Bosnian police discover jihadist weapons cache in investigation of murder of policeman

Stephen Schwartz, what say you? What happened to your wonderfully peaceable, Sufi friends?

Did any of you have any really naive friends back in our youth during the Cold War, who kept insisting that Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Castro's Cuba, in fact all earthly manifestations of Communism...were not "TRUE" Communism?

One gets the same impression from "moderate" Muslims today...people like Schwartz and Jeremiah McCaullife. Iran doesn't represent Islam, neither does Saudi Arabia...or Sudan, or the Taliban, or any other of the hellish earthly manifestations of the religion. But somewhere, "TRUE" Islam is to be found, harmonious and peaceful....so we can all stop worrying.

It's a pipe dream, pure and simple.

I think Robert's got it about right on this one. We have to maintain our anti-Shariah freedoms, which do include burning the Koran (or burning the Satanic Verses for that matter). Burning the Koran is poor tactics but it may provide an opportunity that should be seized to expose its contents to daylight.

I have been RIGHT about the USA's work to support those muslims in Bosnia from day one. IT WAS A BIG MISTAKE. Three of the 9/11 hijackers and KSM all were helping the Bosnians kill Christian Serbs and Croats.

THe Bosnians are getting money from the Saudis. They send their kids to radical Saudi schools and get PAID to do so. The women are getting paid to wear SAUDI style "cover-ups" or other islamic dress. And families are drawing stipends for food and other items IF they WILL attend SAUDI funded and led mosques. Men get money to wear beards and Saudi clothing.

The Saudis also have given money to Bosnians, so called refugees, right here in the USA to do the same things. AND THEY FINANCE THEIR NEW AMERICAN MOSQUES. All this is not important to the US govt. because Bosnians JUST adore us. HA!

And this is not being done in just little towns in Bosnia, it is all over muslim Bosnia.

Croats in the combined Croat and muslim areas are moving into the Serbian part of Bosnia or to Croatia to get away from the muslims.

The Serbs are none to happy to see the Croats either considering that operation Storm in Croatia in 1995 ethnically cleansed almost 400,000 Serbs and Croatians married to Serbs from the Krajina in Croatia.

THERE WILL BE MORE FIGHTING IN BOSNIA between non-muslims and RADICAL muslims. ON WHOSE SIDE WILL THE USA BE THEN???

I thought you guys might get a kick out of this. It's in response to my own response paper on a piece put out by Abdul Aziz Said. Needless to say, she can't argue any of the points I made, and so delivered the party-line response. Name withheld for obvious reasons.

"you realize though that terrorism and religion are not causally related? all terrorism is political and religion is simply the rallying point for those afraid of being irrelevant and unimportant. it matters not which religion we talk about. while it is a convenient mantel to put over human failings, it is neither the cause not hte fix for any of it."

My response:

I absolutely do not "realize" your contention. You've evidently chosen a static definition of a living, breathing phenomenon, and are going to stick by it no matter what evidence you see. It's not even a good argument, given that Islam is inherently political. Besides that, I think it is plainly evident that the goals of al-Qaeda are patently religious as they understand it. The idea that religious motivations were absent from minds like Mohammed Atta's, with his paradise wedding suit, can't stand up to reality. Re-establishing the caliphate may be a political goal, but it has its origins and motivations in religion. A religion. It's called Islam.

Also, the terrorism committed by Christians (the IRA, for example) HAS been political in nature, but Christianity has a "render unto Caesar" policy that does not exist in Islam. Therefore, one cannot conflate the two. Trying to attribute the motivations of the old model of Baader-Meinhof terrorism to groups like al-Qaeda is, if anything, the problem most contributing to a lack of understanding.

Sincerely,

Me

This is WAAAAAAYYYY off topic, but is too good of news not to share right away

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/72326

..bout time!

"As I often note, radical Islam is the problem and moderate Islam is the solution." Daniel Pipes

What separates the radical Muslim from the moderate? What part of jihad (or sharia) does the moderate reject?

"Jihadists in Bosnia? But...but...they're all peaceful, America-loving moderates!"

I'm just glad to see a real definition of "moderate" from this site. As I've observed before, in American speaking, "moderate" means "just like us."

Loving America is not a condition of being a moderate, peace-loving Muslim. In fact, comparing my Muslim Hellhole with America, one might say it's the Americans who love war and destruction.

There was of course the Saudi High Commission for Aid to Bosnia, mentioned in Eridicating Evil, Cracking Down on Terrorist Financing :

“NATO forces raided the Saudi High Commission for Aid to Bosnia, founded by Prince Selman bin Abdul-Aziz and supported by King Fahd. Among the items found at the Saudi charity were before-and-after photographs of the World Trade Center, US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the USS Cole; maps of government buildings in Washington; materials for forging US State Department badges; files on the use of crop duster aircraft; and anti-Semitic and anti-American material geared toward children. Six Algerians are now incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay's Camp X-Ray for plotting an attack on the US embassy in Sarajevo, including an employee of the Saudi High Commission for Aid to Bosnia and another cell member who was in telephone contact with Osama bin Laden aid and al Qaeda operational commander Abu Zubayda."

@ Yusef YK

You write:- --- I'm just glad to see a real definition of "moderate" from this site. As I've observed before, in American speaking, "moderate" means "just like us." ---

You're going to have to think carefully about the next sentence Yusef.

No, a "moderate" doesn't mean "just like us", it means "not like them".

Take your time, now

The unspeakable evil the United States of America, England and other Western democracies did unto the Serb Christians to please the Muslims. The evil.

Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.

Sarajevo, Sarajevo, Sarajevo.

If you want to find out how terribly biased reporting on Sarajevo during the civil war really was then compare what the awful CNN and BBC reported about the city and what really happened.

For General Dragomir Milošević's trial the prosecution found a grand total of 12 instances of snipings and 19 incidents of shelling that they accused the General of the SRK of being war crimes. A far cry from all the hyperbole you read in the press. And General Milosevic was commander of the SRK ( the Bosnian Serb Sarajevo-Romanija Corps ) from August 1994 for a little more than a year ( the indictment covered some 15 months ) so about 30 odd cases of sniping and artillery fire in toto is a zillion miles away from what you were led to believe by politicians, media pundits, etc.

It gets worse.

In fact the prosecution were forced to admit that "the Prosecution does not argue that the overall military campaign in Sarajevo was unlawful or that many attacks which took place during the indictment period did not comprise lawful combat activities"

This is a far cry from the screeching headlines we all read and saw in the MSM.

It gets much worse.

When looking at the minutae of each accusation we found that many were almost certainly caused by the Bosnian Muslims themselves. Deliberately targeting their own folk for some bleeding heart sentimentality in the West. They cornered the sentimental vote hands down and then some and with NATO eager to do their bidding the SRK were soon reeling from a combined NATO air/ground attilery assault with the ABiH ( Bosnian Muslim Army ) infantry in 1995.

It gets worserer and worserer.

Even those cases where it could perhaps have been a SRK shell or an SRK bullet that did the killing, the evidence collected by the Bosnian Muslim CSI teams was of such a terrible higgledipiggledy nature it would have shamed a bone idle schooboy. Remember, the onus is on the prosecution.

a) Now Sarajevo was the base for some 70.000 thousand ABiH Muslim soldiers of the 1st Corps, plus many 10's of the thousands of armed Muslim police. All Muslim police were armed, many soldiers of the ABiH often wore civilian clothing and in addition there were countless numbers of armed civilians too.

b) There were almost countless legitimate military targets on offer.

c) Even brigade HQ's were often housed in, erm, houses. Civilians were living next to, below and above legitimate military targets.

d) ABiH sniper teams would use apartment blocks with the apartment still being inhabited, which was coincidentally against the Geneva Convention.

e) The key tunnel that conncted Muslim Sarajevo with the outside Word and was a valid target had one exit, the Butmir one located in a civilian house with the Dobrinja exit coming out slam bang in the middle of a residential area.

With so many military targets available right amongst the population of course civilians were going to get killed. It was the prosecutor's case to prove they'd been deliberately targeted.

"Lies, Damned Lies and Media Reporting about Sarajevo"

( I'll only concern myself with the time when General Dragomir Milošević was commander of the SRK and not when General Stanislav Galić was commander of the Corps. BTW . The evidence against General Dragomir Milošević's predecessor, General Galić, was just as slipshod and weak. As an idea of how wretched the prosecution's case was, the prosecution's expert military/historical witness in the numerous Srebrenica trials, a Major R. Butler of the US Army, was so incensed about the prosecution's approach against these Bosnian Serb Generals he ended up off the Sarajevo prosecution team )

1) The TV Tower 28th of June, 1995

The tower was hit by an "air bomb" ( a bomb designed to be dropped by a plane but was re fitted with rockets for propulsion and fired from the ground )Unfortunately for the prosecution who accused the SRK of launching the attack, key eye witnesses, UNPROFOR members, saw it being launched from Bosnian Muslim territory. Captain Hansen of UNPROFOR received numerous death threats for testifying about what really happened on that day and the dead Muslim child had in fact been killed elsewhere then moved to the site by a Bosnian Muslim police officer.

2) Markale 2 28th of August, 1995.

On the 28th August, a mortar bomb exploded in Markale, killing nearly 43 and injuring 75. Five shells had presumably been fired, only one causing any fatalities. Almost immediately it was announced that the Bosnian Serb military were responsible. This gave NATO the excuse they'd always been looking for, and launched a huge assault on Bosnian Serb positions. Fighting alongside the Sarajevo Islamists NATO launched a withering attack against the SRK positions in and around the capital.

Back to Markale 2. According to the prosecution a 120 mm mortar projectile was launched from Bosnian Serb territory, the mountain of Trebevic, and this caused carnage in a packed marketplace. Moments after the explosion a camera man recorded the panic and death that ensued. This filming is vital for it paints a very different picture to the one portrayed in the West in the media.

For starters there is not a single witness who heard the mortar shell in flight. As the mortar projectile supposedly flew in the air some several kilometres in length not a single civilian, soldier, etc heard it.

Not one.

In addition the shells were not registered by the sound instruments, or radars by the British forces. And if that were amazing enough neither did the even more advanced state-of-the-art Dutch equipment didn't register any shells being fired either.

What are the odds of that happening. Five shells in flight and neither hi tech equipment notice anything and no one hears a thing.

"At the time of the event on the 28th there was a precise British and Dutch radar system registering shells fired at the town, the radar system did not register a single shell fired at the town and the sound of the shells was not registered when they were flying in"

How is any of this possible?

Other problems include, General R. Smith admitted that the direction of the shells remains unresolved and of course there's no way of knowing which charge was used ( hence knowing the distance the shells traveled )

Just as big a problem is how on earth one shell could kill and injure well over 100 people with a single mortar round. It's just not possible. Absolutely impossible. This was proven by the defence expert witnesses.

The only person to examine the possible sites where the shell could have been fired from, from Serb positions, was Defence expert witness Mr Demurenko who, surprise surprise, received numerous death threats. He stated that the supposed sites were just not feasible to accurately fire one shell and hit the exact same place that had been hit about 18 months years previously. A mortar shell is not a cruise missile.

Finally of course numerous prosecution witnesses admitted the Bosnian Muslims could very will have inflicted this atrocity on themselves.

So how to explain this mystery of the stealth shell that made no noise yet killed a huge number of people with pinpoint accuracy?

Quite easy in fact. The shell was never airborne. It had been planted there and detonated. Then the casualty figures were then inflated by adding dead bodies to the carnage.

The video provides the key. After the explosion the cameraman pans across the area of the blast then slowly retraces back again.

It's clear that immediately after the bomb exploded there are at most 30 odd dead and injured. In total. Nothing like the 100 plus figures claimed by the Bosnian Muslims, BBC, CNN and Rip Van Winkle. So the video evidence immediately dispels the 100 plus casuatlies myth.

In addition, bodies were obviously being added to the scene whilst the camera is actually running and you can see evidence of this. As the camera pans back to it's original starting point, bodies have miraculously appeared, they weren't there as the camera panned across the scene at the beginning. In addition, there are bodies with terrible injuries but with not a single drop of blood around the body. In fact, UNPROFOR had warned their officers of bodies being moved to up the casualty figures.

More signs of Bosnian Muslim skullduggery. To make an independent analysis of the crime scene all but impossible, the Bosnian Muslims accidentally-on-purpose removed ALL the bodies and the ENTIRE area was cleaned up, leaving no blood, no debris at all left to investigate. All the evidence was swept away.

All very convenient I must say.

Even had things been left untouched it's highly debatable if the Bosnian Muslim forensic team could have learned anything as the Bosnian Muslim officers had all but no training at all and at least one perjured himself when testifying in the General Milosevic trial ( he was almost certainly involved in implicating the VRs in many of these bombings ).

"This group of poorly trained people was doing the work, those who led them were sitting somewhere else in offices. Those who actually came at the scene were inexperienced young men who had no clue about on-site investigations, let alone investigations that required such skill and expertise"

Even more tellingly, photos of the dead in the morgue showed that at least one ( and possibly more ) had in fact died of gunshot wounds, not from bomb shrapnel, blast, etc. The Muslim authorities had obviously been moving battlefield dead from the front to help pad the numbers.

A little background to the Markale 2 massacre

This claim that the Bosnian Muslim authorities slaughtered their own might at first seem far fetched but prosecution witnesses in the trials of the Generals Milosevic, Galic and President Milosevic accept that this happened on numerous occasions.

a) General Halilovic's - of the Bosnian Muslim Army - own family were targeted and killed supposedly by Bosnian Serb artillery. However, he himself is absolutely convinced his brother and wife were murdered by his own forces using a remote-controlled bomb.

b) Mr Harland - a prosecution witness on page 400 of the Milosevic trial - testified "The representatives of the United Nations observed that the fighters of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina were shooting at people on their own territory," and mark this, "in order to create panic. And for this reason the international factors protested with the Bosnian authorities."

c) On 25th October shots were fired at a tram in Muslim Sarajevo. The following day a French investigation team went to the site, and by pushing rods into the bullet holes determined that it had in fact been targeted from the Bosnian Muslim side, even pinpointing the exact window. The French forces in Sarajevo were reviled by the Muslims because they insisted on doing a very thorough investigation and weren't afraid to point fingers at who was responsible. This explains why most of the dead French soldiers in Sarajevo were killed by the Bosnian Muslim forces.

d) The ABiH fired from within the walls of the Presidency building and

e) they also fired from within the walls of the Kosevo hospital. They'd even stationed a tank within the walls which fired completely inaccurately at VRS positions, then scuttled away, the perfectly legitimate counter battery attack by the VRS would be portrayed on CNN and BBC as flagrant and murderous attacks on an unprotected hospital by those darned infidels.

f) a huge amount of aid meant for the civilians was apropriated by the Muslim authorities. David Harland - prosecution witness and senior UN official in Sarajevo - "The BH authorities of Sarajevo appear to be diverting even more food than usual away from those that it intended to, perhaps less than one-third of the aid brought into the city. It is not entirely clear what is happening to the balance. Some resurfaces on the black market and some of it is diverted to the military; most, however, cannot be accounted for."

g) D. Harland: "During the meeting with Mr. Ganic ( Bosnian Muslim ), General Rose complained about mortars mounted on trucks and sniper fire opened by Bosnians on their own people. Ganic's customary reply was to say that Rose was anti-Muslim."

There are literally dozens of prosecution witnesses and senior NATO officers admitting that the Bosnian Muslim authorities killed their own, or used their own civilians as human shields, then pointed the finger at the Bosnian Serbs in the hope ( and give credit to President Izetbegovich, as it turns out, it was a completely justified hope ) of getting the silly Dhimmis in the West to go along with this murderous charade. Nightly on Western TV screens, these cold blooded murders were being pinned on the Bosnian Serbs.

Prosecution witnesses admit that the Bosnian Serbs were sincere in their attempt to make this ceasefire work.

D. Harland: "Towards the end of 1994, it seems that the Serbs genuinely wanted the stabilisation on the situation in Sarajevo and they ceased fire. In fact, they did that"

Unfortunately it takes two to tango. The Bosnian Muslims had different ideas about any ceasefire. Between 10th February and 27th April 1994, there were 318 cease-fires by the Muslims

In fact, from the signing of this ceasefire up to the Markale 2 bombing, the Bosnian Muslim forces had breached the ceasefire on over 400 times. I'll say that again.

The Bosnian Muslim forces had broken the ceasefire on over 400 times.

It was a transparent attempt by the Islamists to get the VRS to respond, which they sometimes did, in the hope that this was to draw NATO into the fray. Unfortunately for the Bosnian Muslims, it was far too obvious and NATO baulked at starting the bombing on such a flimsy pretext. General Rose, the fine British General, alluded as much when he said, quite presciently as it turned out, that

General Rose: "If they ( the Bosnian Muslims ) repeat such provocations, I believe that they will at least be careful enough to camouflage them better."

They did indeed try a little harder, hence Markale 2.

NATO didn't retaliate to any of these 400 odd ceasefire breaks of course. Not once did NATO fire at at the Islamists but they were itching to give the infidels a bloody nose. In fact, so eager were NATO to suck up to the Sarajevo Islamists they made the decision to bomb VRS positions at the same time of the Markale 2 incident, according to documents obtained by the Defence team in the General Milosevic trial. If that weren't enough to show where NATO stood on the infidel/Islamist divide, read some of the adjectives senior NATO officers used to describe Bosnian Serb military and political leaders. Of course, I've yet to read of any insults directed by NATO top brass against the Bosnian Muslims - who were led by someone who thought that Israel had no right to exist - who were using the services of a certain Mister Bin Laden's Esq along with numerous Iranian Al Quds forces at the time.

Movie news.

Angelina Jolie is going to be directing a movie in the country, I heard the story will be about a doomed love affair between a Serb and Muslim. I do hope she tries to be accurate in this movie. I do hope she remembers that

a) on no occasion did Bosnian Serbs ever fire at people trying to cross the dividing line between Serbian controlled Sarajevo and Muslim controlled Sarajevo, unlike the Bosnian Muslims who slaughtered many individuals/couples who tried to flee from one side of the divide to the other.
From the Defence's closing remarks in the of the General Dragomir Milošević case: "There is not a single shred of evidence nor will you ever be able to find any that any defector was shot by the Serb side while trying to cross over to the other side. ( Page 9508 )

b) the Bosnian Serbs never killed their own in search of media sympathy, unilike the Bosnian Islamists. Prosecution witnesses admitted this,
The lead off Prosecution witness stated
Q: Thank you. Are you aware of this one single instance where the troops of the Army of Republika Srpska shot at their own civilians?
Prosecution witness: No. We had no knowledge of any incidents of that sort. We didn't have good access, but I would also doubt if there were any such incidents. I wanted to make a slight clarification, which is we were aware of incidents in which, on the Serb side of the line, one Serb might have been targeted or killed by another, but that was of a different nature. That was when one group was conflicting with another. So I just wanted to make that clarification, sir"

c) the city was not under seige but was a divided city, much like Beruit had been during the Lebanese civil war.

d) the ABiH controlled many of the hills surrounding Sarajevo and these peaks dominated the whole of the city.

e) the Bosnian Muslims refused to allow any civilians to leave the city.
Q: And those who wanted to leave were unable to do so because they were not allowed by the Muslim authorities to do that. Is that correct?
D.Harland: That is correct. ( 359 General Milosevic )
The Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Croats had sought for an agreement to allow all civillians to leave the war zone but the Bosnian Muslims were more interested in using civilians as human shields, and also to tug at the heart strings of gullible and naive Westerners when these civilians were inevitably caught up in battles.

Anyway, I'm quite confident that the movie will continue Hollywood's long and proud tradition of never playing fast and loose with historical facts.

Poor NATO. If they'd called it a day after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist they'd go down in history as the most successful alliance in human history. Instead, they insisted on doing a few encores. So they whored themselves out to the Saudis with their policy in the Balkans, thereby comically allying themsleves with Al Qaeda and Al Quds forces in the process - the Saudis had demanded that the US pay them back for allowing them to use sacred Saudi territory for the stationing of infidel US troops on during the Kuwaiti/Iraq war.

That takes some doing.

And then they thought that democracy's next logical stop should be that oasis of decency, moderation and open mindedness, Afghanistan.

That takes real genius.

The words "democracy" and "Afghanistan" should never be used in the same sentence.

Ever.

It was not an "ethnic" war, that was just AP whitewash of anything jihad or Islamic. It was jihad/counter-jihad. It was very brutal, but most jihads have been. Why does fighting back against jihad considered worse than the jihad itself? That is self-imposition of Sharia law.