. I think my 2nd rewrite is a happy medium between the 2, stating NATO's objectives (link)& the Serb view (if you can provide link it would be helpful). iruka 06:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

"There is such a thing as collateral damage. Can you show that the civilian objects that do not also serve a military purpose were deliberately targetted as opposed to being the victim of stray bombs - be aware bombing campaigns are not precision activity."

Bahahaha, you my friend, are a victim of euphemism propaganda. Stray bombs? Do tell, I would like to hear more of your enlightened opinion: do you think NATO pilots are blind or just nearsighted? Stop The Lies 11:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

I think you'll find euphemistic propaganda in your monika. Tell me one bombing campaign that does not have stray bombs or collateral damage. It is not a precise operation particularly if you have military objects near civilian areas, and targets that serve a dual military / civilian purpose. iruka 03:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

In my monika?.... You mean moniker? (C'mon, at least do spell check or something). But if you believe my nickname is euphemistic propaganda then you, my confused little friend, do not understand what euphemism means.

Euphemism: expression of an unpleasant or embarrassing notion by a more inoffensive substitute. Stop The Lies? Hmm.... Yes, what I REALLY meant was cockturd, but luckily I found a more inoffensive substitute: "Stop The Lies". hahaha you amuse me Stop The Lies 22:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

Can you at least TRY to UNDERSTAND (Do I ask too much???) that those civilian objects were not even near military ones?. PANONIAN (talk) 13:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thos ecivilian objects also had a military purpose and was being used by the Yugoslav army to wage war on civilians in Kosovo as well as the UCK. iruka 16:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You can repeat your LIE over and over 1000 times and if you do it, I will repeat the truth 1000 times too - these objects DID NOT HAD ANY MILITARY PURPOSE AT ALL, so please come to Novi Sad and see for yourself what those objects were and then speak about it. PANONIAN (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I will repeat again and again: This IS NOT article about entire NATO bombing, but only about bombing of Novi Sad. The article writte about that only, while general description of the entire bombing belong here: NATO bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Also, the link still do not mention Novi Sad, thus it is not appropriate for usage (if you find some that do mention novi sad, then we can talk). Regarding term "collateral damage", I will explain to you its meaning: the term refer to the situation when one army target military objects and by mistake hit civilian one instead. But if the army hit civilian objects located far away from any military objects, that is really something else. So, to answer you directly: numerous civilian objects in the city that do not also serve a military purpose were deliberately targetted by NATO. And finally, your description for what military purpose roads or power stations could be used is totally ridiculous since we know that war was in Kosovo and Novi Sad is not even near Kosovo, hence from the military point of view, Novi Sad by any means could not be seen as a military target whose bombing would affect war in Kosovo in any way. PANONIAN (talk) 15:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• The war in Kosovo was finance, supplied, and directed from other parts in Serbia. The distinction you make is disingenous. Troops were supplied with men, material, foods, etc from among other places, Vojvodina where Novi Sad resides - where do you think the oil from the oil refinary goes - what do tanks run on? That is why bridges, roads, factories, and telecommunications, in addition to explicit military targets were bombed. Where do you think all the troops, equipment and supplies came from to fuel the conflict in Kosovo? You really need to read up on the history of warfare and the role logistics and supplies play in it. iruka 03:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The war in Kosovo WAS NOT financed, suplied or directed by the PEOPLE OF SERBIA, but by the ONE REGIME that WAS NOT supported by the people. Also, it is ridiculous to claim that destruction of bridges in Novi Sad would stop even one litre of oil to go to Kosovo because Yugoslav army had another ways to transport it. Also, the Yugoslav army that fought in Kosovo was in the time of bombing ALREADY IN KOSOVO (together with its tanks and oil for them), so I really do not see what NATO generals wanted to stop here??? PANONIAN (talk) 13:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

A number of points:

• That regime was elected by the majority of the people;

This is a FALSE point because the last elections before the war were in 1996. In that time, Milošević promised to people better economy and European future for Serbia, so people voted for that. Milošević did not mentioned back then that he will fight any war, thus it is pathetic to blame people who elected him - the people were simply deluded by false promises. PANONIAN (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Where does the regime get it's money from? - taxes paid by corporations & the people.

There is law obligation for everybody to pay taxes. If you do not pay them, you go to jail. Do you suggest that all people of Serbia should stop paying taxes and go to jail? People are not responsible for that how the state uses money from the taxes - the taxes itself are something that is bad for the people, believe me, I do not like to pay them, but if I do not, I will go to jail. PANONIAN (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• How many demonstrations against the war waged by the JNA in Slovenia, Croatia, BiH & KOsovo - I can only remember the mothers of conscripts demonstration, and that was by mothers from all republics. Compare this to the number of demonstrations against NATO or the number of demonstrations against Milosevic for losing the wars in Croatia & BiH;

Demonstrations against Milošević were also something that could put you in jail. So, you again suggest that I should endanger my own existence trying to stop something that could not be stopped? PANONIAN (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Pls tell how the Yugolsv army would have transported oil once the refinaries, roads, bridges, airports were bombed?

They had river ferries and they used them all the time of the war to transport everything accross the river. PANONIAN (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Most of the Yugoslav army capability was outside Kosovo @ the time of the bombing. iruka 16:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be chechked whether this is correct or not, but anyway, the army that was not Kosovo was also not involved in the war with Albanians. PANONIAN (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

NATO Press Briefings - Detailing Novi Sad Targets & Rationale for Targetting

• I repeat, the NATO bombing included objectives that applied to all targets, including Novi Sad. To say that they didn't mention Novi Sad explicitly & therfore those objectives do not apply is nonsense and making distinctions that do not exist. But just to address the issues you have raised, here are excerpts from press briefings that mention Novi Sad, the targets and why they were targetted. The basic argument is to attck the command & control function of the Yugoslav army [1]:

"It was another busy night for NATO forces over Kosovo and Serbia with activity at around similar levels as we have seen in previous days. Much of our activity last night continued to focus on cutting off the Serb forces inside Kosovo and striking them in the field. Our strategy here is very clear, we are cutting them off, pinning them down and taking them out and to cut off those forces last night we hit more of Belgrade's command-and-control network, particularly in three locations at Kopoknik (phon), Kacerevo (phon) and Vrsac. We also struck radio relay transmitters, petroleum storage sites at Novi Sad and Pasego (phon), we struck bridges at Durres, Pedina and in other locations and we also struck the airfield at Nis in southern Serbia.

And I repeat: the NATO war propaganda is IRRELEVANT here. Any army that start any war want to JUSTIFY their actions, thus what they claimed in their propaganda IS NOT A HOLY BIBLE, but a CRAP. And by the way, you just showed that those NATO officials even did not know the names of the places that they bombed - Durres is a city in ALBANIA. LOL. PANONIAN (talk) 14:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

& this [2]:

"... I think President Milosevic has realised this this morning more than ever before - there are also command-and-control systems and command-and-control systems and if a command-and-control system has no electricity to turn it on, it is of course wire, metal and plastic and not a functioning military system and that is what we did in our operations last night, we went out to deprive the command-and-control system of its electricity, of its power and to reduce it to wire, plastic and metal. Alliance aircraft yesterday evening struck the five main electric yards that distribute power to the Serb armed forces, the military machine of President Milosevic, the power which supplies his airfields, his headquarters, his communication systems, his command-and-control network and no power means no runway lights, no computers, no secure communications. More specifically, NATO aircraft last night struck the transformer yards of Opranovac (phon), a key electrical distribution station in western Serbia. We also attacked the transformer yard at Nis in southern Serbia and this has degraded significantly the command, control and communications capabilities of the 3rd Yugoslav Army headquartered in Nis; and we hit the transformer yards also in three other locations - Bajinabasta (phon), Dermo and Novi Sad - as well."

& then this from the same press briefing as above which shows that NATO were sensitive about & tried to minimise impact on civilians in the targetting of sites thathad a dual military/civilian use:

want you to know - and I want to stress this - that NATO forces took the utmost care to ensure that important civilian facilities like hospitals had redundant power capabilities and that they had therefore the back-up transformers to keep their systems running through these power outages and I believe that you have seen from reports this morning from Belgrade that that was indeed the case, that those essential civilian services like hospitals were running. We regret the inconvenience that power outages have caused to the Serb people but we have no choice but to continue attacking every element of the Yugoslav armed forces until such time as President Milosevic accepts the demands of the international community

also this re Novi Sad telecommunications[3];

"We also went after many elements of the Yugoslav military communication links. We attacked radio relay stations, satellite communication facilities and transmitter sites at Uzetza, Ivanica, Novi Sad and Korjerec."

[4]"As you know from the details that we provided, military communication sites were struck at Kosovska, Novi Sud and Stara Azerva and highway bridges at Milasevo, West Olate and East Orlate."

[5]" We also struck at three different command-and-control locations at Uzice, Krusevac and at Novi Sad and as you know from the morning update, petroleum storage sites at Prahovo, Batajnica, Padinska, Bor and also Novi Sad."

B/c of these extracts, I will return the compromise paragraph, but modify to reflect the content of these news briefings. iruka 03:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Just remember what Hitler said as a justification for his wars and only then you will be able to understand these NATO web sites. PANONIAN (talk) 14:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

And finally to inform you that this article IS NOT reflect "Serbian opinion" about the subject. Most of the content I translated from INDEPENDENT LOCAL ANTI-MILOŠEVIĆ NEWSPAPER from that time - i.e. the information do not came from any of the sides in conflict but from the independent side. PANONIAN (talk) 15:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Milosevic does not mean anti-nationalist nor does it mean it won't contain Serb POV. THere are plenty of Serb POV sources that did not like Milosevic b/c of war losses in Croatia & BiH. iruka 03:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The newspaper is anti-Milošević, anti-nationalist, and pro-Vojvodina autonomy. Clear now? PANONIAN (talk) 14:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear "iruka", your efforts on this talk page are futile. Your efforts belong on the talk page "1999 NATO bombing in Yugoslavia". This article is not meant to be an account of the NATO bombing campaign against Yugoslavia, it is meant to be a brief account of what happened in Novi Sad in 1999. That is all. Please stop editing the intro. It is fine as it is.

Do not even attempt to claim that this article is Serb POV (or POV in any sense), more specifically the intro. Let me elaborate:

Sentence 1: "During the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, the second largest Yugoslav city of Novi Sad was one of the most heavily bombed targets."

Explains that Novi Sad was a heavily bombed target = No POV

Sentence 2: "The bombing of the city caused the greatest damage to local civilians and much less damage to the Yugoslav military, leading some to question the motives behind the NATO attack."

Explains that the bombing caused more damage to civilians than the military = No POV

Explains that some question the motives behind the bombing = No POV

If you believe that claiming it caused more damage to civilians than military is POV, please take a brief moment to consider the number of civilians in NS affected, and the number of soldiers affected... Exactly. :)

Nothing needs to be replaced, nothing needs to be removed, and nothing needs to be added (from what I see you have suggested, someone else may have something useful to add, specifically about something/someone affected in Novi Sad). So please stop changing the introduction. You have already had 3 Reverts. I advise you to not revert again. Thank you :) Stop The Lies 05:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

Ensuring NPOV is not a futile exercise. The intro is poorly written, relies on non-specifics, and is POV by ommission. Shouldn't an article on the bombing of Novi Sad include the reasons for bombing and the role Novi Sad played in the overall military campaign in Kosovo?

You DO NOT ensuring NPOV - you ensuring POV, i.e. you propagating propaganda of one of the sides in the war. The current article DO NOT propagate any of the sides in the war, but write about suffer of local civilians. Do you have problem with that? PANONIAN (talk) 14:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Also the goal posts seem to be moving - first my ver was reverted b/c the source made no mention of Novi Sad, and this was an article on Novi Sad. So I got NATO sources referencing the targets in Novi Sad, and the reasons they were targetted, yet you rev on the same reason, despite these sources. I have shown good faith in researching & providing these sources, & I feel this good faith has not been reciprocated.

Consider the diff versions with differences highlighted in bold:

This is your ver:

During the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, the second largest Yugoslav city of Novi Sad was one of the most heavily bombed targets. The bombing of the city caused the greatest damage to local civilians and much less damage to the Yugoslav military, leading some to question the motives behind the NATO attack

and this my compromise ver:

During the NATO bombing of the Yugoslavia in 1999, the second largest Yugoslav city of Novi Sad was one of the most heavily bombed targets. According to NATO, the sites targeted were largely to impair the command and control function of the Yugoslav military[6] (also see discussion tab for NATO press briefing links). The bombing of the city had a deleterious impact on the local population, with the damage to the Yugoslav military less direct and more in terms of logistical capabilities. However, Serb institutions have accused NATO of deliberately targetting civilians.

My ver is more NPOV, b/c it includes the reason for the bombing of Novi Sad & directs the reader to the sources included on the discussion page.

It further mentions the civilian impact in non-sensationlist terms, and is specific in describing the damage to the Yugoslav army. Finally, it specifies the accusation of targetting civilians and attributes them to specific sources.

No, your version is not NPOV at all - it is based on war propaganda of one of the sides in the war. Please do not try to impose here such propaganda statements that anything in this bombing was "righful", "justified" or anything like that. You simply want to JUSTIFY the bombing, and since THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR ANY WAR ONE THIS WORLD, how the hell your justification could be NPOV??? PANONIAN (talk) 14:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

To answer your question:

:Sentence 2: "The bombing of the city caused the greatest damage to local civilians and much less damage to the Yugoslav military,."

Explains that the bombing caused more damage to civilians than the military = No POV

I question the value and accuracy of this statement;

• Compared to other military campaigns is this true? If we compare say the Yugoslav army's assault on Vukovar for example, then clearly the NATO bombing was negligable.
• By what measure is the statement made?
• How does it assess those targets that have a dual military/civilian function?
• How does the statement add to the article?
• The statement does not tie back to the strategic goals of NATO
• The statement is poltical instead of factual i.e. trying to imply that NATO are either incompetent or deliberately targeted civilians with a generalised statement that cannot be substantiated.

If you question the accuracy of that statement, then please COME TO NOVI SAD AND SEE FOR YOURSELF WHAT HERE WAS BOMBED. PANONIAN (talk) 14:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Your other question:

:Sentence 1: "During the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, the second largest Yugoslav city of Novi Sad was one of the most heavily bombed targets."

Explains that Novi Sad was a heavily bombed target = No POV

I actually left that line in my compromise ver.

Your last question:

:leading some to question the motives behind the NATO attack."

Explains that some question the motives behind the bombing = No POV

Weasal words - leading "some" - who is some?

I think you'll find it is predominantly Serbs or Serb institutions making this accusation. Certainly stating this would change the credibility of the accusation, hence I believe, it's omission in your ver & inclusion in my ver.

I can't accept the intro as it is now b/c I don't agree with the censorship that I view exist in it's current form, so to avert this toing & froing, perhaps we should call in someone to mediate? iruka 11:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, you might be right about that "motives" part - I will correct that. PANONIAN (talk) 14:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Compromise

Now, let try to have REAL compromise (not like Marinko who constantly reverting to HIS version claiming that HIS version is a compromise): let agree here about the fact that this article should speak ONLY about events in Novi Sad and NOT ABOUT general events regarding the bombing including its motives. Can we agree on this? PANONIAN (talk) 14:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Stop The Lies 19:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

I am all for compromise, but allow me to address some personlised comments made in your post:

(a) Pls refrain from personal slights. My edits have been made in good faith, with verifiable sources & explantions on the talk page. We may disagree over what is NPOV, but keep the discussion to the facts, rather attempting to marginalise the person with inaccurate characterisations & talk of of "real compromise". To put it simply, "play the ball, not the man";

(b) I am not the only person to have questioned the POV in the article;

(c) Your accusation of reverting is inaccurate - all three of my versions have been different - I have:

• modified the text to reflect new information & new sources;
• modified the text to address some of the concerns raised;
• linked the sources on the discussion page, and given a full account of why the changes were made, and attempted to address the concerns raised by disagreeing parties;

I believe this reflects a process of incorporating feedback, whilst also substantiating the unchanged parts on the talk page, and is reflected in the three versions posted below, with the differences from the previous version in bold.

1st Ver

During the NATO bombing of the Yugoslavia in 1999, the second largest Yugoslav city of Novi Sad was one of the most heavily bombed targets. According to NATO, the sites targeted were largely to limit supplies and lines of communication of the Yugoslav military and political leadership and troops on the ground[[7]]. The bombing of the city had a deleterious impact on the local population, with the damage to the Yugoslav military less direct and more in terms of logistical capabilities

2nd Ver

During the NATO bombing of the Yugoslavia in 1999, the second largest Yugoslav city of Novi Sad was one of the most heavily bombed targets. According to NATO, the sites targeted were largely to limit supplies and lines of communication of the Yugoslav military and political leadership and troops on the ground[8]. The bombing of the city had a deleterious impact on the local population, with the damage to the Yugoslav military less direct and more in terms of logistical capabilities. However, Serb institutions have accused NATO of deliberately targetting civilians.

3rd & last Ver

During the NATO bombing of the Yugoslavia in 1999, the second largest Yugoslav city of Novi Sad was one of the most heavily bombed targets. According to NATO, the sites targeted were largely to impair the command and control function of the Yugoslav military[9] (also see discussion tab for NATO press briefing links). The bombing of the city had a deleterious impact on the local population, with the damage to the Yugoslav military less direct and more in terms of logistical capabilities. However, Serb institutions have accused NATO of deliberately targetting civilians.

iruka 04:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Now getting back to the discussion of a compromise version. If I can quote you:

let agree here about the fact that this article should speak ONLY about events in Novi Sad and NOT ABOUT general events regarding the bombing including its motives. Can we agree on this? PANONIAN (talk) 14:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this statement is that the article is titled 1999 NATO bombing in Novi Sad. By virtue of the title, then the Casus belli should be mentioned, as well as why Novi Sad was targetted by NATO, and it's role in the command & control capabilities of the Milosevic regime. The omission (or censureship) of these facts, renders the article POV.

Note also, that why Novi Sad was bombed and it's role in the command & control capability of the Yugoslav army are not general things, but very specific. When challenged to that NATO objectives were general & belonged on the 1999 NATO bombing in Yugoslavia page, I provided sources (available above on the Talk Page) which clearly mentioned Novi Sad by name, and what was targetted and why. Please explain why is this information constantly deleted? And I don't accept the argument that it is NATO propaganda, b/c the information is in a factual format i.e. 'x' was bombed last night in city 'y', to achieve 'z' result. iruka 04:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Compromise - Discussion of Individual Points

Mister Marinko, please refrain from spaming this talk page with large posts that are not related to this article. Also, regarding your good faith here, claiming that you have good faith is really not enough - you have to prove it of course. Regarding your sources, they are not reliable because they are made by one of the sides in the war. Perhaps you can find some independent non-NATO non-Milošević sources but that are not based on NATO or Milošević sources. Also, all your 3 reverts were same in part starting with "According to NATO" (the minnor differences in presentation are not relevant). Now, we have two question: 1. I really do not see a need that we writte here about general events regarding the bombing because there are already two articles about that and we have no reason to repeat that information. Furthermore, this article in the first sentence have link to article about general events of the bombing, so everybody could follow that link to read it. 2. The second problem are "reasons" for the bombing: in this case, these "reasons" are in fact not reasons but justifications. As I said, there is no justification for any war, so the "reasons" of one army why it bombed a city are always pathetic. In fact, it is not wrong to say that both NATO and Milošević were on same side in this war - on the side of evil and madness. On other side were innocent civilians and common sense. So, excuse me, but I simply cannot understand a reasons of one NATO pilot, who instead to seat in his home with his family, came here to KILL, INJURE AND POISON INNOCENT CIVILIANS, that are, I will repeat, NOT GUILTY for any action of Milošević because those civilans were victims of Milošević as well. So, including such pathetic reasons into this article would be nothing but a fight against common sense. PANONIAN (talk) 03:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

---

To address your concerns point by point:

Mister Marinko, please refrain from spaming this talk page with large posts that are not related to this article. Also, regarding your good faith here, claiming that you have good faith is really not enough - you have to prove it of course.

Provision of verifiable sources for changes made, documented changes on talk page, engaged in discussion, refrained from personalising discussion - there's your proof. Like I said before "play the ball & not the man". iruka 16:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Regarding your sources, they are not reliable because they are made by one of the sides in the war. Perhaps you can find some independent non-NATO non-Milošević sources but that are not based on NATO or Milošević sources.

• The source you have quoted is not reliable b/c it is a Serbian source. Irrespective of whether it is pro or anti-Milosevic, it is still going to pull rank along national lines;

Now you proved your BIAS here - you want to say that any Serbian source is not reliable? I am sorry, but I consider that as personal insult. No matter that Croatian television told you that Serbs are only animals (or pigs as Ante Starčević said), you really have to change that racist attitude before somebody would try to take your words seriously. Whether you like it or not, the source that I provided here is simply not based on propaganda of any of the sides in the war (the side in the war was regime of Milošević but Serbian people WAS NOT A SIDE IN THE WAR, and if you cannot accept that, we have nothing to talk about). PANONIAN (talk) 20:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering that there were three nationalist wars of expansion Serbia was engaged in preceding the bombing with NATO, combined with the media censureship so that most of the population had a nationalist view of the conflicts in Croatia & BiH, then there is going to be doubts about the source quoted. iruka 08:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

That is crapy political pamphlet that have nothing to do with reality. It is obvious that you have very strong anti-Serb attitude here and therefore reasonable discussion with you is not possible. PANONIAN (talk) 13:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No such anti-Serb bias - consider it from my view: just as I question the neutrality of the source you are presenting, I would do the same for most American sources. The state of Serbia is far from a functional democracy, it is still very nationalistic (just looking at the Serbian Radicals vote count & the fact that Mladic & Karadzic are still on the run support this). Against this background, you are asking wikipedians to accept some obscure local media source from the very city that was bombed by NATO, to have a neutral opinion about the bombing? Further this source is very difficult to verify independently. Can you see the hypocrisy in claiming this as a reliable source, but not NATO or western media (which quote NATO sources)? iruka 08:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop trolling, Mladić and Karadžić or Serbian Radicals ARE NOT THE SUBJECT OF THIS ARTICLE and therefore you have no reason to mention them. Regarding the sorces, NATO was military machine (i.e. the killer) that directly attacked civilians (i.e, the victims). In every juristical trial, if one criminal is proved guilty, his statements that he is innocent are not considered valid. NATO even do not try to claim that it is innocent, but try just to "justify" its crime. That is a hypocrisy, mister Marinko. And I tell you what else is hypocrisy: hipocrisy are your efforts to expand articles which speak about non-Serb victims harmed by Serbs, but in the same time to DESTROY OR DELETE articles which speak about Serb victims harmed by non-Serbs. Is there larger hypocrisy than this? PANONIAN (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, Mladić and Karadžić or Serbian Radicals is not relevant to the subject of the article - it is only relevant in demonstrating the difficulty in verifying the source quoted as a neutral commentary on the bombing. But forgetting Mladić, Karadžić & the Serbian Radicals for a moment - consider the following question - can a source emanating from a city bombed by NATO, on a article concerning the NATO bombing of said city be entirely neutral? The source is relevant & thus should be include, but so should the NATO material.
• The articles you cite concerning non-Serbs cover both sides of the debate. This one doesn't if we don't incldue NATO sources or actively negate the ones in there;
• No hypocrisy in asking for an article to cover both sides of the debate & for material to be referenced by verifiable sources. iruka 02:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

If those Nato sources speak sometning about civilian victims in the city, then we can include them of course. But the general reasons of the bombing are not subject of this article (there are two articles about this), and not only Nato view, but opposite view about motives behind the bombing is not mentioned here as well, so how can article to be POV if views of any of the sides are not mentioned? PANONIAN (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• There are not many sources outside of NATO or Serbia dealing with the conflict in Novi Sad, so to have an article you need to use sources from both. What is there now is based on a source from Serbia, while the NATO source I put in the article constantly gets deleted, leaving the article POV;

To repeat, the article is based on INDEPENDENT source from Serbia, and if you want to find more independent sources, you will find them, but I think that you do not want ti find them. PANONIAN (talk) 20:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Most sources quote either the Serbian govt or NATO directly. There are very few non-partisan sources dealing with Novi Sad specifically. Hence using both Serbian & NATO sources should not be an issue as you are covering both sides of the conflict. iruka 08:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I answered to that already in my previous post. So - read it again. PANONIAN (talk) 13:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• The conflict is not NATO & Milosevic, but NATO & Yugoslavia (Serbia). Milosevic may be the representative as leader, but it is the country's military, economy, transport/telecommunications infrastructure, supplies (oil, electricty, food) that were used to wage not just war in Slovenia, Croatia, BiH but in Kosovo as well.

Again, again and again: the conflist WAS between NATO and ONE REGIME, it WAS NOT between NATO and PEOPLE OF SERBIA. PANONIAN (talk) 20:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

In theory, but unfortunately, in practise that means NATO vs the Yugoslav army and the political-economic structure that underpins the military. iruka 08:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It was conflict between NATO and ONE REGIME. End of story. PANONIAN (talk) 13:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, PANONIAN don't you see? The people of Novi Sad deserved to get bombed because they are all part of the army and all support the political-economic structure that underpins the military! Wait, wait... no, that's wrong. The army part and political-economic structure gibberish (which was so eloquently pulled out of an anus) have nothing to do with reality. Oh well, nice try though, marinko, really! Maybe you can do journalism for CNN or NBC... Stop The Lies 10:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

For these reasons, we need to include the NATO sources that talk about Novi Sad. iruka 16:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

For these reasons, you have to visit stormfront forum and post your racist "opinions" there. Got it? PANONIAN (talk) 20:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Pls refrain from unsubstantiated characterisations. iruka 08:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated? Hardly. You yourself have proven that you are racist (mind you, one can be racist towards a person of a different ethnic group regardless of skin colour) by promoting the idea that some victims are more important than others. :) So we can feel free to call you racist as much as we like.... racist lolStop The Lies 10:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

I challenge you to show me where I actually say one victim is more important. No victim is more important than another - but the relative suffering may differ - you wouldn't equate what the people of Novi Sad went through with what the inmates of Auswitz went through, or the people of Vukovar, of the survivors of the Atomic bombing. To do so is in itself racist b/c it puts a higher value on the suffering of ethnic kin. This differs from the politicisation of suffering that I was referring to in which peoples suffering is often manipulated for political purposes, which is typical around the world, although the Balkans has a bad reputation for it. iruka 09:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This is again example of trolling. THIS IS NOT AN ARTICLE ABOUT AUSWITZ, VUKOVAR OR ATOMIC BOMBING and there is no reason to speak about those things here. And your previous post is exactly an example of your opinion that victims in Novi Sad are not important because you rather speak here about other victims than about victims which are subject of this article. Read the title of this article again and everything will be clear to you. PANONIAN (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

What you are engaged in is character assasination. Rather than directly answer my sourced points, you have reverted to playground tactics of name calling. NATO objectives are clearly specified here [10] as is the complication of Serb military using civilian areas to attack NATO jets and human shields. As for comparisons, there is no conquest or territorial aims on the part of NATO nor attempts to wipe out a section of the population - contrast this to the VRS's Srebrenica operation. iruka 12:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Your only point regarding this article is TROLLING. Everithing else was already answered - so the only thing that you have to do is to read my answers again (maybe you will learn something). PANONIAN (talk) 13:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

So providing sourced information such as the BBC articles ([11],[[12],http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3020734.stm], [13], [14]), a UN report [15], NATO statement & press briefings ([16], [17], [18], [19], [20]) is trolling? By excluding some of these sources, you are POVing the article by only presenting one view of the conflict w.r.t the city of Novi Sad - that is the Serb, European political Left & Marxist view, and excluding the Euro-Atlantic political centre right-centre left & NATO view. iruka 09:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The sources you mentioned here mostly do not speak about civilian victims, so I do not see their relevancy. PANONIAN (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Also, all your 3 reverts were same in part starting with "According to NATO" (the minnor differences in presentation are not relevant).

Splitting hairs - of course that part is the same, so is the

During the NATO bombing of the Yugoslavia in 1999, the second largest Yugoslav city of Novi Sad was one of the most heavily bombed targets.

that is from your original version. A comparison of the three introductions in it's entirety shows they are different. The differences are meaningful & reflect updated sources or to address an issue raised by another party. iruka 16:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Now, we have two question: 1. I really do not see a need that we writte here about general events regarding the bombing because there are already two articles about that and we have no reason to repeat that information. Furthermore, this article in the first sentence have link to article about general events of the bombing, so everybody could follow that link to read it.

The link you have put in covers all areas that were bombed as well as overall goals. This article is about Novi Sad, so it should cover what parts of Novi Sad was bombed, NATO's objectives in bombing Novi Sad as opposed to overall objectives - the two will overlap but will have differences b/c in the case of Novi Sad they will be more specific, whereas the overall objective is strategic in nature. For example;

• the overall objectives will be to get Serbian forces out of Kosovo, return of refugees and a agreement of the Ramboullet agreement - that is covered in the general article about Operation Allied Force;

As I said, that is NATO justification for NATO war crimes. These justifications imply that I deserved to live under bombs, and before you post such justifications, you have to prove THAT I DONE SOMETHING BAD TO DESERVE TO LIVE UNDER BOMBS. PANONIAN (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You are making the mistake of personalising the conflict - Novi Sad being bombed has nothing to do with you personally and everything to do with trying to weaken the infrastruture that was supporting the Yugoslav military that had caused so much destrcution in Slovenia, Croatia & BiH. iruka 08:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH MY PERSONALITY BECAUSE EVERY HUMAN HAVE RIGHT TO LIVE IN PEACE. IF YOU DENY THAT RIGHT TO ME, THEN I HAVE ONE ANSWER TO YOU - GO TO HELL. PANONIAN (talk) 13:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• the specific objectives (as doumented by [21], [22], [23], [24]) will be bomb x y z in Novi Sad as part of disabling the command & control function of the Yugoslav military - this should be covered in the Novi Sad article. iruka 16:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

See above. PANONIAN (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

---

2. The second problem are "reasons" for the bombing: in this case, these "reasons" are in fact not reasons but justifications. As I said, there is no justification for any war, so the "reasons" of one army why it bombed a city are always pathetic.

An emotive view sees justifications and judgement. An encyclopeadic view documents the objectives, the role played by the various elements/parties, the responses and outcomes. The article needs to document NATO's objectives in Novi Sad, what role was played by the bridges, oil refineries etc bombed, and the outcome of the bombing - both in terms of impact on command & control capabilities and civilian impact. iruka 16:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

So darling, what role was played by the "etc" (civilian residential buildings)? Were they harbouring soldiers? Or wait, every Serb in Novi Sad was a soldier, I forgot! My bad! Stop The Lies 10:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

Again, you need to acquaint yourself with the concept of targets with dual military-civilian uses. These things are discussed in the Geneva convention, as is how to deal with a situation where a civilian site is used by a military force. Note also the apology & regret expressed by NATO[25] for civilian casualties that were an unintended consequence of the bombing. Again, by world comparison, contrast this to the refusal of President Tadic to apologise @ the Srebrenica commemoration a couple years ago. iruka 13:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Again: THIS IS JUST MILITARISTIC CRAP. Readers of Wikipedia do not have to read - it would damage their brain (as it did yours). PANONIAN (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Pls refrain from personal slights. The points of the comparative examples, is that the military action & the sources are being judged by a standard that does not apply anywhere in the world or in any conflict. iruka 10:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

That is the whole point: who say what is standard and what is not? Kadija te tuži, kadija ti sudi... PANONIAN (talk) 02:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

---

In fact, it is not wrong to say that both NATO and Milošević were on same side in this war - on the side of evil and madness. On other side were innocent civilians and common sense.

• The very same people that were on the nationalist bandwagon during the destruction of Vukovar & Dubrovnik?

I did not supported destruction of Vukovar and Dubrovnik. So why I am guilty? Because I am Serb, right? Sorry because I am live. PANONIAN (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You may not have, but in general there was a nationalistic euphoria that fuelled Milosevic's rise to power and the campaigns in Croatia & BiH. Excuse my cynicism, but the anti-war movement had little support until NATO started bombing. iruka 08:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Crap, crap and crap. You just hate me because I am Serb, do you? PANONIAN (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't about you - to you it is - but not for me. I think we should include NATO sources to reflect both sides of the debate, and to mention the political impact on Novi Sad as well as the city's facilities role in the command & control structure b/c that is reflected in the title. If we don't, then IMO we POV the article.

You think that NATO is a biased source, and if it is mentioned, then it is prefaced with the word propaganda, and want an exclusive focus on civilian impact. That's the sum of it. iruka 10:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

There was no any political impact on Novi Sad. Also, there was no important "city's facilities role in the command & control structure". We all know that purpose of the bombing was to force Milošević to sign the papers, so if the bombing lasted few months longer, I am sure that Nato would start bombing chichken farms claiming that they had important role in the command & control structure. PANONIAN (talk) 02:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Milosevic was elected by a large margin by the Serbian people;

Milošević was elected in 1996 because he promised EUROPEAN FUTURE AND BETTER ECONOMY and he DID NOT MENTIONED THAT HE WILL FIGHT ANY WAR. PANONIAN (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

But this was the same leader that lead the country to an undeclared war against Croatia & BiH, & ruined the economy. Given his record, the decision to elect him again appears naive at best. iruka 08:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Serbia was not side in these wars. It were civil wars in those 2 countries. Serbia was peaceful during this time. PANONIAN (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• The civilians were not the target, it was the oil for the tanks, the roads on which troops/supplies were transported, the telecommunications used to send orders to troops. iruka 16:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, NATO has some bad aim then, eh? Stop The Lies 10:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

Bad aim compared to what standard? Pls enlighten me on a bombing campaign that was as extensive with less casualities. iruka 13:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Bad aim is militaristic expansion to the east and wish for world domination. PANONIAN (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The burned oil caused ecological damage that much affected civilians. PANONIAN (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a good article on planetark.com about this. It should be included in the article. iruka 08:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Give us the link here first. PANONIAN (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Had a look - it's not in their archive. I recall seeing it in their reuters service. But the UNEP BTF report I found is better - so no great loss. iruka 10:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

---

So, excuse me, but I simply cannot understand a reasons of one NATO pilot, who instead to seat in his home with his family, came here to KILL, INJURE AND POISON INNOCENT CIVILIANS, that are, I will repeat, NOT GUILTY for any action of Milošević because those civilans were victims of Milošević as well.

That NATO pilot was doing his job when he is on duty - carrying out bombing missions; designed to incapacitate the Milosevic regime & Serbian army's capacity to wage war. Because of the Serb army's previous military campaigns against Slovenia, Croatia & BiH, NATO was compelled to act to prevent another possible genocide (as had occurred in Srebrenica) and impair the Serb army so that other countries were not threatened.

That is political pamphlet from Croatian nationalistic media that have nothing to do with reality. PANONIAN (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Nothing to do with Croatia - it is geo-politics 101. iruka 08:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

No matter where it is - it is clear who was a source for it. PANONIAN (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't buy this Serbs were victims of Milosevic line, especially since they voted the guy in twice. It is an insult to the relatives and memories of those that were massacred at Ovčari, Srebrenica, Kijevo, Skabrnje, Manjača, Omarska & so on.

Elections = rigged to give Milosevic more votes. Get it? Got it? Good. Stop The Lies 10:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

The only evidence of rigged elections are the ones he alleged to have lost around the year 2000? Incidently, despite military defeats in Croatia & Bosnia, it was the NATO bombing that helped turn people around to stop supporting Milosevic. iruka 13:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This is idiotic. I would rather live 100 years under Milošević but in peace than to have a war as a price for his fall. PANONIAN (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I never voted for him, so I was not victim too? Should all Serbs commit suicide to please you? I would tell you some hard words, but you are not worthy of it... PANONIAN (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It is akin to people in WW2 Germany saying they were the victims of Hitler. Technically true, but insulting to the camp survivors. To answer your question, I would like those in Serbia that view themselves as victims of Milosevic, to give consideration to the people in BiH & Croatia that suffered or lost lives.

O, but following your own example I can tell you that people in Croatia and Bosnia are guilty for what happened to them - if they did not voted for Tuđman and Alija and if they did not voted for separation from Yugoslavia nothing bad would not happen to them, right? PANONIAN (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You make an interesting point. According to a poll (I think it was vecernji-list) on the 15th anniversay of Croatia's independence (this month), over 60% of the respondents say that the suffering was worth it. But I digress - firstly, it is not about guilt - noone is saying the citizens of Novi Sad are guilty or not victims of the bombing (as opposed to Milosevic). Secondly, for the analogy to work, NATO would have had to have ground troops invading with the aim of permanently conquering territory, and "ethnically cleansing" regions. Instead you have French NATO troops protecting Serb civilians in places like Mitrovica. But this is a side debate - the real issues are

• whether we should include NATO sources;
• how to structure the intro;
• the use of the term propaganda;
• the inclusion of a section on political impact & impact on command & control in the consequences section;
• changing the title. iruka 10:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Let see: you used Nato sources already, the intro should speak about city itself (and its citizens), term propaganda is removed, there was no any political impact on the city itself, and I do not see what is wrong with the title. PANONIAN (talk) 02:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, just to answer this too: if 60% of the citizens of Croatia think that their personal suffering was worth of achieveing political goal of Franjo Tuđman, then I have serious concern that 60% citizens of Croatia urgently need psyhological help. There are simply no political goals that are worthy of personal suffering of the citizens (especially if we know that nothing substantial has not changed for Croats from the time of Yugoslavia to the time of independent Croatia - isti kurac drugo pakovanje, to ti je jedina razlika između bivše Jugoslavije i Hrvatske). The only political goals worth of your attention are those which would help you to have better life - of course, for such goals you do not have to suffer or die, you just have to live and be happy. PANONIAN (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

---

So, including such pathetic reasons into this article would be nothing but a fight against common sense.

In all the self-pity about the city's plight, one thing gets forgotten, there was an expression used by Slovenian, Croatian, Bosnian & Kosovar citizens during the bombing of Yugoslavia by NATO - "Those in Belgrade, Novi Sad & elsewhere are lucky, because they are not being bombed by Serbs". A subtle reference to lack of sympathy because of the contrast between the city's view of themselves as victims of NATO, yet not willing to recognise the more pronounced suffering of civilians at the hands of the Serb military at Vukovar, Sarajevo, Kijevo, Skabrnja, Srebrenica etc. I think it is important to document this social phenomena i.e. the views of the rest of the region. iruka 16:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

What I have with suffer of civilians in any other part of the World? Nothing at all. I could not stop any war anywhere. But it is YOU who refuse to see that I TOO WAS A VICTIM HERE and that is really pathetic how your mind is indocrinated with hate and racism. PANONIAN (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I do recognise people like you as victims.

No, you dont. PANONIAN (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The other conflicts are directly relevant to the NATO bombing as are the views of a region that has been directly impacted by the Serbian army. iruka 08:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Not relevant. PANONIAN (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

"People like you"... People like him? A Serb? HMm...... .......... Stop The Lies 10:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

"People like him" - citizens of Novi Sad not directly harmed by the bombing, but have had to put up with economic hardship or disruptions to normal living. iruka 13:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If you do recognize that then stop trolling please - it is simple as that. 13:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Just highlighting the most relevant part of the previous post: "there are already two articles about that and we have no reason to repeat that information. Furthermore, this article in the first sentence have link to article about general events of the bombing, so everybody could follow that link to read it." Stop The Lies 07:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

See above discussion points that document sources that are specific to Novi Sad. iruka 16:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

See previous quote above for something much more relevant. In fact, why don't I just re-paste it so you're not confused: there are already two articles about that and we have no reason to repeat that information. Furthermore, this article in the first sentence have link to article about general events of the bombing, so everybody could follow that link to read it"Stop The Lies 18:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

Article Section on Consequences

The following part of the article is laughable:

The irony that Novi Sad was so heavily targeted by NATO lies in the fact that during the time of the bombing, the city was ruled by the local democratic government, which was against the regime in Belgrade. Therefore, the citizens of Novi Sad were never able to understand why they had to pay so large a price for the events in Kosovo, which were not caused by them.

What were the citizens expecting NATO to do in the planning?

• Qualify bombing targets on voting criteria @ the last Serb election as opposed to whether the target had some military or logistic function?
• How would the local anti-Milosevic govt ensure Novi Sad's oil was not used for the tanks in Kosovo, to stop it's roads & bridges from being used to transport troops & supplies; to prevent it's telecommunications from being used by the Yugoslav military to convey orders?
• These people had the courage to stand on bridges with target signs during the NATO bombing, but not one stood in front of tank (ala Tiannamon Square style) to protect Kosovo civilians, or to stop it killing ordinary civilians in Vukovar, Dubrovnik, Sarajevo. I think a refernce should be made how this is an illustartion of the balkan victim complex. iruka 16:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I was in the city during entire time of the bombing and I never went on the bridge with target sign - I was in my home waiting for some stupid NATO pilot to kill me. Do you want to say that I was not a victim? What I done to deserve a life under bombs? I done nothing at all to deserve it - I even never voted for Milošević. Also, your comparison with Vukovar or Sarajevo illustrate your clear BAD FAITH here. Bad since you talk here about me now, tell how could I stop any tank to go anywhere? PANONIAN (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I am trully sorry that you have suffered during the bombing. I do empathise with your situation & recognise how powerless you must have felt.

Unfortuately, your situation is not unique, & irrespective of how you feel, there was a regime in Belgrade conducting human rights abuses, and NATO were influenced by the Yugoslav army's record in Croatia & BiH. Interestingly, there were demonstrations in Novi Sad just after the bombing ended [26]. I have tried to explain the comparison to Vukovar (below) to show that NATO weren't targetting civilians, and that cases like Vukovar would have influenced the decision of NATO to intervene.

I have no issue covering how civilians felt, as well as the impact to the city (there is a good article on PlentARk.com regarding the environmental impact of the bombed oil refinary) but to exclude the role the city played in the command & control function of the regime & Yugoslav military, is POV. iruka 08:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

How dare you... I would never say that the people of Sarajevo or Vukovar should have 'expected' what came to them, and that because they didn't stop their oil and roads from being used by their military, or because they supported their military (which the Serbs in Novi Sad did not), they should have seen it coming and that because of that, what happened is justified. Balkan victim complex? Wow..... So, Serbs get bombed, ILLEGALLY mind you, and they can't say how they can't understand why they had to pay such a large price for something they had nothing to do with? You can bet your ass if Croatia got bombed by NATO ILLLEEGGALLLYYYY they would be SCREAMING about it for decades to come, and this article doesn't even come CLOSE to doing justice to how illegal and absurd the bombing of Novi Sad was and how pissed off the people of Novi Sad should be. Victim complex? I'm sorry, I know that personal insults do not belong on Wikipedia, but you disgust me. Stop trying to edit this article, not only do you not understand the aims of this article, but your biased opinion does NOT belong here. If you want to add a bombed target, go ahead. If you want to add 'reasons' for the bombing, go to the other two articles that issue is concerned with. STOP WASTING YOUR TIME HERE. Stop The Lies 18:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

Ahhh, you'll notice that I said Balkan, not Serbian, victim complex. Please consider these points directly:

Bahaha, Balkan indeed. Funny how you're putting this on the Novi Sad bombing article. So... then by your 'Balkan victim complex' (which according to you applies to Serbs, Bosnians, Croats etc) the Croats and Bosnians who claim they were victims are wrong as well? Yes, it's definitely a victim complex. There were NO victims ... it's just people being dramatic... I mean, what's a few bombs here and there... a couple of dead relatives here and there... horrible living standards... victims? Nah... just crybabies. No sweetheart, the people of Novi Sad, just like the Croats and Bosnians and Serbs who suffered during the breakup of Yugo are VICTIMS. It's not a "complex". Don't act so high and mighty. Stop The Lies 10:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

Of course people in Novi Sad were victims. This is not the issue.

The issue is the politicisation of their suffering in order to delegitimse the actions of NATO, and to equate all the victims across the former Yugoslavia as having suffered the same & therefore all sides are equally to blame. This allows a culture of revisionism where events like the Bosnian genocide are ignored, b/c it is human nature to view one's suffering as the most acute. I don't necessarily thing you guys think that, but the nature of the article certainly facilitates such revisionism by excluding the role the cities played in the regimes military & economic capacity, and by excluding the objective NATO had in targetting the city.

"Politicisation of their suffering in order to delegitimse the actions of NATO"??? Um... wake up and smell the coffee, what NATO did was illegal... it's pretty well documented. And the Bosnian genocide being "ignored"??!?!??! Um, that's all the people of the West know about when it comes to the war!! Are you crazy? That's all the news talked about! Ignored???? Wow, you really need to get your facts straight. Stop The Lies 22:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

NATO's intervention was perfectly legal, both in terms of it's own charter, & the UN'S one where it states that a state may intervene in another state to prevent a humanitarian disaster.

No, NATO's actions were actually perfectly illegal. They went against the UN Security Council and against their own Charter. Stop The Lies 21:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

With regard to the revisionism, I am talking about the culture of denial in Serbia & even RS in BiH. The Srebrenica genocide is still denied by a majority of people in Serbia, & Tadic & Kostunica still push a policy of equivalence i.e. Serbs suffered as much as the Bosnians & Croats, including refusing to issue a public apology over the state's role in the massacre, despite the evidence @ the Hague.

First of all, you haven't even BEEN to Serbia, so do not attempt to claim that this is what a majority of her people believe, because you do not know. Secondly, you do not trust Serbian sources (while even these have no way of speaking for a majority of people), while relying on mostly internet sources (which anyone can write about and which in no way represents what a majority of people believe, but rather what the writer of the internet article believes). Also, some do not recognize the legitimacy of the Hague. (Do not argue with this remark)

There is a victim complex in Serbia (but also other countries in the region). Examples include the mythology surrounding Kosovo; the perception that Serbs are disproportionately prosecuted by the ICTY, even though the bulk of war crimes were committed by Serb military units (estimated 90% by the CIA); conspiracy theories involving the Vatican & the "fourth Reich" - such views were commonplace in the media in SR Serbia in the 1990's & still are amongst Serb dijaspora groups. But I digress. iruka 15:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha, I'm surprised the CIA didn't say 99%, good for them. Conspiracy theories involving the vatican??? What are you talking about? Tudjman and John Paul were linked at the hip! Stop The Lies 21:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

The remark about victim complex, is a subtle reference to the failure of governments in the region, to confront the events of the 1990's and to move on. As an example of said complex, is the mythology surrounding Kosovo, as well as including the 500 yr old site of a military defeat in the constitution, as parodied by [27]. iruka 07:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Failure of govt's to move on? How about people themselves? You seem to be failing to move on from this article itself and realize that yes, people who live in Serbia are capable of being victims as well. It does not remove the fact that Croatian people were victims, you can rest easy. Stop The Lies 21:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

The point is made in the article that the people in Novi Sad were anti-Milosevic, so they could not understand why the city was bombed. I am merely pointing out that:

• such a notion is ridiculous b/c NATO selects targets based on military /logistical function in the command & control structure. You can't expect NATO to select targets on voting patterns & not bomb a site b/c the people voted against Milosevic. There is no guarantee that the utility won't be used by the Yugoslav army. Hence this section is POV b/c it ignores this point and is myopic to the Yugoslav army's record;

Haha, why I should just stop reading here... You amaze me each time. Let me quote you: "selects targets based on military /logistical function in the command & control structure". First of all, what does "in the command & control structure" mean? Do you even know what you are saying there? Second, based on military/logistical function, eh? Haha... yea.... I definitely see how residential buildings with innocent civilians poses a threat to NATO, Kosovar Albanians, and the world in its entirety. Damn them... blasted innocent civilians... sitting in their homes, plotting away... grrr... Stop The Lies 10:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

For the meaning, see Command and control (military), or see [28]. iruka 07:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo wasn't the only reason; the threat to long term regional economic & political stability wa sthe other reason. By bombing cities, such as Novi Sad in addition to military in Kosovo, the Yugoslav army's capabilities were weakened, the poltical power of Milosevic was weakened, and an example was set for any local despot intent on invading neighbouring countries or persecuting their own population. iruka 07:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You did not address what I said, HOW DO RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS POSE A THREAT TO ANYTHING??? Stop The Lies 22:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

From the sources I have supplied, NATO targetted;

• oil refinaries - tanks, APCs, warplanes etc run on oil;
• airports in addition to military aircraft - so that fighter Jets cannot take off and troops cannot be transported easily:
• bridges & roads - to prevent / slow down transportation of troops, equipment and supplies to the front line. Also to prevent troops being sent to other areas e.g. causing a diversion by say attacking Croatia or joining the forces of RS to attack IFOR peacekeeping troops either as a diversion or as a retaliatory measure. As an example how bombing bridges & roads was effective in immobilising an army, just look at how the VRS (Bosnian Serb Army) was brought to the bring of defeat with less than a weeks worth of bombing;
• telecommunications - so that the frontline troops are cutoff from their commaders and do not know what to do. Also means keeping Milosevic & his military commanders in the dark;
• power stations - much military equipment relies on electricity - radar, SAMS, telecommunications etc;
• Various buildings housing ministry of defence, Milosevics interior security personnel, military bases.

These are just some of the targets. Alot are located in residential areas, so it is inevitable that there will be some collateral damage - further accentuated by acts such as putting AAA on civilian buildings & firing @ NATO jets. Hope this clears up the matter for you. iruka 15:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• the comment about 'victim complex', which applies around the world but is more pronounced in the Balkans, points to the fact that people in the region are focused on their own suffering and build national myths around them, and ascribing conspiratorial motives to outside actors like NATO instead of recognising the commonsense objectives;

Wait, wait, wait. So because these people see a different reason than yourself for why they were bombed/attacked/suffered in some way (this includes any nationality in the 90s), the reasons being maybe NATO, the UN, or the US, they immediately cease to be victims? Haha... no... they just have analytical capabilities beyond those who believe that NATO's motives were 'humanitarian' (like yourself), which if one were to believe would be "laughable", as you like to say. Stop The Lies 10:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

By all means include those different reasons, but don't censure the NATO reasons that specifically reference Novi Sad (as doumented by [29], [30], [31], [32]). iruka 07:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't censure. Stop The Lies 22:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

Then pls do not delete the sources I put in the article. iruka 15:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I only delete that which is irrelevant or does not belong in an article, while stating my resons. I do not censure. Stop The Lies 21:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

• the other important point that should be covered by the article, is if we are going to cover how poepl felt about the bombing, then it should cover how people viewed the events leading up to the bombing of the city. This should also be linked to the revisionism article, namely there is still a majority of people in Serbia that view themselves as equal victims in the Yugoslav wars, and there is still a great denial of genocide in Bosnia. What is interesting is how the NATO bombing has been used to reinforce this view as victim and thus serving as an obstacle to reconciliation.

Wowwww... so you want a link to genocide 'denial' in Bosnia in the Novi Sad bombing article... here is where your TRUE COLOURS shine, my friend. Not only do you not give a f*ck about the victims (omg I just said victims) of the NATO bombing, but you want to cover up their suffering and further promote the idea that some victims (namely Bosnians) are more important than others (namely Serbs). And another thing, this is where you prove that YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE AIMS OF THIS ARTICLE! This article is NOT about the events leading up to the bombing!!!!!!!!!!*&$#*%&^ THAT IS WHAT THE OTHER TWO ARTICLES ARE FOR!! GET IT IN YOUR HEAD! IN! YOUR! HEAD! WOW AM I SPEAKING TO A BRICK WALL!?!?! DID I NOT COPY AND PASTE THE OTHER GUY'S QUOTE ABOUT THE AIMS OF THIS ARTICLE!???!?!?! Stop The Lies 10:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

The article is titled the "1999 NATO bombing in Novi Sad", not the "Impact on & views of the predominantly Serbian civilians in NOvi Sad of the 1999 NATO bombing". As such, the function the city served in the Yugoslavs command & control, as the reason why NATO targetted the city should be covered. Excluding this part is censureship.

Nope. THAT should be included in the general bombing of Yugo in 1999 or Legitimacy of bombing articles. THIS article serves a different purpose: To document what happened in Novi Sad, and its immediate consequences. GET. IT. IN. YOUR. LITTLE. HEAD. Stop The Lies 22:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

The title implies more than just "To document what happened in Novi Sad, and its immediate consequences". Novi Sads role in the Yugoslav army's command & control and NATO's targets in Novi Sad are specific to Novi Sad, so they don't fit into the article on legitimacy or the overall bombing. I would like to see the following covered in the article:

• What role did Novi Sad play in the command & contro structure of the Yugoslav army;
• What did NATO target - why - did they hit it or miss it;
• What wasn't targetted but hit;
• Impact on the Yugolsav army (related to Novi Sad's role in command & control);
• Novi Sad civilian casualties;
• Economic impact;
• Political impact - particularly the anti-Milosevic demonstrations just after the bombing ended;
• Environmental impact - particularl the pollution from the oil refinary. Also of interest is any flooding that may have occurred due to the existence of a pontoon bridge & the debris in the danube;
• Enduring view of NATO by the population (esp since NATO opened up an office in Belgrade this year;
• Who has paid for the reconstruction - I'm guessing a few NATO countries have contributed significantly.

You can't just focus on one part and omitt all the other parts, otherwise the article become a collection of anecdotal experiences from one POV, rendering it POV by ommision of information. iruka 15:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the relevance of other victims, see an above post. iruka 07:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• the reference to the Vukovar's & Sarajevo's serves two functions:

(1) It provides a comparison to the destruction in Novi Sad - just compare the civilian areas hit in Novi Sad to that in Vukovar - then compare the relative destructive capabilities of the JNA & NATO - it becomes obvious that if NATO wanted to target civilian areas, the destruction would have been greater - they could have levelled the city to the ground just like Vukovar was by the Yugoslav Army. Instead, you have logistical targets bombed and an attempt to minimise collateral damage to civilian areas - lending evidence against the notion that civilian targets were deliberately bombed.

Oh yes, VERY good point. So because they only targeted a certain percent of civilian targets as opposed to 100% (such as in Vukovar) they did the right thing, they're not to blame, oh yes, and most importantly, the people of Novi Sad are NOT victims..... ......... .... .... (notice extreme sarcasm) Stop The Lies 10:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

No it just shows that had NATO wanted to target civilians, the effect would have been more devastating, i.e. the view that civilians were deliberately targetted is flawed at best. iruka 07:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

So once again, I repeat what I said, because they didn't target 100% of civilians, they automatically weren't targetting civilians?

How many civilians were impacted in terms of casualties - 0.5%, maybe even 2%?

So if only a few cities of a country (ie New York, LA, and Washington DC [to represent the residential areas]) are under attack, it means the country isn't under attack? No, of COURSE the country's under attack, JUST LIKE THE CITIZENS OF NOVI SAD WERE! Stop The Lies 22:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

You miss the point of the Vukovar analogy - in Vukovar, nothing was spared, because there was no distinction b/w military & civilian targets. An alternative way of looking at the Novi Sad bombing is what percentage of households were hit. Compare that figure with the marin of error in bombing campaigns (remember that bombing targets is not a precise activity). Show some statistics to support your claim rather than some vague statements, based on a narrow definition of what a military target is - note the Geneva Convention talks of legitimate targets that serve a dual military/civilian use e.g oil refinaries, chemical plants etc. iruka 15:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

(2) the Vukovar's & Sarajevo's are important in the motivation for NATO to intervene - regional stability & to prevent a humanitarian disaster. iruka 08:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Sentence fragments? What? Who taught you English... I'm assuming you mean NATO's intervention provides 'regional stability' and prevents 'humanitarian disasters'??? Well then... so do tell... where did regional stability crop up after the bombing? Nowhere? Hmm... how uncanny... Oh and, wasn't NATO's bombing a humanitarian disaster itself? Didn't the Albanian Kosovars flee from NATO bombs? Hmmm??? You know, I've really gotta say, you are a piece of work. This is probably the most amusing talk page I've contributed to. Simply because I refuse to be frustrated by your ignorance and bias, and due to your incessant trolling. Oh, and did I mention, you don't understand the aims of this article. :) No seriously, you don't. Stop The Lies 10:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

I do understand the aims, but I think the way it is done, renders the article POV. Ironically, this huge talk page is really over the introductory paragraph. I believe it should mention why NATO said the city was targetted and it's role in the command and control functionof the Yugoslav army. Thats all. iruka 07:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

That's nice. You're in the wrong place. Stop The Lies 22:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

PS: HAPPY NEW YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR (it came much later in Vancouver than most of the world) :( lol Stop The Lies 22:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

Ditto.

The introduction cannot stay as it is now. It makes claims that aren't substantiated and are confusing - what does greatest damage to civilians mean - does it mean civilian casualties > military casualties? - does it mean being not being able to take a hot shower for a week? Pls provide sources/statistics for the claim.

I don't know how many more times it can be repeated... % of NS citizens who suffered physically/psychologically/financially from NS bombing = 100, % of Yugoslav army that suffered from NS bombing = significantly less. Stop The Lies 17:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

Source? Or is this your estimation? iruka 19:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It's common sense. Stop The Lies 21:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

Also the absence of information on NATO's targets on Novi Sad (I believe excluding it renders the article POV) - you can't just have an article focused on the civilian impact when the title does not allude to that, and also ignore the military & socio-political context.iruka 15:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"absence of information on NATO's targets on Novi Sad"? There's a whole list of targets... If you're talking about NATO's reasoning GO TO THE OTHER ARTICLES. Stop The Lies 17:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

A target is something you are aiming to hit - what is hit is not a target by definition, but may be something that was targetted. The list provided, lists what was hit, not necessarily what was targetted. The target list is accessable from NATO press briefings.

Why would you trust a target list from the perpetrators of the violence themselves? Everything they hit was a target. They used precision-guided munition (smart bombs and cruise missiles), meaning everything they hit, was a target (even the Chinese embassy, although they're morons for bombing it after not bothering to double check to see what it really was). Stop The Lies 21:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

You still haven't addressed the problem with the article - it has a POV focus on civilians based on a POV source, when the article alludes to more than a civilian focus, and excludes the NATO objectives w.r.t city of Novi Sad. iruka 19:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

POV source? Which? POV focus on civilians???.... Focusing on civilians is not POV, it is the aims of this article. A focus on reasons/motives/further explanations of background to bombing do not belong here. Listen, I know you are a reasonable person, why can't you understand that two articles already exist with what you want to include in this article, and that this one is meant to show the direct consequences and suffering of the civilians of Novi Sad (Croats, Serbs, Hungarians etc. included). It provides a link in the introduction to EACH of those two articles. Really, that is enough. It is meant to be a brief article, providing a list of objects and a brief overview. That is all. Stop The Lies 21:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

• B/c it is not reflected in the title - the title says the 1999 bombing of Novi Sad, not the civilian impact of the 1999 bombing of Novi Sad'.
• The notion of civilian impact is not defined nor substantiated with sources.
• As the article stands, it is nothing more than un adulterated propaganda. As in wartime, the respective combantant focus on civilian impacts, disregarding the military aspects. The artciles cover both aspects on the whole conflict - there is no reason to cover both w.r.t. Novi Sad. iruka 10:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I said 'direct consequences and suffering of the civilians of Novi Sad' not just the 'suffering of the civilians of Novi Sad' but also the 'direct consequences' of the bombing = environment, damage to infrastructure etc. Stop The Lies 10:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

Marinko - stop this already

I reverted your edits because they contain 90% TROLLING and 10% of information that is not related to the article itself. So, stop this trolling and stop insult innocent civilians from the city (including me). I will ask you only one question here: try to prove that I was guilty for war in Kosovo. If you cannot prove that, then go trolling somewhere else. Thank you. PANONIAN (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Pls stop personalising the editing. The information was sourced and included UN reports. They covered the impact of the bombing on:

• local politics (included BBC news artciles);
• infrastructure, including reconstruction efforts (BBC news articles);
• environmental impact (including the official UN report).
• command & control.

The sections documented things such as how long debris was in the Danube & the impact on shipping. It documented the impact on drinking water avilability.

It also included a section on views of the particpants, quoting both your reference & the press release by the NATO secretary general.

If you have updated information, then pls augment.

The article isn't about whether you were guilty for the war in Kosovo. It is about the impact of the bombing on Novi Sad. You stated that it insulted the civilians - pls advise which parts & how. What was included is sourced by reliable sources. iruka 13:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If you honestly believe it is trolling, I invite you to involve arbitration or admin. The edits I have made are sourced and are consistent with offering views from a number of different sources, rather than the single source the article previously relied on. Pls read the different sections before reverting or characterising the edit. Cheers iruka 13:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Just stop trolling and wasting time of other users. Next time, I will remove your trolish posts from the talkpage as well. PANONIAN (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Is that a threat? PANONIAN, enough with the character assasination tactics, and address the sourced (BBC, UN, NATO) material that has been added. Enough with the threats - back up your statements & edits, or put up with edits that you may not disagree with. Any more threats or vandalism, and I will have to report this behaviour. Thanks for your understanding. iruka 14:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

By all means, please report this so that everybody can see your racist attitude and ethnic hate towards Serbs that you presented here. Wikipedia is not place for racists where they will post their "opinions" about people that they hate. PANONIAN (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Panonian, you know I don't hate Serbs - and I appreciate it if you could discuss things with me before resorting to name-calling - you know WP:CIVILITY. We may have a difference of opinion on the politics of the region, but to accuse someone of racism b/c they don't to see the NATO bombing as a war crime? I think you are allowing your emotional involvement in the subject topic, to influence your judgement. I'ld appreciate it if you could explain why you make the accusations you do - racism, trolling.

Marinko: I will go through your latest version, since I find some good points to it, and I like the structure, but it still needs to be altered slightly. Stop The Lies 21:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

Thanks - your edit looks good. I do have one change to make & that is the findings of the UN'S BTF group. On page 31-33 of the pdf file, it states w.r.t oil pollution:

This section presents information on the four locations which, on the basis of the field visits and laboratory test results, have been identified by the BTF as ‘hot spots’ of special environmental concern. At all four of these locations (Panc˘evo, Kragujevac, Novi Sad and Bor), "it was occasionally difficult to be sure of the precise extent to which observed environmental pollution or contamination resulted directly from the air strikes, since evidence of longer-term environmental damage was also found". However, in every case, there are serious environmental issues, requiring immediate action. The problems identified have important implications for human health and welfare and should therefore be addressed in the framework of humanitarian assistance after the conflict. The BTF Chairman has already informed the Yugoslavian authorities of the most serious findings, notably at Panc˘evo and Kragujevac.

From about pp 42-49 of the report (44-51 on the pdf file), is an entire section devoted to the issue of Oil pollution in Novi Sad. It states that the major concern for the group was "Risk that groundwater polluted with petrochemicals from oil refinery could enter drinking water wells; general concern over siting of wells close to refinery."

The BTF'S findings and conclusions are summarised on pp 48-49 of the report (50-51 on the pdf file) - quoting directly:

BTF Sampling Summary – Novi Sad (Danube mission) According to preliminary analysis by BTF experts, the macro-invertebrate fauna sampled upstream of Novi Sad was characteristic of the Middle and Lower Danube. 13 taxa were identified. Downstream of the refinery, 17 taxa were identified, suggesting that there has been no major adverse biological impact (at least in the short term) from pollution after the air strikes. Indeed, BTF experts speculate that the enforced shutdown of the refinery may even have led to local improvements in the aquatic environment, due to a possible reduction in chronic pollution. "Based on field observation and results from sample analysis, the BTF concluded that there was no evidence of significant adverse impacts on the Danube aquatic environment as a result of air strikes on Novi Sad refinery. It is thought that most of the oils and oil products released were burned and that no significant volume entered the river."

I will insert the BTF's conclusion (italicised) as it is a representation of final analysis, rather than an isolated remark in the report that could be contradicted elsewhere. iruka 02:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Will also make a note that finding influenced by the chronic pollution that existed before the bombing. iruka 02:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Added section in which details preventative action by Novi Sad technicians tominimise pollution effects.

Minor change to wording in intro from had to implications b/c of the disparate conclusions of the BTF & local scientists.

Grammar change - impairment to day to day living, not residents themselves (unless physically injured). iruka 02:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Added Milosevic reignation request from protestors - as per BBC article. iruka 03:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

A section you may wish to include is one over the use of cluster munitions - there will be a uN report on that as well & link it to a general article on cluster bombs and the moral debate over their use (akin to that for land mines).

There is a wealth of information in the report - I'm sure it covers depleted Uranium - will have a look & make suggestions. iruka 02:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Propaganda

Removed the propaganda reference to NATO's press release b/c it is a POV term. It is stated that it is a NATO press release, & it is also stated in the article & by virtue of the title, that they were a participant in the conflict. THese are the facts that the reader will take into account. Calling it propaganda is an assertion. So is the commentary (which I have since removed) that calls into question the sincerity of NATO's apology. Again we just state the facts, that an apology was made - it is up to the reader to ascertain the sincerity or otherwise.

Also added citation required in a couple sections. The article could do with specific figures on deaths & injured. iruka 02:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Every idiotic "excuse" for every war is always correctly called propaganda, so I do not see what is problem here? Also, as a citizen of Novi Sad, I found that this NATO "apology" is not only non-sincere, but also sarcastic and idiotic, and writting this "apology" without questioning its sincerity is POV thing to do. Also, the general political and military consequences of the bombing in general are not subject of this article and have no place here. PANONIAN (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Use of the term propaganda - POV's the article

The question is not whether the war was justified. The article should not be a forum for debate, but of stating sourced facts. At issue is the terms that are to be used in an encyclopeadia such as wikipedia. A provisional look @ similar articles do not employ the term propaganda. From my understanding of the wiki guidelines, we should present the facts, in a context that highlights their relative weight. The NATO source is just one of many (NATO, UN, BBC, Green Party of the UK, Local Novi Sad pamplet), and it isn't given undue influence. Again, this is an encyclopedia, and by calling the NATO source propaganda, you are making the article POV, b/c it employs the language of one side in the conflict i.e. the Serbian & marxist left view of the conflict - note I am looking at the conflict as more than the bombing but also the socio-political groupings that coallese around both sides.

Note, it could just as easily be argued that the local pamphlet from which much of the material, and the focus on civilian aspects (as both sides do in a war) represents propaganda, yet the propaganda label has not been used.

Re: Sincerity of apology"

Panonian, you may not find the apology sincere, but this is an encyclopeadia, and it should capture the main views. If you can provide a source for a poll which has looked @ the issue, then we can include it, but @ this stage, it's just a personal opinion. You are using emotional language to impute the motives of NATO. As an alternative, if a source exists, may suggest:

• in a poll x% of Novi Sad residents thought....
• of the apology was NATO was commented on by Novi Sad mayor....

If we look at other articles for a comparison, the Srebrenica article does not impute motives about the Republika Srpska apology.

I understand your strong feelings about the bombing, but as an encyclopeadia, it has to cover the different views. iruka 07:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Word propaganda is removed, the view that I presented is not an "Serbian & marxist left view" (nice try, but you have to learn much about civil society, pacifism, democracy and true values of civilized society), as for Nato apology, even if they did not had intention to kill civilians (and there is opinion that they had), they purposelly tortured civilians psyhologically by 3 months long fear from the death. If they purposelly done this, then how any apology from them could be sincere? Wikipedia articles are written for educated people, not for infants that believe in fables. Also, since article speak about Novi Sad, there is absolutelly no reason to writte here about political consequences of the WHOLE BOMBING in the WHOLE SERBIA - the only thing that we can writte about are political consuquences of the BOMBING OF NOVI SAD in NOVI SAD ITSELF. PANONIAN (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

In the end..

..I'd like to close this whole page of nationalist and <75IQ fighting with an occasion that happened in Sanjak a while ago - two Muslims demanded that the government pays them large sums of money for the damage they suffered during the NATO bombing campaign (both mental & physical). Would be funny had not the people literally suffered.

I think that one of the largest problems while comparing Vukovar, Sarajevo, Dubrovnik, etc. is that NATO did not view countries, but ethnic groups. For it is evident that "Serbia" or "Yugoslavia" was never the point, but always "Serbs" with a heavy ethnic stereotype attached to it. --PaxEquilibrium 23:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The relevance is:

• that history of military campaigns by the JNA/VJ was part of the pretext of NATO actions i.e. they wanted to limit the VJ's military capacity as well as avert future huimanitarian disasters;
• to provide a measuring stick by comparing to recent military events in the same region. At the moment, the criticism of NATO is in a vacuum & not in context of what is the standard in a military campaign. If military campaigns per se are the issue (particularly their problemattic results), then that is a separate issue that needs to be discussed on an anti-war article. iruka 06:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think implying that people who are arguing on this page are stupid helps or will put an end or 'closure' to discussion, it will only insult people... Just a thought. Stop The Lies 01:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

I'm not implying that they're stupid - but that they're acting like immature children and that the discussion is stupid - oh yes and I'm firm at it. --PaxEquilibrium 15:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

PE, you'll note that I have listed my points in logical sequence, given sources for the relevant points, try to answer the opposing points, and generally refrained from personalising the debate. To call that immature & the discussion stupid is uncalled for and does not add to the discussion. iruka 06:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Not that - I was referring in general to your whole discussion. Just read it all over again. You'll see what I mean. It's like I and several other users were immature at Talk:Mehmed-paša Sokolović (although a lot more). --PaxEquilibrium 23:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The main discussion on this talk page was what belongs in this article, and we've managed to reach consensus on that issue, the main thing left now is sources & what's left of POV.... The main discussion on the Mehmed page seems to be regarding the guy's nationality... something that often leads to immature discussion so it's not surprising, especially w/ Balkan people. So sorry, be as 'firm' as you wish, but you're very mistaken. If you want to further contribute to this talk page, please provide sources that can be used in the article, or ways you think the article can be improved in (like the other 'immature children' have). Thank you. Stop The Lies 01:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

NATO bombings (disambiguation)

Hi, please tell me guys if this disambiguation (which I've just created) is ok (neutral, etc) thanks.--Emperor Walter Humala · ^{( talk? · help! )} 04:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://vojvodina.srbija-info.yu/posledice/ekocid/ekocid.htm
  • In 1999 NATO bombing of Novi Sad on 2011-05-25 06:41:37, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 1999 NATO bombing of Novi Sad on 2011-06-08 23:23:27, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'

--JeffGBot (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://vojvodina.srbija-info.yu/posledice/mostovi/prica_o_mostovima.htm
  • In 1999 NATO bombing of Novi Sad on 2011-05-25 06:41:37, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 1999 NATO bombing of Novi Sad on 2011-06-08 23:23:37, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'

--JeffGBot (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://vojvodina.srbija-info.yu/posledice/zgrade/stambene_zgrade.htm
  • In 1999 NATO bombing of Novi Sad on 2011-05-25 06:41:37, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 1999 NATO bombing of Novi Sad on 2011-06-08 23:24:35, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'

--JeffGBot (talk) 23:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 4

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://vojvodina.srbija-info.yu/posledice/mostovi/prica_o_spasavanju.htm
  • In 1999 NATO bombing of Novi Sad on 2011-05-25 06:41:37, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 1999 NATO bombing of Novi Sad on 2011-06-08 23:25:04, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'

--JeffGBot (talk) 23:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Serious Issues with Tone and Neutrality

The general feeling of the article is that it was written by someone directly affected by the bombings or from Serbia who is biased towards the Serbian side. The writer seems to use appeals to emotion where the purpose is to draw sympathy to the Serbian side, highlight the suffering thus proving the NATO bombing unjustified. There are many articles on controversial bombings that use the proper tone. See for example Bombing of Dresden. This should be used as an example of a proper wiki standard. To re-iterate: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it.

Examples

The bombing of the city caused great damage to local civilians, including severe pollution and widespread ecological damage

• The use of the word severe evokes emotions and bias.

NATO bombed the oil refinery which triggered a large fire and much smoke, which caused serious ecological damage.

• The use of the word serious evokes emotions and bias. Non-serious ecological damage would not be worth mentioning.

NATO finally managed to destroy Žeželj Bridge, the last bridge on the Danube that the city had.

• The word finally evokes a sense of irony and sarcasm. the last bridge on the Danube that the city had. is almost poetic in evoking a sense of despair.

NATO bombed buildings of the Novi Sad Television as well as the civilian residential quarter Ribnjak where two civilians were badly injured.

• The use of badly injured. If injuries were not bad it would not be worth mentioning.

NATO bombed the oil refinery, one civilian was killed, while two civilians and one child were badly injured. The civilian residential quarter Šangaj was also bombed where one civilian, Milan Bajić (42 years old), was killed and several more civilians were injured, while several civilian houses were destroyed. Although, this was the bloodiest day of the bombing, it was also the last.

The civilians of Novi Sad were greatly affected by the bombing of their city.

• What does greatly mean? Leaves too much to the imagination. Say what the consequences were exactly and cite it

Those who were not directly physically harmed suffer from consequences for their physical health caused by ecological damage as well as permanent consequences for psychological health caused by almost 3 months of trauma and fear.

• Strange statement that leaves too much to the imagination. Check the Dresden article, there is no blanket statement about psychological injuries. IF there was a study or assessment it would be quoted and cited directly.

Due to the NATO attacks, many in Novi Sad were left jobless.

• How can this correlation be established. What is many? Seems an appeal to emotions.

Services were restored only after two years, partially due to funding from Britain, one of the countries which sent planes to bomb the city in 1999.

• This seems out of place and some kind of irony statement.

Impact on environment section is in direct conflict with many statement in the article.

Local scientists also studied the impact of the bombing. "NATO didn’t use chemical weapons during the bombing", said Dr. Zorka Vukmirović, a leading environmental physicist, "But indirectly it caused the effects of chemical weapons use. If you release so many hazardous substances, major air pollutants and carcinogens in the vicinity of big cities like Belgrade and Niš, it is obviously a deliberate action against the civilian population".

• This is unnecessary and an appeal to emotions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazytrain411 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)