Suicide bombers held in Bosnia

Blowback, kj.

What do we see here? Jihadists working in Bosnia in 1992.

http://www.srpska-mreza.com/library/facts/bodansky1.html

and

http://www.bannerofliberty.com/OS-1996MQC/9-23-1996.2.html

Even the Antiwar site pins this on Clinton:

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/jatras7.html

Dean the Hawk:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-01-14-dean-bosnia_x.htm

Kerry the Hawk:

http://www.antiwar.com/malic/?articleid=1800

Blowback.

Every president we've had in the past 40 years has gotten islam wrong, kj, not just the ones you hate.

This is a welcome step forward, that the BBC would acknowledge the religious affiliation of the jihadists. Earlier, they would have described them as "Yugoslavians", or "Swedish and Turkish citizens", or the ubiquitous "South Asians", thereby obfuscating their true origin and ideology.

One thing to acknowledge here. It is the Muslim government of Bosnia that has arrested these two men. And so it goes that we get anti-terror cooperation from Muslim countries all over the world, even from the duplicitious Saudis.

The West has many assets in the Muslim world. We have to acknowledge as much as we formulate policy. It shouldn't mean validating Islam as a belief system, just acknowledging that not all Muslims are automatic enemies.

KT makes the mistake of believing that unless a Muslim ia a bomb-throwing fanatic, he or she is no threat to the West. Many on the other side go too far the other way, presuming that all Muslims are automatically adversarial.

It's more complicated than that folks. We can deconstruct the fallacies and barbarities of Islamic doctrine in our political discourse at the same time that we work with Muslims in areas where our interests converge.

Every president we've had in the past 40 years has gotten islam wrong, kj, not just the ones you hate. Posted by: Gary

You are, as usual, trying to mind read, and immaturely defensively reacting Gary. I doubt, from what I've read of kj, that he is a defender of Clinton or the Democrats. On the other hand, as regards Bosnia, are you aware that Sen Joe Lieberman, not only a Jew, but a Zionist supported intervention in Bosnia.

Are you aware (Read Bat Ye'ors Eurabia, page 248) that Presidents Carter and Clinton had no illusions about the Arabs and both were strong partisans and advocates for Israel.

As regards the real game in Bosnia and Kosovo, you might look into the Baku Ceyhan Pipeline and there are at least two other pipelines in the works.

Baku is on the Caspian Sea, and the beginning of a pipeline for oil and gas that is still untapped, and Dick Cheney was, until he ran for VP the President of the Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce, Azerbaijan is of course where Baku is located, and it is also majority Muslim.

Educate yourself as to what is really going on in the world, and get off your ideological kick, the world is not as simple as simple minds make it out to be, start here with your education Pipelineistan's Biggest Game Begins

Ideology is for idiots.

Well well, if it isn't Gary.

You can always tell when they are getting desparate when they start playing the "we've all erred" card.

Gary, last time I checked it was the SAUDIS that funded the madrasses in PAKISTAN who trained the kooks in AFGHANISTAN that attacked America on 9-11. Not the Bosnians.

There may have been a handful of jihadists in Bosnia in '92, but there sure as hell weren't many of them at the time of Slobo's genocide. Now, let's compare THAT to the number of Jihadis in Beirut when Reagan got the Marines killed and ran to Grenada because the COMMIES! WERE! INVADING!

And then it came out that Ollie North was selling Stinger Missiles to Iran... were there any Jihadis in Iran then, I wonder?

And were there any Jihadis in Afghani-Paki-stan when we funded them because WE! MUST! FUND! JIHAD! AND! STOP! THE! COMMIES!, I wonder? Probably a few.

I remember PLENTY of left-wing whines against Clinton when he ended Milosevic's genocide in Bosnia. And I have read several right-wingers that praised him for doing so.

The fact is that some part of the left-wing is always against war... always. And some part of the right-wing is always against liberals and anything they do. So when a liberal attacked Milosevic, they cried and cried... and when a liberal attacked Al-Qaeda, they cried and cried.

Maybe you like to equivocate the senseless murder of 2000 GIs in the War of Re-election to Clinton's successful end of Bosnian Genocide, but there is no comparison... more Chinese were killed than Americans. There were NO battlefield casualties, and only a handful of non-battle casualties (jeep wrecks, suicides, plane wrecks, etc.) Of course your side spun THAT endlessly too; how Ron Brown was really murdered because... he was a friend of Clinton or somesuch nonesense. Then there were the 3 American POWs that Jesse Jackson brought home (I wonder how many POWs have been saved by Falwell, Roberston, and Limbaugh?)

Maybe you'd like to compare the petty blowback of Bosnia to that of Afghanistan... are you then admitting that Reagan handed out cash hand over fist to Pakistan and Afghanistan all through the 80's? Because if you are, you are a heck of a lot more honet and forthright than your brethren at the douchey little websites you cite.

One thing to remember is this: Bosnia didn't attack us. Saudi did. You know, the Saudis? The ones that run the Whitehouse?

And Gary, now that I have your attention, I hope that you will "find the time" to address this little matter (feel free to insert a dozen URLs instead of trying to answer with your own words):

Bush is handing YOUR tax money to "Faith-based" Muslim "charities" to fund Dawa and Jihad.

Please Gary, let's see a bunch of websites saying that this isn't true, that it's all a bunch of liberal MSM propaganda.

Gary, the staff of Jihad Watch say (in so many words) that Bush is too cozy with the Saudis....why doesn't that concern you?

Yep, all presidents of the last forty years have gotten it wrong on Islam. Reagan funded the Taliban and Mujahedin, and sold Stingers to Iran AFTER they murdered 241 US Marines in '83. Bush was in on Iran-Contra and proved it when he pardoned all the Iran-Contra co-conspirators. Clinton saved what was then a non-military, non-jihad-oriented population of Muslims from Genocide...and caved to right-wing pressure to stop bombing Osama's holdings in Afghanistan and Sudan. And Bush... well, we know what he's doing.

Ignoring presidential daily briefings, playing switch-and-bait with invading "hostile" nations, ignoring real threats like Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc., moving all our military bases from Saudi because THEY SAID TO, deposing the only nut that threatened Saudi and Iran, holding hands with the King of Saudi, hosting big Iftar feasts, etc. etc. The usual behavior one would expect out of someone that is TOO DAMN CLOSE TO Saudi Arabia.

Now quick, Gary! Run the URLs of the money the Saudis gave to the Clinton library... they've already given MORE than that to the still-four-years-away-from design Bush presidential library. And I don't remember Clinton holding hands and KISSING you-know-who, or any you-know-whats for that matter. (Now Gary, run the URL of Hillary kissing Arafat's phoney wife. Like she REALLY has a lot of influence.)

I think the most important part of any discussiong comparing the "blowback" from the Clinton era to the "blowback" of the Reagan era is this:

THE BOSNIANS DIDN'T ATTACK US.

Now SPIN, Gary! SPIN!

Gary, I have to go to a funeral out of state, so please don't take my silence for the next few days as a sign of defeat. Please, let me go bury my dead in peace. I will be in Nawth Carolina, so the hotel probably won't have internet access... assuming they have electricity.

[BTW... is there any cutesy little term like "blowback" that is applied when WE reward our ATTACKERS, AFTER they attack us? How about "Bushback"? Or Ollie-Northback. Hell, since Bush, Ollie, and Reagan really only have one thing in common, I suggest that we call it "GOPback."]

"One thing to remember is this: Bosnia didn't attack us. Saudi did. You know, the Saudis? The ones that run the Whitehouse?"

Maybe not - but we did bomb the crap out of the Serbs - who would have been a much more trustworthy ally than the Muslim Bosnians. Both sides were committing atrocities on a grand scale, but we chose sides with Clinton leading the "charge". You cannot dismiss his actions (no more than you can Bush) as ultimately, 'the buck stopped with him'.

The fact is, thanks to Clinton's actions in Bosnia, we now have a Jihadi breeding enclave. Clinton DID get it wrong, no matter WHO he listened to. The Serbs supported US in WW2, the Bosnians supported Hitler. Clinton supported the Bosnians. As they say, "Birds of a feather...." Besides, being a training ground for terrorists, is the same thing as attacking us. Training these mongrels, harbouring them, is the same as attacking us. Don't forget WHY these guys were arrested. Bosnia is part of the EU influence, to keep their economy ticking over they had to comply.

That said, Cornelius, I do agree that there are many Muslims who are our potential friends. However, they are mainly the ones who don't believe the Koran, or when they find out about the hate within it, like most civilised human beings, they are repulsed by it and leave the "faith" (usually under persecution - like members in my extended family).

Who cares which politician did what, when and why? The fact is, politicians from ALL sides of parliament are brown nosing Islam, both the Left and Right and all those in-between. We need to support ANY politician (within reason) who is against Islam. The more politicians who are out there who are against Islam, the better off we will all be (lets face it, like the public in general, politicians are like sheep. Get enough good politicians to be against the RofP – the rest will follow).

Blowback, kj. We can thank clinton for the extra help Al-Quaida is getting- that's the bottom line. And you can teach that to your future philosphy class.

Giaour, how ya doin?

I do agree that presidents both on the left dropped the ball with dealing with Islamists but the dems definately did a worse job. The Mujahedin were originally funded by Jimmy Carter I believe of course Reagan continued that policy. But Bill clinton is by far the worst President in History. The bombing of Serbia was the biggest criminal act comitted by the US government. And the question I have is where were all the anit-war leftists. They all lost credibility in my mind with their silence. They showed that they were the ultimate racists by supporting war as long as it benefited Muslims. If they were trully blind to race or creed they should of been consistent in their stance of no war. Also the entire war was based on more lies than Bush's weapons of mass destruction lie. Because Saddam actually at one point had these weapons.

Someone said it best on this site all bush is "is the least worst choice" And i agree. But with that said I hope another democratic never gets elected unless there is a radical change in the party.

Hey dimwits, get a clue, this is not about ideology, or my team vs your team, it is about fecklessness, stupidity and greed and that applies to Democrats and Republicans, to Liberals and Conservatives, each motivated for their own purposes (at least at street level), but each one taking the same road and one that none of us wish to travel.

I said it before ideology is for idiots, and it is a tool by which to manipulate idiots at the level of the street.

There are the Big Democrats and little democrats, the Big Republicans and the little Republicans, the little guys think and act like it is a world series, invested up to their stupid eye balls in team loyalty, Big Democrats and Big Republicans have secret handshakes and laugh at the little guy on the street.

Far fetched? I think not. The last Presidential Selection Process had two Grade C Yalies, both members of Skull and Bones, supposedly fighting to be CEO of USA, Inc, and Kerry didn't have his heart in it, he promised the boobs that supported him that he would fight to the bitter end, yet despite evidence of vote tampering in Ohio and Florida (again) he rolled over, as soon as Georgie got the Vote, and Al Gore actually did the same.

So truck on dudes with your ideological beliefs, I don't share them at all, and neither does a mature, sentient and perceptive individual

Both parties court the Muslims, (money and votes) as well as the Jewish vote, the black vote, the Hispanic vote, no matter which party loses, the establishment wins.

And FYI, there is no "liberal" media, except for small circulation periodicals, and no "conservative" media, except for small circulation periodicals.. only an establishment media.. and if you have forgotten, the "New Duranty Times" pushed the party line and propaganda (as a paper of record) that justified the invasion of Iraq, it is the "New Duranty Times" that Judith Miller worked for when she was outing Valery Plame.

I'm wondering about the credibility of a person who could actually compare the Armenian genocide to American seniors having to go to Canada to get prescription-drug discounts.

Nariz, you're right, both parties cater to Muslim voters and both parties have friends in the House of Saud.

But it is political correctness and multiculturalism which have effectively retarded the political discourse in America. And they were created and nurtured as constructs by the Left.

I belive that every bodey has his belives. in my opinion: it is not about islam. it is about the personality of th Muslim human who has different points of view.

the media an goverments take his welfare first and i dont think that the government of Suadia Arabia is absolutly on the ways of the really muslim.

it is hard to understant the oppesits points of view but the question is what the right judgment.