| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald discusses why all anti-jihadists should support Serbia today:
The jihad in Serbia is one that is obscured in a particularly vexing way. Accordingly it must be emphasized that in alerting people to attacks on the Serbs, and to the destruction of ancient churches and monasteries, and on the infiltration into the area of Arabs bringing a brand of Islam quite different from the relaxed, syncretistic local 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 Milosevic and those atrocities that were committed by some Serb forces.One must keep in mind both the way in which some atrocities ascribed to Serbs were exaggerated, while the atrocities inflicted on them were minimized or ignored altogether. The role played by Arabs who came from outside never received the attention in the West it deserved. But what was most disturbing was that there was no context to anything: nothing about the centuries of Muslim rule, the ferocity of that Turkish rule, the role of the feared devshirme (which was not, as Bernard Lewis would have it, a kind of benign "recruitment" of Christian and in some cases Jewish children for the armies of the Sultan, but rather a forced levy of such children, snatched from their families to enter the armies of the Sultan).
Had such a history been discussed early on, Western governments might have understood and attempted to assuage the deep fears evoked by the Bosnian Muslim leader, Izetbegovic, when he wrote that he intended to create a Muslim state in Bosnia and impose the Sharia not merely there, but everywhere that Muslims had once ruled in the Balkans. Had the Western world shown the slightest intelligent sympathy or understanding of what that set off in the imagination of many Serbs (and elsewhere, among the Christians in the Balkans and in Greece), there might never have been such a violent Serbian reaction, and someone like Milosevic might never have obtained power.Izetbegovic had openly demanded that Islam become the ruling force in Bosnia. His remarks on the need to reimpose the Sharia and impose full Muslim rule did send shivers down Serbian spines. And at the same time, Germany, which was so quick to recognize Slovenia and then Croatia, was remembered by Serbians as connected to Operation Kozara and many other massacres, as well as to Croatian collaborators with the Nazis, the Ustashe who killed Serbs, Jews, and Gypsies at Jasenovac. And Serbs have not forgotten the story of Kurt Waldheim in his "Intelligence Unit." Germany's quick recognition of these states was understood in light of all this, and seemed to many in Serbia to be what prematurely caused Yugoslavia to dissolve.
And these two histories that are vivid in Serbian imaginations, the recent one of German and Ustashe massacres, and the much older, much longer one of oppression and massacre by the Ottoman Turks. These were enough to terrify Serbs into supporting certain leaders whom, had they not been so terrified, they would never have followed.
In all of Europe, only a few French journalists and the Austrian writer Peter Handke tried to explain Serbian fears and Serbian history. In the United States, no one made the slightest effort. Milosevic = Serbs, Milosevic = bad, Serbs = bad. And Izetbegovic? Well, when he died, the plummy-voiced Paddy Ashdown (now some grand panjandrum in the Balkans) delivered himself of some solemn words of regret on the passing of the great man (the Great Man was a monster); not a hint of what Izetbegovic was all about.
In Bosnia and Kosovo, hundreds of millions of dollars from the Saudis and Arab fighters, have now been around -- as they will go wherever Jihad-duty calls -- for the last 15 years.
A few months ago, Albanians destroyed a few hundred Orthodox churches in Kosovo. Nothing happened at the UN. Just as nothing happened when a Hindu temple was destroyed in the middle of Kuala Lumpur by the Muslim-run government. Nothing was done when Joseph's Tomb was reduced to rubble by the "Palestinians" in 2000. Nothing was done when the Bamiyan Buddhas were at long last, after 1,500 years, destroyed because, at long last, they could be. Here and there, there was about those churches as about the other cases, a cluck-cluck of disapproval. But nothing will happen.
And if Turkey is, insanely, allowed into the EU? What will the Balkans be like then, if not a place to settle, or still worse, a transit-point for Muslims, by no means all of them citizens of Turkey? Who will distinguish a Turkish Kurd from an Iraqi Kurd, or an Iranian Kurd? Who in Western Europe will really be able to distinguish an Arab "immigrant" slipping in from a Turk who is entitled to free movement within the EU? Chaos, anyone?
Shouldn't the Western Europeans learn just a little about the Balkans? Let's start with Rebecca West’s Black Lamb and Grey Falcon, or Ivo Andric (whose recently-reprinted Ph.D. thesis on the effects of Muslim rule, "The Development of Spiritual Life in Bosnia under the Influence of Turkish Rule," should not be forgotten), Milovan Djilas and his son Aleksa. No one can discuss the Balkans unless that person can adequately describe:
1) the devshirme system;
2) the condition of Christians under Ottoman rule, including such events as the Bulgarian Wars of 1875-1876;
3) the significance of the Battle of Kosovo;
4) who was Karageorge.
Be able to answer those questions, and you will have begun to earn the right to have an opinion about the Serbs, Bosnia, and Kosovo.
How many in the State Department today can answer those questions? Why not? Why didn't those in the West study what Izetbegovic said? 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 Sharia? 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 Robert at May 15, 2006 7:27 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
That Germany, the Germany of Operation Kozara, and Jasenovac, and Kurt Waldheim in his "Intelligence Unit," should have been so quick to recognize Slovenia and Croatia, should have been so quick to recognize Slovenia and Croatia, and helped therefore to destroy the very idea of Yugoslavia
This was significant for two additional reasons:
First, the death camps of WW2 were administered by the SS; the day-to-day implementation of doing the deed so to say, was done by Croations.
Second, Croatations even during WW2 were Catholic. There is boundless speculation of Pious' connection to the Nazis (nothing really substantiated -- just speculation) which was in part fueled by the so-called "Catholic-Croatation connection" to the death camps.
In this context, when the Croatation armies received funding for arms from none other than sources at the Vatican (yup, its public record) during the 1990's; Serbians had good reason to worry.
Is one supposed to permanently blame Serbia and never take its side, because of what Milosevic did?
And what did Milosevic do? Before he came to power, he went to Kosovo to verify reports that Serbs were being murdered there by the KLA. He witnessed it first hand and vowed that he would put a stop to it.
Milosevic was just another crooked politician. He was no better or no worse than Clinton, Straw, Albright, Blair or Del Ponte.
He was of the same cloth. The only difference between Milosevic and the rest is that he refused to dance as they played. He was independent; not a team player; did his own thing.
That's why he became a devil.
To his credit Milosevic, to my knowledge, never ordered schools, hospitals, and civilian trains to be redefined as "military targets" with marching orders to destroy them like some residents of the White House that come to mind did.
And how did all those cluster bombs that managed to litter the school yards in Belgrade get there?
The one's with the "made in America" stenciled all over the place?
Ask just about any crew chief at the Italian airbase (yup I know the name; someone else can name it) who worked there at the time, and the answer becomes self-explanatory.
In any case, supporting the islamists then was crazy -- now, it is suicidal. They mean to kill us all, and I hold their so-called holy book to attest to that!
They started with Kosovo -- Eurabia is next.
Posted by: witness![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 15, 2006 8:09 AM
A question for all. At Milosevic’s trial in The Hague, during a stage where Milosevic was seeking to introduce photographic evidence into his defense, an interesting exchange occurred. The photographs were of Bosnian mujahadeen proudly displaying their latest war trophies for the camera, apparently taken during the early stages of the conflict. The presiding judge refused Milosevic’s motion, (though I forget on what grounds). Milosevic then posed a question to the bench, to wit…”You people (meaning the European ruling elite) have allowed large numbers of these people, (meaning members of the Islamic faith), into your societies. When these are photographs of your citizens, (the trophies so proudly displayed), what will your response be then.” It is a question I have yet to see any politician…ANY, even begin to address. They are all in denial. I have even posed this question to friends and acquaintances, and almost without exception, I am confronted with a blank response.
Now I’m not holding Milosevic to be innocent of the crimes he was accused of, I simply don’t know. For given the level of plain old mendacity the mainstream media has been caught out in recently, not just in clumsy incompetence, but in politically motivated manipulation, it becomes hard, if not impossible to come to a determination of guilt or innocence, “beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt.” An astute mind can learn from myriad sources, regardless of their affiliations, so long as they are willing to keep focus with a critical eye. In short, I don’t care whether Milosevic was the bastard child of the anti-christ or not …somebody answer the damn question!
There is a second question here. Given the realisation of the depths of corruption that the organs of the dissemination of information have descended to, have we not granted our enemies a massive advantage. There is much to repair within the Western World, if we are to stand a chance against such a relentless and remorseless foe. From the tolerance of the intolerant , to the acceptance of radical view points, as to their legitimacy in the public discourse , to the veniality and opportunism of our ruling elites, there is much cleaning to be done. It is time to roll up our sleeves and get to it.
I’m not suggesting that we all need to be in total agreement on every issue, indeed dissenting opinion is a critical aspect of the dialogue of political discourse within the west. However, just plain old mendacity in the cause of any factions prevailing ideology, only serves our enemies. We are plagued with the same dissensions that caused such grief and trouble to the ancient Greeks, in the face of their trials, funnily enough, against the same enemy - Persia , (though she is now only one part of a much larger whole).
Maybe, just maybe, those “dead white oppressor males” , so despised by academia, have something useful to tell us, is anyone paying attention? Someone keep an eye out for Pericles.
at May 15, 2006 9:56 AM
It wasn't just ignorance of Serbian history. We were also trying to show the Muslims that we were not opposed to them, which might perhaps help with the Palestinian problem. We have often boasted of how we helped Muslims in Bosnia. The Muslims never seemed to care much. Our government basically doesn't understand the Muslim mentality.
Posted by: Benjamin at May 15, 2006 9:58 AM
Correction or rather addendum, before Paolo jumps all over me for a slight error.
Keep an eye out fot Themistocles, he being the leading and most effective statesman, (yes they had them then, unlike us now), who organised the defense of Greece, for it was he who prepared the Greeks by building the fleet which broke the back of the Persian advance.
Though a Pericles would not go amiss, for his oratorical skills and their ability to inspire and fortify the spirits of men, still echo down to us through 25 centuries.
Just kidding Paolo, just kidding.
Posted by: Just Another Richard at May 15, 2006 10:14 AM
The photographs were of Bosnian mujahadeen proudly displaying their latest war trophies for the camera, apparently taken during the early stages of the conflict
You forgot to mention that the proudly displayed "war trophies" in those photographs taken by the mighty islamic warriors (PUKE) were the heads of Serbian men, women, and children!
You wonder why Milosovic felt compelled to act?
Yes, the American news media knew it at the time as did many in the State Department.
The latter chose in response to bomb civilian targets in Serbia hoping as Bejamin points out, to garner political points that could help end the Palestinian problem in the Middle-East.
It backfired!
The result the ruling elites policy in Yugoslavia is directly linked to 9/11.
Three thousand men, women, and children paid with their lives that day because they were betrayed on so many levels by people who were supposed to protect them -- and refused to so do because of political expedience and priority.
Posted by: witness at May 15, 2006 10:41 AM
Witness.... I don't wonder at all. The latent betrayal of our ruling elites, becomes apparent by the day, and all for what...to maintain their positions of comfort: what soulless opportunists.
They are not men and women of principle, but simply corrupt parasites, manipulating events to serve their designs, annoint their egos, and burnish their conciet. And yes, just in case you didn't get it...I don't like them.
svemirko Thanks for the links, will watch them later, as I must get to work now.
Posted by: Just Another Richard at May 15, 2006 11:10 AM
Was it Arkan or someone else who said that if we don't fight Islam on the banks of the Danube we will be fighting them on the Banks of the Thames. Recall 7/7 also 9/11.
Posted by: IceDragon at May 15, 2006 11:37 AM
what I don't understand are the two or three comments above that claim that the USA sided with the Bosnian Muslims to get Muslim help with the "palestine" problem. I think that is ridiculous. On the other hand, the State Dept and CIA have long had a pro-Muslim policy in the Middle East, in Africa, and in India. To ascribe the US or British or EU or NATO help for the Bosnian [and Kosovo] Muslims as being given on account of some cloudy hope to get Muslim support for US policy on the Arab-Israeli conflict is silly and foolish.
But I want to point out the BBC help for creating the climate for the war against the Serbs. One Misha Glenny, described as a BBC journalist, published several books through Penguin publishers --before the break up of Yugoslavia-- about how mean the Serbs were to the Bosnian Muslims. He acknowledged that the Croat ustashi had massacred Serbs during WW2, without reporting just how large the number of massacred Serbs was [between 500,000 and 750,000 according to various authorities]. In regard to the Bosnian Muslims, Glenny totally avoided mentioning the Handschar division of the SS, made up of Bosnian Muslims, recruited with the help of Haj Amin el-Husseini [leader of the Palestinian Arab nationalists], who also killed many Serbs, often in gruesome ways. In other words, Glenny of the BBC wrote a deceitful propaganda tract against the Serbs which falsified the history of WW2 in the Balkans. Glenny's books were published before the break up of Yugoslavia, as I recall. That means, Glenny of the BBC was helping to get public opinion ready for the war. Which is what the BBC does to Israel; it justifies Arab massacres of Jews.
I agree with the comment above that the Yugoslav situation was "reported" in a very shallow historical context, not going beyond Tito's time, usually, and even for recent events, the reporting was often or usually false.
at May 15, 2006 11:39 AM
I should add that the Handschar [khanjar] SS division massacred Jews, Gypsies, and even Croats as well as Serbs, even though the Germans were collaborating with the Croat Ustashi.
Jews were also massacred in the Ustashi-run Jasenovac concentration and death camp, along with Serbs, who were most of the victims there.
at May 15, 2006 12:05 PM
speaking of Ivo Andric, his novel, Bridge on the Drina, about Bosnia, ought to be fairly easy to digest for the average intelligent reader.
Posted by: Eliyahu at May 15, 2006 12:12 PM
Joining oppressors of freedom, just because your enemies lend downtrodden people support is not a wise path.
Both communities must be actively supported and encouraged to weed out jihadists who are a threat to any free country.
Posted by: SM at May 15, 2006 12:26 PM
The research project is conducted by the two population experts Ewa Tabeau and Jacub Bijak, who works for the ICTY prosecution.
The results were presented at a conference for population experts, demographists, in Norway one year ago, but they have not been publicly known.
NTB has recently gained access to the material presented at the conference, and for the first time they published scientific calculations of how many civilians were killed in the terrible war in Bosnia-Herzegovina from 1992 to 1995.
102,622 civilians and military personnel were killed, Tabeau and Bijak conclude. 55,261 civilians and 47,360 soldiers were killed, including Bosnian Muslims, Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Croats.
The researchers estimate the number of killed civilian Muslims AND Croats tobe around 38,000, while the number of killed civilian Serbians was about 16,700.
(My addition- Croats and Muslims fought against each other at the beginning of the war and later forged an alliance to defeat the Serbs)
Among military personnel, the researchers think close to 28,000 people were killed in the government army, mostly Bosnian Muslims.
On the Serbian side, 14,000 soldiers were killed, while a bit over 6,000 Bosnian Croatian soldiers lost their lives because of actions of war.
INTERESTING!!! (IN ALL MAINSTREAM MEDIA YOU WILL HEAR 250,000)!!!
To my knowledge Milosevic was cleared of knowing of Srebrenica masacre by Dutch government report.
If Milosevic was such a horrible dictator (for most of his rule had a large public support) why are other people never mentioned? For example, in Slovenia (where I am from) most politicians are still around from Tito's time (and friends by the way) who simply change positions around. And by the way, Slovenia deleted 30,000-80,000 non Slovenes (lately the Slovenian Helsinki committee uses the latter number) from records in 1991- (burecratic) ethnic cleansing??????????? The only non (reformed) Tito's communist opposition leader (Kramberger) was killed in his home under suspicious circumstances. This is EU!!!!! Lets not get around mentioning Croatian Franjo Tudjman and the rest of the political gang in Croatia (Mesic,....). There are at least
Note-to my knowledge not a single Milosevic party member was convicted of corruption (except his wife for helping a nanny get a 30-40 m^2 apartment ahead of her postion in the list) in the last 5 years of "democratic" (sponsored and paid for by various "non-govermental" organisations) government. As usual, some are bad dictators and some are good democrats in the west.
Andrej
at May 15, 2006 12:48 PM
Serbia has the largest refugee population in Europe.
(to my knowledge 250,000 from Croatia and 200,000 from Kosovo but check the official numbers).
Thousands of Serbs were also killed in Croatia and by the way.... it was a UN protected zone like Srebrenica!!!! Nobody ever mentions that!!! The West just turns a blind eye. Things do not make sense....but if,for example, President Chirac defends the Muslim looters in France and insults French studends having legitamate demands,who can expect something else.
Andrej
at May 15, 2006 12:59 PM
Non-Muslim Muslims naturally prefer to live in Serbia. Emir Kusturica, for instance.
Posted by: Hugh at May 15, 2006 1:24 PM
what I don't understand are the two or three comments above that claim that the USA sided with the Bosnian Muslims to get Muslim help with the "palestine" problem. I think that is ridiculous.
The palestine problem is only part of the whole. Ridiculous or not, our foreign policy has never been made by wise politicians.
Only sneaky, sly, clever, crafty, shrewd statesmen and women who thought more of their own careers rather than the long term good of those who the purport to represent.
On the other hand, the State Dept and CIA have long had a pro-Muslim policy in the Middle East, in Africa, and in India.
No arguement there.
To ascribe the US or British or EU or NATO help for the Bosnian [and Kosovo] Muslims as being given on account of some cloudy hope to get Muslim support for US policy on the Arab-Israeli conflict is silly and foolish.
I refer you to several articles that appeared in the publication Foreign Affairs around that time wherein several policy makers advocated just such notions.
Indeed, such an idea was foolish but many of the "movers and shakers" of the day proposed just that.
Historically, the US is capable of making silly foreign policy decisions that border on sheer madness.
"Vietnamization" was one such idiotic idea; the Kosovo fiasco of which we speak, was another; the current open border with Mexico and a few token National Gaurd units stationed "hither thither and yon" is yet another; and the list of silly and foolish policies go on, and on, and on.
The solution is to elect wise politicians who not merely the sly. But then wise politicians do not necessarily run for office lest they be sullied and dragged downward into the mire by the unscurpulous scoundrals they would find themselves surrounded by.
at May 15, 2006 1:33 PM
...After a Belgian teenager went on a murder spree and killed a Turkish woman, a Flemish toddler and her black nanny, Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt and others are blaming Belien -- for creating an atmosphere of "racial hatred."
From the main menu...
You were saying about "foolish and silly" reasons?
at May 15, 2006 1:49 PM
...After a Belgian teenager went on a murder spree and killed a Turkish woman, a Flemish toddler and her black nanny, Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt and others are blaming Belien -- for creating an atmosphere of "racial hatred."
From the main menu...
You were saying about "foolish and silly" reasons?
at May 15, 2006 1:49 PM
"proudly displayed "war trophies" in those photographs taken by the mighty islamic warriors (PUKE) were the heads of Serbian men, women, and children!
You wonder why Milosovic felt compelled to act?"
If true about what those "war trophies" were -- and who would reasonably doubt Muslims to be capable of such hideously ghoulish tripudiation? -- then Milosevic's response was as far as I am concerned justified and rational. We will, sooner or later, have to do some ugly things: doing these ugly things will not take us down some ethical "slippery slope" making us "no better" than the Muslims: it will simply ensure that we don't let Muslims triumph. When a people can brandish the severed heads of innocent humans, that people not only does not deserve humane treatment, it deserves to be stopped at all cost, without kid gloves.
at May 15, 2006 1:50 PM
As part of a U.S. military planning staff, I (amongst other educated U.S. military officers) attempted to warn the amazingly insane and emotionally unstable Gen Wesley Clark that his intentions would lead only to the following:
1) We would facilitate the establishment of a Muslim state in Kosovo.
2) This would be the second Muslim state to established in the heart of Europe, following Bosnia, in just three years. What might the consequences be?
3) This would grow into a very painful experience for Europe and the U.S. 10-20 years down the road.
4) We would enforce Serbia's perception that they are the bastard stepchild of Western Civilization.
Clark fired over twenty of his top intelligence analysts for briefing these views to him. He persisted with his fantasy that the Kosovar Albanians were as pure and clean as the wind-driven snow; innocent victims of a simple Serbian compulsion for evil. Yeah, right!
Clark was clueless and a madman. Behind closed doors, the overwhelming majority of officers on the EUCOM planning team thought he was INSANE. However, after he fired the first several, everyone got the picture. Cook the intel to make the Kosovars look like angels and the Serbs like demons.
Clark had a demented and paranoid beef with Milo because the Serbian President showed the American General no deferrence whatsoever during Dayton negotiations with Ambassador Holbrook, for whom Clark was a bag carrier/military aide.
I was also in Bosnia for seven months as a human intelligence officer; the most civilized persons I met with overall, were Serbs. The most frightening, Muslims. The place was crawling with mujahideen who were only there, of course, because the Americans had done nothing to save the Muslims (who DID suffer badly, I should add). Dirty pajamas, long beards, AK's, the works. I know, because I disarmed them myself.
I visited a Catholic Church in a (former) Half-Croat/Half-Muslim town, Gornji Vakuf. The church had been razed, burned, and the alter lined with 110 young Croats who were summarily executed, along with the Parish Priest. On the rectory was spraypainted the words, "There is no more time for you here." In other parts of the town, many walls and buildings were spraypainted with the words, "Mismo Hamas," which is Serbo-Croat for, "I am Hamas." In fairness, I did see a noticeable amount of "Ustace" (Ooh-stah-shah) "U's" spraypainted in other towns, too.
Milo was a bastard. That said, the Serbs are the most maligned and heroic of our brothers in Europe. After the battle of the Field of Blackbirds alone, they should be praised as heros that should stand alongside Charlamegne and the boys who stormed Normandy, on opposite ends of the temporal octave of late Western Civilization.
And I'm Croatian!
Posted by: Knight4AO at May 15, 2006 1:53 PM
I support Serbia. In the 90's, when Jihad was far more clandestine, and in Yugoslavia's case, further masked by the wars Serbia fought against Slovenia and Croatia, it was easy to assume that being the wrong doer in the Bosnia war was Serbia, since it was the common agressor against the first 2 states.
Today, in retrospect, I stand corrected. And I've sworn never again will I support any Islamic forces against any Infidel entity.
RIP, Comrade Slobodan. My apologies for thinking ill of you when you were with us.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 15, 2006 2:02 PM
I have some questions - I may be wrong;
Did Milosevic demand to the court to have Clinton called to testify?
Was he immediately isolated and silenced?
Shortly there after dead - possibly murdered?
I may be wrong due to the fact there is no reliable information.
at May 15, 2006 2:04 PM
Svermirko:
Thanks for the links. If they are accurate reports, then there is greater need for action than ever: No more Moslem immigration. Of course, 11 years after the fact, it will be that much harder for any effort to be effective but this tide has to be turned back.
It seems as if the US State Department at that time thought that brownie points would be earned in the Moslem world if the West was seen to be protecting Moslems. However, if the ongoing hostilities in Israel or the attacks on the US embassies in Africa or the attack on the USS Cole didn't all put the lie to those notions, then surely the attacks of 9/11 and 7/7 did.
Moslems do not bargain in good faith. They must be dealt with only from a position of overwhelming strength. The first step is to clearly call the problem by its name: invasion.
Posted by: Chatillon at May 15, 2006 2:14 PM
Did Milosevic demand to the court to have Clinton called to testify?
Yes, along with Blair and others apparently.
Was he immediately isolated and silenced?
The court denied the motion.
Shortly there after dead - possibly murdered?
Apparently, he was denied his hypertention medication. He confided to his personal physican that he believed he was being poisoned. He died shortly after that. Many believe Milosovic was murdered.
Two weeks later, another "Serbian War Criminal" died by "suicide" while in prison at the Hague --was Maladic? Can't recall but I can look it up.
at May 15, 2006 2:16 PM
Did Milosevic demand to the court to have Clinton called to testify?
Yes, along with Blair and others apparently.
Was he immediately isolated and silenced?
The court denied the motion.
Shortly there after dead - possibly murdered?
Apparently, he was denied his hypertention medication. He confided to his personal physican that he believed he was being poisoned. He died shortly after that. Many believe Milosovic was murdered.
Two weeks later, another "Serbian War Criminal" died by "suicide" while in prison at the Hague --was Maladic? Can't recall but I can look it up.
at May 15, 2006 2:16 PM
Witness-
I read Milosevic was getting his heart medicine, but that an un-prescribed "other" medication- which would cancel the effects of the hypertension drug- was also detected.
Why did the U.S. even have to get involved in a minor European problem? was what I wondered as this Balkan disaster simmered to slaughter.
If the EU had sent in an overwhelming force of European troops early on in the conflict [...I know, I know, stop laughing at the concept, it's just meant theoretically...] before the Yugoslavian situation spun completely out of control, the entire external jihadist infiltration would have been prevented. Along with tens of thousands of people butchered.
Europe, why can't you handle your own internal disasters?
Is it just knowing that the big, dumb guard dog named "Sam" (who you love to kick) will always come over and fight for your continent renders you generally somnabulistic and smug?
Posted by: profitsbeard at May 15, 2006 3:25 PM
Dear Witness,
I can certainly believe that a lot of silly and foolish things were published in Foreign Affairs. That's why I don't read it. Nor do I think that the NYTimes is worth reading. I suggest to you that you not assume that the reasons supplied by the usual scribblers in Foreign Affairs are the real reasons for any particular policy. There may be real reasons for a policy that are not disclosed to the public, not even to the supposedly well-informed bien-pensant crowd that form most of the FA readership. Perhaps we should infer the reasons or purposes of any given policy from its results, not from the explanations that may be furnished.
To the poster who served in the US Army intelligence, the journal Parameters [published, I believe, by the US Army War College], ran an article by a scholar which --as I recall-- supplied the number of 750,000 murdered in Jasenovac. This article basically argued against the tilt against the Serbs in US policy.
Here in Israel, a number of prominent professors came out against the favoritism for the Bosnian Muslims. These included Rafael Israeli [himself a native of Muslim Morocco], Arnon Soffer, Yehoshu`a Porath, and others. They wrote articles and even had the opportunity to discuss the issue on TV. Regrettably, intelligent discussion of history is all too rare on our TV. It is curious that this issue of the new Balkan wars divided some of the old Communists from their usual Arab-Muslim allies, with such as Tamar Gozhansky supporting the Yugoslav republic [i.e., Serbia]. It was precisely the "new leftists" --like Yosi Beilin and Yosi Sarid-- the peace-mongers who led us into the monstruous Oslo accords, who campaigned to have Israel supply aid to the Bosnian and Kosovo Muslims. Of course, Beilin and Sarid are well-connected in the EU and in Washington. Amir Kusturica brought one of his movies about the Yugoslav wars to Jerusalem for its world premiere under the auspices of the Jerusalem Cinematheque. It was shown to an out of doors audience of several thousand below the walls of the Old City.
One thing that should be kept in mind as a great danger is how so much of the press and media in the West accepted the false version of history and current events propagated in order to demonize the Serbs. And then this false version of history was so easily accepted by so much of the public. Yet, the Serbs were heroes during WW2, in the British press and public opinion. Britain even sided at the time with Tito and against the Ustashe. Yet, Tudjman --whose movement even used Ustashe symbols-- was acceptable and rinsed clean.
I too am aware of a massacre in Croatia [in the spring or early summer of 1995, I think] of Serbs supposedly under UN protection which preceded the Srebrenica massacre, and which is seldom talked about today. It is also curious that so little is said today about Muslim vs Croat massacres in Bosnia, despite the Croats and Muslims being touted as great allies at the beginning of the Bosnian war, and the Bosnian Muslims being touted as so tolerant, universalistic, broad-minded, etc.
Posted by: Eliyahu at May 15, 2006 5:06 PM
Can't tell if it is serbo-khorvatskij, with the accent on the first syllable, in which case it would be "Serbian" or that quite different language, serbo-khorvatskij, with the accent on the fourth syllable, in which case it would be "Croatian." Linguists, help us out.
Posted by: Hugh at May 15, 2006 5:40 PM
When Milosevic died, and there was initial suspicion of poisoning, the New York Times (the Islamic Embassy on US soil) quickly began speculating that Milosevic was believed to have been administering poison to himself in order to make a martyr of himself. Then later, when it was found that he didn't die of poisoning, the NYT glossed over their previous speculations without blinking an eyelid.
Posted by: sanman at May 15, 2006 6:23 PM
Nor do I think that the NYTimes is worth reading.
I agree. It makes good kitty-litter though.
I suggest to you that you not assume that the reasons supplied by the usual scribblers in Foreign Affairs are the real reasons for any particular policy. There may be real reasons for a policy that are not disclosed to the public, not even to the supposedly well-informed bien-pensant crowd that form most of the FA readership.
Your points are well taken.
I see the nonsense spewed out in the publication as "trial balloons" to test if lunacy can be made public policy. Amazingly, it somethimes happens.
I read Milosevic was getting his heart medicine, but that an un-prescribed "other" medication- which would cancel the effects of the hypertension drug- was also detected.
Interesting.
Then later, when it was found that he didn't die of poisoning, the NYT glossed over their previous speculations without blinking an eyelid.
To both of you.
Has the final determination of cause of Milosevic's death been made by an independent source -- other than the doctors at the Hague?
The administration of the un-prescirbed "other medication" that cancelled the effects of the hpertension drug sounds like malpractice at best -- murder at worst.
Any further insights?
at May 15, 2006 7:56 PM
Can't tell if it is serbo-khorvatskij, with the accent on the first syllable, in which case it would be "Serbian" or that quite different language, serbo-khorvatskij, with the accent on the fourth syllable, in which case it would be "Croatian." Linguists, help us out.
Croatian. It's the genre of profanity that gives it away.
Posted by: witness at May 15, 2006 10:14 PM
Hugh
The correct spelling is "Srpsko-hrvatski"
or "srpsko-Hrvatski"
or whatever
up to and including "Bosnjak"
These are not three separate languages but simply one with three dialects-Ijekovski, Ekovski and the third I forget. Whichever dialect one speaks is determined by regional and not religious or nationalistic factors(or if you prefer-"discourses").
Ijekovski is spoken in Montenegro,central and western BiH and most of Croatia whereas Ekovski is spoken in Serbia,eastern Bosnia and I believe in the east of Croatia. So, a person speaks in the dialect of whatever region he or she was raised in regardless of nationality. For instance, a Shiptar born and raised in Pristina, Kosovo would speak Ekavian whearas his cousin who was born and raised in the sunny-but-not-cheerful Montenegrin coastal resort town of Ulcinj would speak Ijekavian.
"Bosnjak" -a recent addition to the list of languages of the world- is spoken by muslim speakers of Srpsko-hrvatski who identify themselves as "Bosnjak" regardless of whether they speak in Ekavski or Ijekavski and regardless of what region they live. And this gets confusing. For example, a "Bosnjak" living in the predominantly muslim town of Novi Pazar in Serbia who speaks the same Ekavski as his Serbian neighbor( who speaks Srpski) would nevertheless tell you he speaks "Bosanski", even though another Muslim living in that same town of Novi Pazar who identifies himself not as "Bosnjak" but simply "Muslim" would tell you he speaks not "Bosanski" but Srpski.
As to the actual diferences? Take the word "milk"
The Ijekovski is "mlijeko" and the Ekavski "mleko" - as you can see, the differences are deep and profound. For example,
An Ekavski-speaking "Bosnjak" sharing a glass of milk with his Ekavski-speaking Serbian neighbor at a cafe in that same town of Novi Pazar would both ask for a glass of "mleko"; yet the "Bosnjak" would tell you he is asking for it in "Bosanski", whereas the Serb would tell you he is asking for it in Srpski. Some type of fisticuffs would likely follow, but then again, a "Bosnjak" and a Serb would not likely be found sharing a glass of milk at a cafe in Novi Pazar.
Whereas the Serb and his Serbian-speaking muslim neighbor could very likely be found sitting at that same cafe; in which case, although, it would not be "mleko" they would be ordering in Srpski but sljivovic" or "loza" or maybe some nice hot "corba".
Of some interest also, is the fact that the Croatian govt has instituted a program in which new words are substituted for the old in an attempt to create a "New Croatian" distinct from Serbian and "Bonsian" beyond mere dialectical differences. For instance- "autobuska stanica", the word for "bus station" in Serbian, "Bosnian" and "Old Croatian"- has been changed to "autobusni kolodvor" for the "New Croatian".
I need a drink.
Posted by: hasan salami at May 15, 2006 11:35 PM
Left unmentioned in this discussion so far is one of the most psychically subterranean, yet also most important, reasons for the despicable demonization of the Serbs by the Western intellectual and media elite- namely, the need to reassure themselves that- even after 25 years of Arab/Muslim terrorist trauma- they were still basically good people whose hearts were not so hardened that they'd turn their backs on "good Muslims" in distress if ever they saw them. Thus the celerity with which Jewish intellectuals, especially Zionist ones, jumped on the anti-Serb bandwagon. "See", they signaled both to the larger world as well as themselves, "our staunch support of Israel doesn't mean we hate all Muslims. Siding with them against those awful Serbs proves how broad-minded and fair we still are."
And the sickening thing is that as Muslim behavior becomes ever more atrocious, the need to propitiate the twin idols of our age- Tolerance and Relativism- means a further flight from reality, accomplished by a continued villification of Serbs in the most conspicious manifestation of American popular "culture", the Hollywood movie:
http://www.reason.com/hod/tc121602.shtml
Posted by: emperor_diocletian at May 16, 2006 12:40 AM
Hugh
another name to add to your list of those "non-muslim" Muslims who moved to Serbia is that of the very talented Mesa Selimovic(author of DEATH AND THE DERVISH et al.) Although born into a Bosnian muslim family, he considered himself to be of Serb nationality and chose a life in cosmopolitan Belgrade rather than the more provincial Sarajevo. More needs to be said about these men and others like them about the choices they made and why. Why muslims born and raised in Bosnia would seek a "less provincial" and more "cosmopolitan"(these are the words used by Selimovic) existince in Belgrade rather than the supposed mutually tolerant multi-ethnic paradise of Sarajevo. Do the actions and words of these men call for a re-appraisal of the actual social conditions in Ottoman Bosnia under the millet-system and the consequences of that legacy still seen manifest today? and what correlations can be drawn between that Ottoman millet-system and the "community-based identity politics" of which the Multi-culturalist Left seem so enamoured-where will that lead? Many of the factors that led Bosnia to tragedy are not specific to Bosnia alone and one day her tragedy might our own.
Thanks to Robert and Hugh for putting more focus on this region.
Posted by: hasan salami at May 16, 2006 12:41 AM
Thanks for shedding this light on Serbia, a solid allied supporter in WWI and WWII. Serbians have always been the defenders of Europe.
Will someone provide some additional insight into the role played by the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA)and how they were funded. Seems like Gen. Clark had a role in thier funding.
Anyone have a link to the documentary "The Brooklyn Connection" ? about the KLA...
Let me know...
btw...I believe that Ohio has one of the largest populations of Serbs in diaspora in the US...no coincidence that Sen. Voinavich was able to keep the State Dept. out of Holbrooks and Albrights hand during the last Pres. elections...
Posted by: davidt. at May 16, 2006 1:32 AM
I do not agree with Diocletian that "especially Zionist" Jewish intellectuals were the Jewish intellectuals most likely to support the pro-Muslim line coming out of Washington. Diocletian can check the monthly of Americans for Safe Israel, "Outpost," and Commentary magazine and Midstream. Midstream did publish a pro-mainstream story [in favor of the fairy tale of Muslims for peace and harmony and tolerant of all in Sarajevo] but corrected that later on. I believe you will find that the non-Zionist [as we define that term] mainstream, establishment "liberal," social welfare oriented bodies among American Jews were the ones that supported the Washington line. Further, anybody who has a regular column in the mainstream American press where he may support Israel is still working for the MSM and not for Zionism. Commentary tried to be mildly skeptical of the mainstream narrative, and published some informative letters on the subject of Yugoslavia. Outpost had some very strongly pro-Serbian pieces.
Posted by: Eliyahu at May 16, 2006 6:13 AM
Further, an effort is made by the mainstream, "philanthropically" oriented Jewish organizations in the USA, especially those dominated by the Reformed Jewish denomination, to avoid knowing anything about Israel's real history and the State Dept-CIA traditional hostility to Israel.
Hence, American Jews don't know Jewish history -especially if they're younger-- so how could they be expected to have real info about the Balkans, considering that they go to the same universities as everybody else and get the same misinformation there as everybody else does, and are subject to the same pronounced avoidance of truthful historical knowledge?
Posted by: Eliyahu at May 16, 2006 6:19 AM
a fine article by hugh...no surprise there....
the great crime of the last dozen or so years has been kosovo and bosnia...
kosovo
every minority supported the serbs....the rom , the ( largely catholic ) loyalist ethnic albanians , the ethnic turks , the ethnic croats ( in three or so villages ) the circassians ( of whom hugh has spoken about regarding jordan , israel , etc )
the ethnic turks recently had a senior leader assassinated in broad daylight in kosovo by the kla...
the croats were lined up against the wall in mock executions following the withdrawl of the serbs in 99 , for daring to hold a catholic festival...
the rom? they screwed big time...no hope
there has been a surge in murders against ethnic serbs in the region....
bosnia
the ethnic croats are being forced out , moving to croatia proper....the fighting between them and the muslims in the civil war had been hushed up big time in the media...probably the fiercest fighting of the entire war didn't even involve the serbs....it was between the muslims and croats in mostar....vicious stuff by any standards....
recently , it was revealed the bin laden had laundered around a billion ( yes , a billion ) dollars through a single croat bank....
that should give you an idea of the extent of the infiltration of the mujahideen ( and iranian vevak ) in the balkans....
in albania the big buildings in the capital have been built with islamist money....
fascinating thoughts and comments , knight4ao
srebrenica
classic propaganda by the islamists and their dhimmi allies in the media etc...
the executions were in the low hundreds.....
the rest?
killed as the column stumbled from one ambush to another
or killed BEFORE the fall of the town.....the muslims simply put anyone and everyone who'd been killed in eastern bosnia on the "killed after july 95" list....
duplication of names...there were duplications everywhere on the list made by demographics "expert" helge brunborg....slipshod doesn't even come close
some , in america , saw the debacle for what it was
http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1999/fr022299.htm
http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1997/iran.htm
the vast majority supported the islamists
at May 17, 2006 6:54 AM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)