"(The strikes) will be destabilizing and damage will be inflicted both on our relations with the United States and with stability in Europe."

-- Russian reaction before the air strikes against Serbia in 1999

I agreed with the Russians. Haven't seen much of that before or since. The NATO bombing caused the largest population displacement of the entire Yugoslavian disaster.

Splitting up Yugoslavia was chaotic from the beginning. Tito ran a tidy socialist non-aligned state and granted plenty of local autonomy. Simmering nationalism within Yugoslavia was a problem with every group and ethnicity, not just the Serbs.

It's hard to imagine an independent Kosovo not fighting a war with Serbia. The Serbian minority will be attacked by the KLA, ethnic cleansing (of Serbs) will resume and critical religious sites destroyed. We'll be back to 1999 and 2004 (not to mention wars going back for centuries with the same basic character). Serbia will be forced to act given the centrality of Kosovo to Serbian history and religion. The Serbs will view an independent Kosovo about as happily as they did losing to the Ottomans.

Posted by: Beagle at May 14, 2006 7:45 AM

"...misinformation, disinformation and wishful thinking..."

Yes, indeed.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at May 14, 2006 8:53 AM

Carla Del Ponte said that the presence of an Islamic terrorist network "would not change one iota" regarding the charges against Milosevic

This is the same Carla Del Ponte who claims that the International Criminal Court in the Hague has the right to put American citizens on trial if they "violate certain EU laws" -- even if they never set foot outside American borders!

The only reason why this is not happening yet is because Bush requested from the ICC a delay in the implementation of this claim -- the claim however stands!

I bring this up because what happened to the Milosovic -- will happen to every American very soon.

Yugoslavia was an important milestone for many reasons -- not the least of which was the establishment of the ICC; but the legal claim by Del Pointe and the rest of her nefarious ilk is that they have the power of the ancient popes, to wit: the devine right to impose and depose kings and kingdoms.

For their actions in Yugoslavia and their collaboration with the ICC and agreement with it to put American citizens in jeapordy by foreign courts without the protection of our Constitution and the rights therein; Albright, Holbrooke, Clinton et al -- are in my opinion, traitors to their country and should have had to answer formal charges of treason before Congress.

Moreover, it was known at the time of the Kosovo war that bin laden was in the area -- he was photographed!

It was put on the back burner so that establishment of international law could set the president of putting a head of state (Milosovic) on trial.

That decision -- that "priority" -- cost 3000 American lives on Sept 11, 2001.

Posted by: witness at May 14, 2006 9:25 AM

Milosevic killed muslims did'nt he ?

Posted by: arjun.sevak at May 14, 2006 11:45 AM

I truly hope that the American Council for Kosovo will assist in educating Americans about the current violence and destruction that is being committed against Serbs and their Serbian Orthodox Christian churches/monastaries.

Many Americans are misinformed about Kosovo- and Serbia.

Sadly, American leadership is pressing for full independence of Kosovo.

Expect more violence towards Serbian Orthodox Christians if Kosovo becomes an independent Muslim state.

Read here:
http://www.kosovo.net/news/archive/2005/August_15/4.html

Posted by: Johnathan at May 14, 2006 12:12 PM

Serge Trifkovic writes on this here:

Kosovo: The Plot Thickens

He quotes from the Baltimore Sun:

... investigations implicating Albanian politicians or their associates [in "ethnic cleansing"] were routinely blocked. The orders came directly from Washington, London and Brussels. Mr. Ceku and Mr. Haradinaj control Kosovo’s militant factions and are considered heroes by Albanians. An anxious United Nations continually has sought to stay on their good side through appeasement.

The US, the UK, and the EU need to start thinking, because they've not done too well so far.

East Timor, Northern Cyprus, Sudan ... where does this stop?

... if the international community, especially the United States, try to appease the jihadists in Kosovo, that would only whet the appetite of the terrorists for new victories. It would establish the principle that once a militant Muslim minority resorts to violence in a majority non-Muslim country, they are “entitled” to detach the area where they are concentrated and create a new state where they can persecute and uproot the non-Muslims.

Detach an area from a sovereign state and then "cleanse" it.

I suppose Kashmir would be next on the list.

When will "Washington, London and Brussels" choose to put a stop to this global process?

Posted by: Yojimbo at May 14, 2006 12:20 PM

Note, here is an MEP arguing for just that - detaching areas of sovereign states and turning them over to Islam.

His article comes wrapped in a lot of guff about "the national principle" but his specific recommendations all violate it.

And he specifically mentions Cyprus - "Turkish Cypriots who, for some reason, are usually overlooked by their co-religionists," he says. In fact, on Cyprus the Turks engaged in genocide, seizure of private property, transport of colonists from Turkey, and forced displacement of Greek Cypriots from their own land.

He also lists Kashmir, Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya as ripe for detachment and - what he doean't say - ensuing "ethnic cleaning".

Is it a coincidence that this man is a member of the "European Parliament"?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/05/01/do0101.xml

Posted by: Yojimbo at May 14, 2006 12:32 PM

Milosevic killed muslims did'nt he ?
Posted by: arjun.sevak

Yeah 'e did. Someday my great-grandchildren may wonder why he was stopped.

Posted by: Pelayo at May 14, 2006 1:56 PM

I have regarded the start point of the modern jihad against the West, with the war in Bosnia and Kosovo. Our acquiescence to the demands of Saudi Arabia and the muslim world, was a spur to the re-invigoration of the modern jihad.

The US, Britain and NATO in 1999, acted in very similar fashion to The Great Powers in 1938, when in Munich, they sacrificed Sudetanland to the Nazis. If we defeat the Jihad against us, future historians will place the Rambouillet Conference alongside the Munich Pact, as one of the great acts of shameful appeasement of modern times.

There was a direct line from Munich to WWII, and so I believe there is a direct line from Rambouillet to 9/11. Appeasement never pays.

As in Kosovo, where the minority Christian population was left defenceless against the jihadis and forced to flee, a similar situation has been ongoing in Iraq - the ancient community of Christians in Iraq, are being killed and their churches burnt, while the coalition is paralysed by PC. Hindus of Kashmir have been evicted from their ancestral land by muslim invaders and so with Sebs in Kosovo.

The Jihad template works just fine - muslims invade or immigrate to an Infidel land. Form tight communities and then expand that area by dawa and a high birthrate. They then demand sharia, and if not granted, demand autonomy followed by seccession.

Something stinks in the Christian West. I really would like to know what is going in the great minds of the strategic planners in Western capitols, as they systematically sacrifice Christians to the Jihad. Are they under the impression that muslims will be grateful for their generosity? If anything, muslims are filled with nothing but contempt for us, as we sacrifice our natural allies.

Posted by: DP111 at May 14, 2006 4:15 PM

I feel a bumper sticker coming on (inspired by the materials at the website):

Remember Yogoslavia?

Well folks. We Bombed the Wrong Side!

Kosovo - Land of the Terrorists and Home of the Unfree!

Just say NO to Kosovo Independence!

www.savekosovo.org

(yeah, OK, It's a bit long. But that's why I don't make my living in marketing)

Posted by: Caroline at May 14, 2006 4:58 PM

Splitting up Yugoslavia was chaotic from the beginning. Tito ran a tidy socialist non-aligned state and granted plenty of local autonomy. Simmering nationalism within Yugoslavia was a problem with every group and ethnicity, not just the Serbs.

Opposition to Kosovo's independence should not be the basis of supporting the continuation of Yugoslavia. Outside the scope of Jihad, there was already friction between the Belgrade regime and Slovenia, Croatia and later Macedonia. Vaclav Havel showed how to do it when he let Slovakia seceed from Prague - that's a model Belgrade could have followed had Milosevic been as foresighted.

Support for Bosnia's independence might have been workable as long as the rights of Bosnian Serbs and Croats were guaranteed. Due to the lack of such guarantees, which would have had to be externally enforced (EU, Serbia, Croatia and Russia) Bosnia had the bloodbath that it did.

Also, just because the disintegration of Yugoslavia was a good thing does not imply that the same should be true of Serbia. Just as the break-up of the Soviet Union was necessary, but the break-up of Russia is not. One should oppose the Kosovar and Chechen movements, especially as long as they are Islamic movements. If those people apostasize - should take them a lot less effort than, say, the Iranians, - their nationalistic aspirations maybe worth a hearing.

But until then, no.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 14, 2006 5:00 PM

I suppose Kashmir would be next on the list. Posted by: Yojimbo

Kashmir needs to be partitioned before it comes to that, so that Jammu, Ladakh and Panun Kashmir are made separate states within India. That way, they can be removed from the discussion table.

That is Delhi's problem - they need to stop sucking up to the Kashmiri Muslim parties, such as the National Conference. If it comes to such a stage, I wouldn't put all the blame with "Washington, Brussels or New York."

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 14, 2006 5:05 PM

Just in case the above post wasn't clear, I meant that Infidel areas of Jammu & Kashmir should be carved out and separated, and India should emphatically state that they are not a legitimate subject of negotiations.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 14, 2006 5:08 PM

If those people apostasize (sic ... their nationalistic aspirations maybe worth a hearing.

But their "aspirations" are not "nationalistic". They are Islamic. And there is no justification for hiving off legally-held land from sovereign nations.

Posted by: Yojimbo at May 14, 2006 5:09 PM

I know, Yojimbo, I know. There was the If at the start.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 14, 2006 6:04 PM

The problem is that the US Dhimmicratic Party under the Clintons was hell-bent on pursuing the Kosovo War, without thinking through the long-term consequences.

While I'm not pleased with the Bush whitehouse's kowtowing to the Islamist "allies", I find the Dhimmicrats to be the worst of all. Having unleashed the genie of Islamist militancy from the bottle, they are at a loss of how to deal with it, so they're just under a denial reflex.

Posted by: sanman at May 14, 2006 7:19 PM

It's coming. It's coming. Anybody willing to guess how many years before the Mohammedans demand a slice of the US. Possibly a big chunk of Los Angeles County?

Posted by: Pelayo at May 14, 2006 7:32 PM

"The problem is that the US Dhimmicratic Party under the Clintons was hell-bent on pursuing the Kosovo War, without thinking through the long-term consequences." by sanman

That is the real problem with the current crop of US political leaders (Reps and Dems). These (fill in the blank) are only thinking about winning the next election. They don't give a hoot 'n Hell about the future of this country. Somebody please name a living US politian who gives a damn. I bet nobody, I mean nobody can do it.

Posted by: Pelayo at May 14, 2006 7:37 PM

BLESS YOU ROBERT.IF ANYONE CAN DRAW ATTENTION TO THE PLIGHT OF REMAINING CHRISTIAN SERBS AND THEIR
HISTORIC CHURCHES, YOU CAN. KOSOVO AND BOSNIA ON THE FRONT LINE AND WILL DETERMINE THE FATE OF EUROPE?TOO DAMN RIGHT...
Serbs have been spilling their blood for centuries; they have been persecuted, tortured and killed for remaining Christians,they didn't take the easy way out by converting to Islam.And for their pains and gallantry, their lives have been sacrificed again and again for other countries's foreign policy to please Muslims.Britain did this to them in the 18,00's when Russia would have liberated Serbia-Britain went in on the side of MURDEROUS SULTAN
who promptly had 35,000 Christians massacred after signing a quarantee with Britain these 'minorities' would be safe.
Britain,Europe and U.S are all to blame for actively supplying the terrorist Albanians and Bosnian Jihadists with money & weapons.Their shameful betrayal of fellow Christians TRYING TO DEFEND THEIR LAND from further encroachment from
Islam will result in an enormous BLOW BACK .

Posted by: Morgane at May 14, 2006 7:54 PM

I'm not with Jihadwatch on this one. The Serbs committed the nearest thing to genocide in Europe since WWII.

Posted by: wallyUK at May 14, 2006 10:10 PM

wallyuk wrote: " The Serbs committed the nearest thing to genocide in Europe since WWII. '

True the Serbs did commit violence against Muslims in Kosovo.

But let's not forget that Muslims also committed a tremendous amount of violence and oppression against Serbs in the past.

See the wall of Serbian skulls here:
http://www.srpska-mreza.com/History/pre-wwOne/Chele-kula.html

Posted by: Johnathan at May 14, 2006 10:36 PM

In alerting people to the attacks on Serbs, to the destruction of ancient monasteries, on the infiltration into the area of Arabs with a brand of Islam quite different from the relaxed, syncretistic, version -- not exactly full-bodied Islam in practice, because that local practice was affected by the centuries of proximity to non-Muslims, and to the effect of Communism, one is not endorsing any massacres by some Serbs. One can distance oneself -- most Serbs do, unfeignedly -- from Milosevich and those atrcotieis that were committed by some Serb forces (keeping in mind both the exaggerations of those atrocities, and the minimizing or even ignoring not only of the atrocities committed by the Muslims, but also the entire history of the area, the centuries of Muslim rule, the devshirme, and the deep fears evoked when Izetbegovic wrote that he intended to create a Muslim state and impose the Shari'a. Had the Western world shown the slightest intelligent sympathy or understanding of what that set off in the imagination of many Serbs, there might never have been such a reaction, and someone like Milosevic might never have obtained power.

Why wasn't there? Why didn't those in the West study what Izetbegovic said? Why didn't they read what Serb historians, and writers, including Ivo Andric (in his doctoral dissertation, recently-reprinted, "The Development of S;piritual Life in Bosnia under the Influence of Turkish Rule") were aware of, and that had never been forgotten? When Clinton ordered the bombing of the Serbs, had he heard, ever, about the devshirme? Did he know that Izetbegovic had written about imposing the shari'a? No, of course not. But had he, and had others, they might have reassured the Serbs long before, and helped to make them less panicky, less prone to give power to someone like Milosevic. The West entirely mishandled Serbia.

And right now, despite the dribs and drabs that begin to come out about the exaggerations on which criticism and bombing of Serbians was based, despite the new evidence, or the evidence no longer hidden, of past Muslim atrocities, the Western world still seems ready to overlook what is now happening. And what is now happening are attacks on Serbian villagers, and the destruction of Serbian churches, in Kosovo. Is one supposed to permanently blame Serbia, and never take its side, because of what Milosevic did? Is one to overlook the role of Bosnia as a place of training for those who could tomorrow be conducting Jihad anywhere in the world?

There is no reason not to take Serbia's side now. There is every reason -- of principle and of Infidel self-interest -- to take it.

Posted by: Hugh at May 14, 2006 10:56 PM

-svemirko,

Don't believe everything you hear. We don't use depleted uranium in bombs. Its used for munitions that derive their damage-making ability from kinetic energy. Bombs create explosive damage. Uranium would not enhance that. The last decade or so, everyone anywhere a shot has been fired by an American has been blaming one thing or another on depleted uranium. People like to blame the US for everything. Including, now, cancer. Please don't make claims like that without proof. American soldiers handle that material all the time in the form of unfired cannon shells for tanks and aircraft chain gun rounds, and they're not all layed up with radiation-induced cancer.

You keep bringing up the fact that America and other NATO forces bombed Serbia. You've made your point. Please jump off of the "blame America" wagon.

Posted by: Eisenhund at May 15, 2006 4:10 AM

-svemirko

I understand how you might feel the way you do, but facts are facts. Fact one, I was in the US Army for thirteen years. When I talk about American weapons, I know more about them than the sources you cite. I was in a Mechanized Infantry unit the whole time with Bradley Fighting Vehicles, equipped with 25 mm M242 Bushmaster cannons. They fire depleted uranium rounds as well as high-explosive armor piecing. Fact two, we don't use depleted uranium in bombs. You can argue about it all you like, that won't make it true. Fact three. "Gulf War Syndrome" has never been pegged down to one cause, and is thought to have many disparate causes, including environmental pollution from burning oil wells, chemicals released from bombed industrial complexes, and possibly release of chemical munitions by the Iraqis, either intentionally or as the result of bomb strikes on storage bunkers. Point is, no one knows what causes it. Fact four, like it or not, the American Army doesn't do evil things. Individual soldiers do, and there are few armies in the world that as vigorously take them out and prosecute them as the American military does.

My point was, you've on more than one occassion brought up the hardships Serbia has suffered due to NATO action. You've also gotten messages of support and concurrance that many of us, including me, disagreed with US and allied governments' policies in the matter. But you must also understand that it was not just a matter of policy for a few countries. Remember, the mandates being enforced were UN decisions. Its not fair to keep beating America over the head constantly with the victim club and then turn around and talk about being allies. It gets annoying, doesn't win friends, and tends to poison any positive feelings some may have for your position. Now I don't want to get into what a great friend of the West Josip Broz was (not), because, frankly, its history. Nor do I want to do something I've not yet done and bring up the fact that Serbs are no angels either. You talk about the US supporting the "wrong side". Think about that for a minute. Who, including the US and Serbia, ever thinks that they are ever on the wrong side (besides the American leftists you mentioned)?

You want to talk about harm done by Islamists, great. I'll be first to tell you, we're with you. However, this constant berating of the US for the ill-conceived policies of the Clinton administration is getting difficult to not take personally. I was part of the American Army and am an American citizen and I don't deal well with people blaming my country for things when those people don't come to the table with clean hands. That may not be how you meant it, but that's how it sounds. Most of us here, again including me, don't want a separate Kosovo that would just add more territory to the transnational state of Dumbassistan. Some of us might even be happy to fight against it (trouble is, combat ain't cheap and soldiers don't fight for free).

Take the preceding in the best light possible, as that is how it was meant. From the part of your post where you say "Personaly I wish to look on all of this generaly, cos I think that 100 years of allyes connections should not be ruined for good because 10 years of conflict & all of that during regimes of 2 idiots (on both sides)...", I agree with you whole-heartedly, and believe we should leave it at that, lest one of us say something that could only be interpreted in an insulting manner.

Posted by: Eisenhund at May 15, 2006 5:44 AM

-svemirko,

Fine, whatever.

I'm not going to engage any further, as things are getting hostile and keeping in mind our prior civil back-and-forths, I'm trying to not get a "well, screw you too" attitude and let go with both barrels. Maybe I don't know how you feel. But if you want to sit in your corner of Europe feeling resentful, that's up to you. I'm not in the habit of begging people to be their friend. I make no excuses for any administration as they are not in the habit of calling me personally and seeking my counsel in policy issues and then posting a check in my bank account. My country has enough to worry about without concerning itself over whether or not everyone loves us. I personally think that is a problem with this country, that it actually does try to be buddy-buddy with all the wrong people. The American taxpayers forked over alot of money to train me to shoot, slash, stab, explode, garrotte, beat, break, and crush my republic's enemies, not to feed them, wipe their noses and backsides, and hand out blankies, especially when they're mohammedans or other assorted savages.

PS - I have never mentioned any belief or disbelief in any God, deity, spirit, etc. I prefer reason and facts. And yes, I do believe in the Army. I was in it longer than alot of people have been on this planet. I had friends with whom I served a long time, and any disparaging comments made about that army reflect on them and me. It insults our honor, something we soldiers take very seriously. I do not appreciate that, and I seldom let it go unanswered.

PPS - If your country and culture is worth your obvious pride in it, its worth fighting to protect. As long as y'all are on the map, don't hand the islamic zombies a victory by giving up on it. You're father fought the Germans, how hard could a bunch of seventh century barbarians be to beat?

Posted by: Eisenhund at May 15, 2006 8:07 AM

-svemirko,

Lol. I was about to send a conciliatory message myself, but I see you beat me to it. I wouldn't worry too much about Mladic or Karadzic (which one of them kept the tiger cub?), most Americans have pretty short memories, and most of the dhimmi Euros are pretty toothless.

I see we share a common outside interest. If I ever look up through my old spyglass and see a mosque on the moon, I may lose hope. The mo's ever get the high ground, they'll be insufferable. Of course, I wouldn't be averse to the idea of shipping all of them up there (it would make facing Meccah an interesting exercise in sore necks).

The US government may stay the same, but the players shuffle. Policies and attitudes change. All I can say is keep up hope and piss on the EU, the UN, and the ummah. You often have more allies than you think, and people who understand the situation better than you might expect. Like I said before, deployment to Kosovo was not popular among the troops. Most saw it as an internal Jugoslav matter. Look at the border situation in the US, and American opinion polls about the same, and ask yourself if what the government does is necessarily a reflection of the will of the people.

You have more allies than you think.

Posted by: Eisenhund at May 15, 2006 8:56 AM

...and a dog in a little pressure suit.

I figured that they didn't believe anyone could get up there because the moon was just painted on the inside of the big dome over the earth. The moon, stars, and planets are just a bunch of Mohammedoodles.

I can just imagine if the Israelis ever built a moon base, the mohammedans would be strapping themselves to suicide rockets to hit it. Kinda like that Chinese guy a thousand years ago who tied a bunch of rocket-fireworks to a chair trying to reach the heavens and ended up just creating a smoking crater in the ground (at least he wasn't trying to kill anyone, and ended up being the only casualty of the ill-advised, attempted, astronautical endeavor.)

Posted by: Eisenhund at May 15, 2006 9:39 AM

Chuck a few big rocks at Meccah, Damascus, Riyadh, Tehran, and Islamabad from a lunar railgun, the mo's might get the message. Tell 'em "Allah sent them".

Do you have any idea how hard it is to find 72 virgins? Probably why the mohammedans think blowing themselves up is the only way.

Posted by: Eisenhund at May 15, 2006 10:04 AM

I can't speak about the weapons used in Yugoslavia. But I do know that the Arab propagandists have used that charge against Israel. It just angers me enormously how the bien-pensant fools get taken in by Arab/PLO propaganda, and that charge is one of the most unreasonable ones. If depleted uranium were used to spread radiation, then it would affect us too since the Land of Israel is fairly small and Jews are living very close to Arabs geographically.
Secondly, I believe that depleted uranium is used to penetrate steel, as in tanks. But the "palestinian authority" Arabs have not been using tanks so far. They were not supposed to have tanks as weapons [I don't know whether they really some tanks hidden or not]. Hence, there has been no reason to use depleted uranium and a very good reason for our army NOT to use it. But the same bien-pensant EU maniacs and US university leftists will believe it fanatically regardless of facts or reason.

Posted by: Eliyahu at May 16, 2006 7:03 AM

Rather than an independent Kossovo solving any problems, it would just create new problems, as our experience with the Arab mini-state, "the palestinian authority," has proven.

Posted by: Eliyahu at May 16, 2006 7:05 AM

"I'm not with Jihadwatch on this one. The Serbs committed the nearest thing to genocide in Europe since WWII.

Posted by: wallyUK"

well ,well , wally by name wally by nature....

so our wally's with the mujahideen on this one?

what does our wally think of his kla flogging semtex to the rira?

or of the kla controlling the heroin and sex slave market in the u.k?

if the ( bosnian ) serbs almost committed genocide , why did the very moderate muslims , under abdic , support the serbs? it was ww2 nazi war criminal , izetbegovich who you're supporting on this one, wally....

and why does the srebrenica myth of supposed bosnian serb mass murder rely almost entirely on an insane ethnic croat merc and islamist eavesdroppers?

our very own wally thinks that islamists , trained by the iranian's ruthless military intelligence , the vevak , count for solid and relilable testimony....

go elsewhere , wally , i'm sure there are a few "dhimmi sites" where you can find like minded wallys....

Posted by: ewha1 at May 20, 2006 4:05 AM