| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
A provocative new article by Stella L. Jatras:
The video shown at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague and rebroadcast on Serbian television and on US national TV of the killing of six Muslim men by a group of mercenary volunteers, known as the Skorpians, has shocked the Serbian people. The story goes that release of the video is due to the conscience of one of the perpetrators and delivered to ICTY courtesy of lawyer Natasha Kandic, founder and director of the "Fund for Humanitarian Law," an organization funded by George Soros.Correctly, those who participated were immediately arrested and will stand trial, and, if found guilty, will be punished by the Serbian government. In view of this, will the Bosnian government now stand up and admit the atrocities that were committed by Bosnian Muslim forces against Serbian civilians so that they can also receive justice?
To play the Devil's advocate, it is necessary to know what precipitated the events in Srebrenica. Therefore, it is equally important that the video filmed by the dreaded Muslim commander in Srebrenica, Nasir Oric, who had mounted commando raids against surrounding Serbian villages whose remaining population were mainly elderly Serbs, many in their 80s, who refused to leave their homes also be shown at The Hague and on national TV. Bill Schiller in the Toronto Star of 16 July 1995, wrote of Oric: "On a cold and snowy night, I sat in his living room watching a shocking video version of what might have been called Nasir Oric's Greatest Hits. There were burning houses, dead bodies, severed heads, and people fleeing. Oric grinned throughout admiring his handiwork. 'We ambushed them,' he said when a number of dead Serbs appeared on the screen. The next sequence of dead bodies had been done in by explosives: 'We launched those guys to the moon,' he boasted. When a footage of a bullet-marked ghost town appeared without any visible bodies, Oric hastened to announce: 'We killed 114 Serbs there.' Later there were celebrations, with singers with wobbly voices chanting his praises."
Why did Srebrenica happen, and what really did happen there? Balkan analyst Carl Savich gave his analysis of General Philippe Morillon's testimony at the ICTY regarding Srebrenica and Naser Oric stating: "The major conclusion from Morillon's testimony was this: The fall of Srebrenica in 1995 was the 'direct reaction' to the massacres of Bosnian Serbs by Naser Oric's forces in 1992-1993. Morillon acknowledged that Oric's troops had committed war crimes in eastern Bosnia. Morillon personally witnessed the exhumation of the bodies of Bosnian Serb civilians and soldiers who had been tortured, mutilated, and executed. He saw with his own eyes the Serbian villages that had been burned to the ground in the Srebrenica pocket. More than anyone else, Morillon understood the level of devastation in eastern Bosnia and the extent and nature of the massacres of Bosnian Serbs."
Who can forget the image of Madeleine Albright frantically waving a CIA satellite photo of the soccer field showing "proof positive" where 7,000 men and boys alleged to have been killed by Serbs in Srebrenica were said to be buried? Twenty-two renowned journalists investigated the site and came away empty handed. Furthermore, in his analysis of 18 September 2003 titled, "Srebrenica Casualty Numbers Challenged by Experts as Politicized and Ethnically Divisive," Gregory R. Copley, Director of Strategic Studies, wrote: "On the eve of the dedication of a monument to Muslims killed at Srebrenica, in Bosnia-Herzegovina, in 1995, a group which includes a former UN official, intelligence experts, and journalists, released a statement challenging the alleged casualty number of 7,000 victims as 'vastly inflated and unsupported by evidence'."
In another analysis titled, "US Official implicated with Bosnian Representative Ashdown in Attempt to Force Fabricated Report on Srebrenica," Gregory R. Copley, with input from sources in Sarajevo and elsewhere, wrote, "Very reliable sources within the Office of the High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and other sources in Sarajevo have told GIS/Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily that a second US official, Amb. Donald S. Hays, the Deputy High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, has been actively engaged in attempts to force a fabricated report to be published on the controversial wartime fighting at the city of Srebrenica."
A representative in the Bosnian and Federal Parliaments, Ibran Mustafic, gave an explosive interview on Aug. 15, 1996, to Slobodna Bosnia ("Free Bosnia," A Sarajevo newspaper). Mustafic was quoted as saying that the betrayal of Srebrenica "was consciously prepared and that the Bosnian president and the army command were involved in this business," and that was to sacrifice Srebrenica in order to gain sympathy of the West. Of his internment in a Serbian jail, he writes, "I should have died. They [the Bosnian Muslim authorities] don't appreciate living people. They appreciate the dead because they cannot talk."
Yasushi Akashi, former UN Representative in Bosnia, admitted in The Washington Times of 1 November 1995, that, "it is a fact that the Bosnian government forces have used the 'safe areas' of not only Srebrenica, but Sarajevo, Tuzla, Bihac, Gorazde for training, recuperation and refurbishing their troops." In other words, the so-called "safe areas" were used as military posts to train mujahedin fighters from Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Turkey and the entire Islamic world, free to commit their treachery by attacking Serbian villages and returning back to the safety of their UN protectors who conveniently looked the other way. Prior to the events at Srebrenica, these "Holy Warriors of Islam" had attacked 42 surrounding Serbian villages and over 3,000 Serbian villagers had been slaughtered, but when Serbs were provoked to retaliate against these Muslim assaults from these so-called "safe areas," they were condemned by the entire world.
President Bush said after 9/11 that we will do whatever it takes to defend ourselves against the [Muslim] terrorists, yet we denied the Serbs the right to defend themselves against the same enemy that we are fighting today.
If the American people are to be given the full extent of atrocities committed by both sides, shouldn't the photos be shown of mujahedin from Saudi Arabia holding the severed heads of Serb soldiers in Bosnia and the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), holding the severed heads of Serb soldiers in Kosovo? Or the photo of Serbs being roasted live by Islam's holy warriors? Shouldn't the photo of the Serbian family that was slain by Bosnian Muslim forces, the father, whose genitals were stuffed in his mouth and an Islamic crescent and star etched on his forehead, also be shown on national TV? Or the photo of Serbian babies with a bullet hole between their eyes who had been killed by a Bosnian Muslim sniper? Shouldn't the video of atrocities committed by Nasir Oric as previously described be shown to the world, or is the "shock" syndrome reserved only for Serbs?
In civil wars, all sides do terrible things and it is tragic that this should happen to young boys, but are we not seeing reports of Muslim boys even younger being trained in Pakistan as suicide bombers?
America has not heard the last of atrocities alleged to have been committed by Serb soldiers. More stories, either fabricated or exaggeration will continue to emerge from out of the blue, but atrocities committed by Bosnian Muslims and by the Kosovo Liberation Army will continue to be swept under the carpet. That's the way the game is being played in the Balkans. All Christian Serbs wear black hats. All Bosnian and Kosovo Muslims wear white hats. Checkmate.
Posted by Robert at June 10, 2005 7:17 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
The serb-moslem war in europe proved many thinsg to many people. One silver lining was that it proved that Europe retained the abuility to engage in armed war against the islamists.
Posted by: voletti![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at June 10, 2005 8:11 AM
When studying or discussing history, we should always put everything in context and not project upon the past the values of the present.
This contemporary event is based on ancient and unresolved conflicts, a true clash between civilizations. Madeleine Albright and others demonstrated a total inexcusable ignorance (or perhaps a convenient lack of awareness) of historical and contemporary events. Inexcusable because intellectual elites and those in power should have more than a working knowledge of history and contemporary events before making policy. I might add that journalists should be held to the same standard.
Posted by: epg at June 10, 2005 8:26 AM
This article doesn't go far enough: so some criminals were videotaped getting a death sentence. Big deal. I say make copies of the tape and distribute it worldwide so any extremists will think twice about waging jihad.
The Serbian people were brave, the only ones repeatedly, and historically, able to stand up to their Muslim population. They were the only group who protected their Jewish population during WWII, often dying alongside each other against Muslim and Croat forces. They have repeatedly been "rewarded" for their bravery by betrayal of those who owe them the most gratitude.
I conclude that 9.11 wouldn't have happened if the US and NATO hadn't stuck its nose in Serbian affairs and strengthened Muslims by assisting them in committing jihad against a sovereign nation.
Posted by: Carlie at June 10, 2005 9:30 AM
"Madeleine Albright frantically waving a CIA satellite photo of the soccer field showing "proof positive" where 7,000 men and boys alleged to have been killed by Serbs in Srebrenica were said to be buried? Twenty-two renowned journalists investigated the site and came away empty handed."
--- from the article above
Foolish, stupid, credulous Madeleine Albright is in the news again. She has come out with an absurd Council-on-Foreign-Relations report on how we might better "win back" something we never had, and never, as Infidels, can have or win: the hearts and minds of Muslims, who, she foolishly, stupidly, and credulously suggests, we have alienated and "lost." After everything the United States has done (including the bombing of Serbia -- the Clinton Administration's idea of noble realpolitik, when it was nothing of the kind) to rescue supposedly innnocent Muslims (we'll see how that turns out) in Bosnia and Kosovo to rescue Muslims, after the tens of billions in aid forked over (why, exactly?) to Egypt (and now the Egyptian government acts as if this aid is its by right, and the Americans are absurdly fearful of ending this aid to people who hate us, who are corrupt, and who would be more likely to do our bidding if we ended the aid than if we continue it), and the rescuing of Kuwait (remember that war?) which is hardly a model of pro-American activity or American-style democracy, and the resucing of Saudi Arabia as well (which would have been next on Saddam Hussein's list, had he been allowed to digest Kuwait), after decades of appeasement of the Arabs (including the constant pressur on Israel, from the forcing of Israel to give up, for immediately violated guarantees from Nasser, the Sinai in 1956), to the Carter-Brzezinski palpable distaste for Begin, and the monstrous pressure which forced Begin to yield, for the second time, the entire Sinai (with airfields and oilfields and other infrastructure) to an Egypt that promptly pocketed the gain, and forgot to fulfil any of its solemn commitments to end hostile propagand and encourage through tourism and other means a friendly atmosphere (instead Egyptians are prevented from visiting Israel, Israel is banned from cinema festivals and book fairs, and the Egyptian media is, next to that of Saudi Arabia, the most violently and viciously antisemitic in the world -- so much for those touted "Camp David Accords").
Madeleine Albright -- oh, she knew all about the Balkans, didn't she? Had she even heard the word "devshirme"? Did she ever read what happened under Muslim rule -- did she happen to be given the early work of Ivo Andric (the Nobel Prizewinner from Serbia), his doctoral thesis in fact (it exists in English), on the cultural consequences of Muslim rule over Serbia and the rest of the Balkans? Had she read exactly what Izetbegovic spelled out as his plan -- which was to implement the Sharia in Bosnia, with all that that meant for the Serbs? No, she did not.
But what can you expect of someone so clownish, so unaware of the absurd figure she cuts -- physically, obviously, but also intellectually. What a figure of fun she was in the Arab capitals, where they smiled and smiled, and referred to her behind her back, as Arabs will, as "that fat Jewess." (She doesn't know? No one in the State Department had the heart to tell her?) This is someone who on national television a few years ago (I saw her, it was imprinted on my brain, I could not get over it) assured us that the horrors within Iraq came as a "complete surprise" to Saddam Hussein's fellow Arab leaders, who personally assured her, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright that they had "no idea" what was really going on in Iraq.
And it was clear, from her telling this absurdity, that she really believed it -- she believed those Arab leaders (Mubarak, assorted princelings of the Al-Saud family, and so on) that they had "no idea" what Saddam Hussein was doing. But there were millions of Iraqis who had left Iraq, and settled all over the world, but especially within that same Arab world. Pachachi himself had been working, so to speak, for Zayed in Abu Dhabi in the early 1970s (where he may, or may not, have spilled some state secrets to the Saudis -- Pachachi, whom Bremer wanted instead of Allawi, and who is routinely described as an "elder statesman," has always been available to the highest bidder, and the Saudis could outbid even Sheik Zayed). Everyone in the Arab countries, and at the Arab League (where not a syllable of protest was uttered) knew exactly what Saddam Hussein was doing to the Kurds. Nobody cared among the Arabs. And nobody caredamong the Sunni Arabs who rule everywhere, and do not always treat the Shia kindly (see Bahrain, see Kuwait, and especially, see Saudi Arabia) when, in 1991, the Shi'a rose up and were subject to mass murder. And nobody cared, among the completely-informed ("the Arab leaders had no idea" said Madeline Albright brightly -- "they explained to me that they were as much in the dark as we were").
This is the woman who was in charge of understanding the Balkans. She knew nothing. She has learned nothing.
And now she is the head, or something, of the Committee of the Great and Good who, precisely because they are the Great, and the Good, and so busy consulting, and slapping each other on the back, and having their books and articles ghostwritten and ghostedited, and their thoughts practically ghost-thought as well, have no time to sit down, and read, and read, and think, and think. And that is what is needed. We need people schooled in history, people a little less gullible than Washington-divorcee-holder-of- Democratic-Party-salons-who-therefore-deserves-a-job-in-the-Clinton-Administration-because-she-was-so-helpful-in-raising-money-and-making-important contacts.
No. The time for winging it, for hiring the holders of salons, the fundraisers, the Bright Young Liberal or for that matter equally annoying and ignorant Bright Young Conservative Things who believe they have no need, no obligation, to study, but they didn't want to be lawyers and isn't offering your opinions without too much clutter of history a lot of fun anyway? And the lecture tours! And the opinionating on television! And the blonde on the arm! Who the hell needs to study up on the theory and practice of Islam, or on anything else for that matter? We're having fun, we have the right instincts, we like Affirmative Action and we love Hilary Clinton and Howard Dea, who tells it like it is, and Obama Barack is fantastic, and we hate Bush and Cheney and John Ashcroft and wewant to conduct effective outreach to the Muslims... (Bright Young Liberals) or alternatively "We Hate Kerry and Edward Kennedy and Noam Chomsky and Ward Churchill and we are sick of those naysayers who tell us democracy isn't for everyone and we want effective outreach to the Muslim world..." (Bright Young Conservative Things).
Spare us Madeleine Albright, and all her kind, left and right. Too much is at stake for the mixture as before.
Posted by: Hugh at June 10, 2005 9:38 AM
Carlie:
The Serbs were not the only group in the Balkans to protect the Jews. Not a single Jew was deported from Bulgaria. Even though a member of the Axis, Bulgaria refused identify Bulgarians to by religious affiliation
at June 10, 2005 9:39 AM
Let's not exaggerate. By now, most European media are aware that the main problem with Kosovo is the Albanians, and that the Serbians are living in fear. They do not emphasize the fact yet, but if you read the foreign correspondents of any newspaper - and yes, even of the BBC - with attention, you will soon form the opinion that the Serbs of Kosovo need our protection. In my experience, the idea that Albanian atrocities are being swept under the carpet is simply not true.
Carlie is talking nonsense. Serbs were as capable of atrocities as any other Balkan group. There are still people in my country who remember Tito's one month occupation of Trieste (May 1945), when, under the guise of liberation, 2.5% of the town's whole population was butchered. In one month. Making the due comparisons, it is as though 7,500,000 Americans were killed in one month. When the Allies pushed the Titoists out, they found whole caves full of rotting human flesh. What happened to Italians in the once-Italian regions of Istria and Dalmatia, further east, does not bear thinking about. Only 300,000 managed to escape. It is now quite forgotten that these were once Italian regions, part of the ancient Republic of Venice for eight hundred years, and that the town now called Dubrovnik was once an independent Italian state called the Republic of Ragusa.
You may say, probably rightly, that the hideous practice of ethnic cleansing was taught the Balkan peoples by their long-time overlords, the Lords of the Horizon in Byzantium; but that does not excuse them. Mass murder is mass murder, and I sincerely hope that Mr.Spencer and Ms.Bynum do not mean to imply that the mass death of Muslims is less important than that of any other human group.
Posted by: Paolo at June 10, 2005 9:41 AM
Hugh, that is a superb dissection of Madeleine "The Ignorant" Albright.
"And now she is the head, or something, of the Committee of the Great and Good who, precisely because they are the Great, and the Good, and so busy consulting, and slapping each other on the back, and having their books and articles ghostwritten and ghostedited, and their thoughts practically ghost-thought as well, have no time to sit down, and read, and read, and think, and think. And that is what is needed. We need people schooled in history. . . ."
All I can add is "Amen."
But which history? With what is going on in these revisionist times, with unknowledgable professors expounding on ideas of which they have studied little, if any, source documents (like actually reading the koran, the hadiths, and the suras), what will the history be that is actually taught? Reading historical tomes, and absorbing them, is so out of fashion, to our civilization's detriment.
Posted by: Rick at June 10, 2005 10:07 AM
[Paolo:] "I sincerely hope that Mr.Spencer and Ms.Bynum do not mean to imply that the mass death of Muslims is less important than that of any other human group."
What makes you feel suspicious of them, Paolo? Thanks.
Posted by: Joel CatalĂ at June 10, 2005 10:11 AM
Because this post comes close to excusing the Srebrenica massacre and the other proven and certified cases of Serbian war crimes. You may say that the Muslims and Croats were just as bad, but, unlike some posters on this site, I do not like to contemplate the lawless murder even of our worst enemies.
Posted by: Paolo at June 10, 2005 10:37 AM
Joel CatalĂ- No one is asking to excuse but only to understand them and the forces of history that perhaps motivated them to commit such acts... Without knowledge one can neither understand nor excuse.
Posted by: epg at June 10, 2005 10:44 AM
Paolo,
since when are the Balkans the so-called powder keg of Europe?
Since Byzantium?
Islam's advent with the culminating event of the battle on the Field of the Black Bird (Kosovo) in 1389 is the outstanding beginning of the chaos in that region. The Orthodox and Catholic peoples were massacred and dispelled from the soil of their ancestors, the Ottomans established their Sultanate and the Bogomiles along with the Albanians converted to Islam thus being traitors and collaborators.
You don't like Tito? You don't like the Serbs?
I can understand the Serbian emotions regarding their 600 year long slavery, their sufferings during WWI and WWII. Don't forget Jasenovac, don't forget Muslim SS-Divisions with their cruel onslaughts,and don't forget Alija Izetbegovic:
http://emperors-clothes.com/gilwhite/alija1.htm
at June 10, 2005 10:58 AM
I'm no friend of the Serbs. Their campaign of mass rape in Bosnia is unique in recent history.
Still, the Serbs are better than the Arabs: When the Serbs saw the video showing executions of civilians, they went after the killers. When Arabs see videos of innocent people being knifed to death, they celebrate the murderers as "martyrs" and "resistance fighters".
Posted by: Simon at June 10, 2005 11:09 AM
Simon:
Serbian mass rape is a media myth. The ultimate evidence is a large increase in births after an incident. See Soviet occupied Germany in late 1945 and early 1946 There was no recorded increase the Muslim birthrate after alledged mass rapes. Unless you believe that the rapists were using condoms then the charge of mass rape is highly suspect. Perhaps the Serbs planned to systmaticlly rape Bosnian women in such a way that there would be no telltale baby boom to show for it.
Posted by: jerry at June 10, 2005 11:16 AM
I don't believe in those reports about "Serbian" cruelties anymore.
Since 1991 the Serbs are ALWAYS portrayed as the villains during the Civil War. During the Kosovo war the then German secretary of defense showed fotos of Albanian mass graves, they were all fakes! What did Serbia to Europe or America? We bombed them into the stoneage for what purpose? to see the Albanian-Muslim Mafia (UCK) spreading on the Balkans and in Western Europe as well, see them supplied with weapons paid by the CIA.
Guess who's behind the drug dealings, the girl slave's trade, most of the rapes and burglaries in Germany? Mainly Muslim Turks, Muslim Albanians, and Muslim Bosnians.
at June 10, 2005 11:39 AM
Jihadists are masters of PR campaigns and duping the unsuspecting. Mass rape? You mean the mass rape that was claimed, but proven to be false? Nice to see an entire race slandered in the name of jihad.
Posted by: Carlie at June 10, 2005 12:05 PM
Jerry:
Re: "Serbian mass rape is a media myth"
Refer to attached BBC article.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/683846.stm
This discussion reminds me General Lewis McKenzie's testimony before a U.S. congressional committee where he compared all sides to serial murderers. One may have killied 15, another 10 and a third may have murdered 5. All are murderers even if some are worse than others. Gen. McKenzie was in charge of UN forces during the siege of Sarajevo.
Posted by: johnb at June 10, 2005 3:09 PM
Nippon:
I clearly said that the Balkan peoples had learned the notion of ethnic cleansing from "the Lords of the Horizon in Byzantium, their masters for so long". In case you did not not know, Lord of the Horizon was one of the titles of the Ottoman Sultan, meaning his lordship stretched as far as the eye could see. That is, I said in so many words that the whole business of ethnic cleansing was something the Balkan Christians learned from the odious Turks. Is that clear enough? Nevertheless, it is something they practice. After the wars of 1912, 1913, and 1914-18, there took place what the books blandly describe as "population exchanges" between Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey - violent expulsions of minorities encouraged by random massacres. In all this, only the Turks were Muslims; otherwise, the violence was wholly between Orthodox Christians.
The Titoist violence against my people was even viler, because we were supposed to be on the same side. On 8 September 1943, Italy surrendered to the Allies and switched sides. The Nazis tried to set up a Fascist puppet government in the north, but only desperate adventurers and a small rabble took their side; Nazi secret service documents estimate that they were supported by about 5% of the population, and the Fascist "Republican Army" was outnumnbered by the reconstitutded Italian Army of the south, and by hundreds of thousands of partisan units in the north. In the Balkans, those of thee Italian troops which survived the swift and terrible German vengeance joined the Yugoslav partisans, forming a "Garibaldi division" which is reputed to have taken anything up to 50,000 casualties in the last two years of the the war.
None of this made any difference. When the Titoists reached Dalmatia, Istria and Trieste, which had long been disputed between Italians and Slavs, they simply butchered or drove out every Italian in sight in the old-fashioned Balkan way. It was not a matter of hatred for Fascism or whatever; it was a pure nationalistic land grab. (The vilest part of it is that the Communist Party, which ran about half of northern Italy's partisan units, actually favoured the butchery, out of Communist fellow feeling. They covered up for the Titoists and actually plotted to hand Trieste over to them permanently. Tito's eventual break with the world Communist movement must have severely shaken them.)
Posted by: Paolo at June 10, 2005 5:16 PM
A little note to add to the file on Izetbegovic, the man who looked forward to imposing the Sharia, and whose plans terrified many in Serbia, and were completely ignored in the uncomrepending, utterly unsympathetic-to-Serbia Western world -- save of course for some on the ground, who actually saw what was going on, including some Canadian and French officers (in France, curiously, there was in the press occasional sympathy expressed for Serbs).
Anyone who heard the nonsense uttered by that smooth man Paddy Ashdown (now the U.N.'s man, I think, in Bosnia), praising Izetbegovic after his death, and ignoring completely how sinister the man was, will enjoy this new item.
It appears that in The Hague, one of the things that has recently been discovered, and is known to Carla del Ponte, is that Izetbegovic met several times with -- Osama bin Laden. They apparently didn't much care for each other, but they had more important things that bound them.
Let's see where that story leads -- or if anyone, in the entire American press, bothers to pick it up.
Come and get it, boys. (Or as Glenn Headly says at the end of "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels" -- "let's go get 'em.")
Posted by: Hugh at June 10, 2005 5:46 PM
Paolo:
I know the title "Lord of the Horizon" but the Ottomans never referred to "Byzantium" after 1453 anymore. "Rumelia" was the European part of the Ottoman Empire because those provinces once belonged to "Rum" (Rome). That's why I was a bit confused.
All the other facts you mentioned about the Republic of Salo are correct, you are a historian and an Italian patriot and therefore I don't want argue with you. The point is: Serbia doesn't possess any advocacy in Western Europe these days when it comes to the Balkan wars.The atrocities between Germans, Ustaschi, Tchetniks,Tito-partisans,and Italians in the Second World War have barely to do with the myth/national trauma of 1389.
at June 10, 2005 5:52 PM
Nippon, my first comment on this thread said that in my experience it is wrong to say that the media are sweeping Albanian atrocities in Kosovo under the carpet. I read both British and Italian newspapers, with the occasional French or German one thrown in, and reports of Albanian atrocities have become fairly frequent. They are not front-page stuff, but they are the main reason, in my view, why the EU-led administration of Kosovo is dragging itself out so long. Politically aware Europeans (I exclude the people who read Murdoch tabloids for the nudes) are becoming conscious that the Serbs are a persecuted minority, and that makes it increasingly unlikely that the EU will allow Kosovo to become either a part of Albania or independent. (The latter is the favoured option of the jihadis, since Albania proper has a large Christian minority and its Muslim majority is pretty nominal; they have not gone through the hardening process of war against Milosevic. The bellicose hillmen of Kosovo would feel rather out of place in colourful Tirana, so eager to be admitted to Europe. Europe, however, looks on it with horror; even apart from the small matter of jihadi infiltration, an unviable landlocked country of less than a million people is something they simply do not want to see. Notice that when Montenegro started pushing too hard for independence, they were sat on, hard.) I may be wrong, but my money is on Kosovo being handed back to Serbia under a federal arrangement.
Posted by: Paolo at June 10, 2005 6:19 PM
Dear "Paolo" (http://profile.typekey.com/Paolo)
I find your "seeming" lack of sympathy and support for your fellow Serbian Christians much disturbing, although I find your comments informative. Having said that I am not implying that we support "lawless murder."
I hope there are no Orthodox/Catholic and Italian/Serbian rivaliaries at play here.
It would be nice if you would try to think less of yourself as an Italian Catholic sometimes.
The only distinction that is important now is Dar al-Islam/Dar al-Harb. Like it or not, we are all the same to them (muhamMADans).
Viva Serbia
As for the tape, I wonder if those six people were really "civilians" or "innocent."
Does anyone know the lead up to the incident captured in the video clip?
Posted by: Informed Christian at June 10, 2005 8:17 PM
Correction:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/006584.php#c98920
“I hope there are no Orthodox/Catholic and Italian/Serbian rivaliaries at play here.”
“rivaliaries” should be “rivalries.”
/
I find the title of the article “Jatras: Playing the Devil's Advocate” a bit PC. The phrase “Playing the Devil's Advocate” sounds scared and apologetic. This article is more about balance in the face of anti-Serbian propaganda by the MSM. There is nothing devilish about that.
at June 10, 2005 8:36 PM
John b:
The BBC is hardly the best source. The tens of thousands number would haver resulted in a signficant baby boom. I didn't say rape didn't occur. Several hundred American soldiers were executed for rape in WWII. It is the tens of thousands that are suspect. The Bosnia government is not to be trusted with any atrocity figure.
Posted by: jerry at June 10, 2005 11:54 PM
Europe, Nato and the U.N. failed to act for such a long time- inside Europe- that they allowed both sides to become so polarized, well-armed, and poisoned by calls to tribal and "nationalistic" myth, that the warfare which resulted showed only subhuman behavior from all combatants.
Ultimately, Europe, the U.N. and Nato are to blame for not resolving the brewing disputes with a heavier armed threat FIRST.
Neither side in the battle seem worth a pail of warm spit.
A pox on them all.
Radicalizing the local Muslims and letting muhjihadeen flood into the Balkans, ultimately, made the entire enterprise worse.
Thanks, Serb proto-commies. Brilliant move, U.S. Wise decision, Europe.
And Milosevic, in the dock at the Hague, is now trying to retroactively use the corpses of 9/11 to wash the blood of his own crimes off his hands.
Another Machiavellian swine.
The Muslim jihadists are the real problem, but 'allies' like the Serbs were no help, since they only helped gain the real enemy undeserved sympathy by imitating their sub-human acts.
at June 11, 2005 12:59 AM
Participation of the Vatican or nefarious elements within in the genocide of the Serb people.
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.
Recently declassified American documents covering the period 1944-1962 and the 1998 US State Department Report authored by Deputy Secretary of State Eizenstadt “The Fate of the Wartime Ustasha Treasury” implicate the Vatican and Franciscans in the following postwar activities:
1. Knowingly shielding and hiding Croatian and other Balkan Nazi war criminals from justice in the Vatican including the mass murderer Ante Pavelic (The Croatian Fuhrer);
2. Organizing and funding the Nazi smuggling ratline based at San Girolamo and the Vatican whose many beneficiaries included Eichman, Barbie, Artukovich and Pavelic;
3. Money laundering of the Croatian Nazi (Ustasha) Treasury consisting of loot stolen from concentration camp and other victims;
And as to the Croatian Franciscan order only:
4. Actual participation in genocide against Serbs, Jews, and Roma comprising the over 500,000 victims of the Croatian Nazis slaughtered in Croatia, Serbia, and Bosnia during Word War II.
A lawsuit, Alperin v. Vatican Bank has been filed in United States District Court for the Northern District of California by survivors of Ustashe wartime atrocities.
Plaintiffs paternal family lost 48 family members in May 1945, when all the women and children were murdered and placed in a mass grave. They were killed by Croatian Ustasha after they descended from hiding in the mountains above their village in Korencia, Lika (Krajina) Yugoslavia. The war had just been declared "over" and they thought it was safe to return home;
At the age of 13 Plaintiff was in August 1942 one of some 3,000 Serb children forcibly converted to Catholicism by the Ustasha, where he was so viciously kicked by Franciscan priests for accidently tripping into one, that his friend watching reported to his mother that he was dead;
Franciscan priests encouraged pogroms and served as military chaplains in Ustashe killing squads and as command personnel at the Jasenovac complex of concentration camps.
The Vatican protected Ustashe war criminals, smuggled Nazis and processed through its banking system, loot valued at hundreds of millions of dollars taken from Serb, Jewish, and Roma victims.
Numerous scholars including Vladimir Dedijer, former Yugoslavian ambassador to the United Nations and John Loftus former US Department of Justice attorney have documented these events and found them to be true.
Paolo, do you have any comments on the subject of Vatican complicity in the genocide of the Serbs?
at June 11, 2005 1:30 AM
Informed Christian (haw haw): I have informed anyone who wants to read, in very plain English, why I am not ready to take the Serbs at their word. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of Italians cynically murdered after two years of "alliance", purely for the sake of ethnic cleansing, do not dispose me to regard Serbs as saints. Or Croats, for that matter. Of course the Serbs are allies against Islam; but given very recent historical precedent, I am more than willing to give credit to stories of massacres and war crimes. And I am against war crimes from anyone - including Italians, if they commit them.
Chevalier de St.George, to ascribe what any and every Catholic clergyman does to "the Vatican" is extremely silly. If you are implying that the Pope gave an order to set all Ustasha murderers free, you are not only wrong, but ignorant: the Vatican does not work like that. You might as well say that the Vatican ordered the American hierarchy to start recruiting paedophiles. Catholic ecclesiastics act upon their own judgment, and Rome rarely becomes involved in anything unless an appeal is sent there during a canon-law lawsuit. And in the specific matter, the Croat Franciscans are and have always been a law unto themselves, and at present are in virtual schism against their own bishops. I have no sympathy for Ustashas any more than for Serb murderers; stories about the cannibalistic habits of Ante Pavelich, which supposedly disgusted even Hitler, still circulate in Italy. But one lawsuit in the American courts - notoriously easy to access by anyone with a grudge and money - prove considerably less than nothing, not counting that you fail to say how it ended up.
Posted by: Paolo at June 11, 2005 2:06 AM
Incidentally, BigSleep is the only one who has said something on the matter with which I completely agree. I would add this: when Communism fell (and well do I remember it), the doomsmongers predicted ethnic war from Prague to Vladivostok, since the Soviet Empire had been the only thing supposedly holding ancient hatreds at bay. Yet, in spite of all the complicated ethnic and religious issues, all the still-living memories of ethnic hatred and mutual brutalities which go back to well before World War One, there are only two areas where the dissolution of Communist power led to war: the Caucasus, which we know all too much about, and Yugoslavia. And I would remind the members of this forum that the wars in Yugoslavia were not originally to do with Islam at all: Bosnia was a late entrant. The first was a clumsy attempt to stop the secession of Slovenia, a country that never had had anything to do with the Balkans at all, and which only nationalist ideology had ever forced into an undesired and unsuccessful union with Serbia and Croatia. The Slovenians successfully ambushed Serb-led Yugoslav forces and made them helpless, which precipitated the secession of Croatia. Croatia, however, unlike Slovenia, had a large Serb minority (planted by the Habsburg two centuries earlier in the so-called "military frontier" to face the Turks) which proved amenable to Milosevic's designs. Anyone who wants to know how the Serbs fought their war, and why, long before the Bosnian episode, nobody in the West was disposed to give them any credit, would do well to visit places called Osijek and Vukovar and hear what happened there.
A last word about Bosnia: unless you understand the concept of the Serb land-grab, you understand nothing of what happened there. The Serbs did not want to win a war against the Croat and Muslim Bosnians; had they wanted, they had the means and the position to do so. Anyone with an understanding of military matters who studies Vladko Mladic's tactics must be astonished at the lack of offensive spirit of the Serbs. But what the Serbs wanted was not to overwhelm Croats and Muslims and force them into a Neo-Serb Empire which would then have had to pay attention to these unwelcome minorities, but to force them into small enclaves in central Bosnia which the Serbs did not even want (their invention of a new Serb capital in Pale, away from the historic centres of Sarajevo and Mostar, speaks for itself). Their reduced canton would then have been under constant threat from Serb guns, and the rest of the land, which they had earmarked as purely Serb soil, would have been left for themselves. That this strategy, by allowing an embattled Muslim-led canton to survive and become a magnet for mujaheddin from all sides, actually reinforced international Muslim terrorism and gave it a base in central Europe, they did not care in the least. So much for those valiant champions of Balkan Christianity.
Posted by: Paolo at June 11, 2005 2:33 AM
Incidentally, BigSleep is the only one who has said something on the matter with which I completely agree. I would add this: when Communism fell (and well do I remember it), the doomsmongers predicted ethnic war from Prague to Vladivostok, since the Soviet Empire had been the only thing supposedly holding ancient hatreds at bay. Yet, in spite of all the complicated ethnic and religious issues, all the still-living memories of ethnic hatred and mutual brutalities which go back to well before World War One, there are only two areas where the dissolution of Communist power led to war: the Caucasus, which we know all too much about, and Yugoslavia. And I would remind the members of this forum that the wars in Yugoslavia were not originally to do with Islam at all: Bosnia was a late entrant. The first was a clumsy attempt to stop the secession of Slovenia, a country that never had had anything to do with the Balkans at all, and which only nationalist ideology had ever forced into an undesired and unsuccessful union with Serbia and Croatia. The Slovenians successfully ambushed Serb-led Yugoslav forces and made them helpless, which precipitated the secession of Croatia. Croatia, however, unlike Slovenia, had a large Serb minority (planted by the Habsburg two centuries earlier in the so-called "military frontier" to face the Turks) which proved amenable to Milosevic's designs. Anyone who wants to know how the Serbs fought their war, and why, long before the Bosnian episode, nobody in the West was disposed to give them any credit, would do well to visit places called Osijek and Vukovar and hear what happened there.
A last word about Bosnia: unless you understand the concept of the Serb land-grab, you understand nothing of what happened there. The Serbs did not want to win a war against the Croat and Muslim Bosnians; had they wanted, they had the means and the position to do so. Anyone with an understanding of military matters who studies Vladko Mladic's tactics must be astonished at the lack of offensive spirit of the Serbs. But what the Serbs wanted was not to overwhelm Croats and Muslims and force them into a Neo-Serb Empire which would then have had to pay attention to these unwelcome minorities, but to force them into small enclaves in central Bosnia which the Serbs did not even want (their invention of a new Serb capital in Pale, away from the historic centres of Sarajevo and Mostar, speaks for itself). Their reduced canton would then have been under constant threat from Serb guns, and the rest of the land, earmarked as purely Serb soil, would have been left for themselves. That this strategy, by allowing an embattled Muslim-led canton to survive and become a magnet for mujaheddin from all sides, actually reinforced international Muslim terrorism and gave it a base in central Europe, they did not care in the least. So much for those valiant champions of Balkan Christianity.
Posted by: Paolo at June 11, 2005 2:33 AM
'As for the tape, I wonder if those six people were really "civilians" or "innocent."'
We will never know whether they were really innocent or not, because some Serbs took it upon themselves to slaughter them without trial.
I know some people have a problem accepting this, but the summary execution of prisoners, innocent or not, consitutes a war crime. The problem is not that the Serbian criminals are being punished, it's that the Muslim criminals are not being punished vigorously enough.
Posted by: Viking5 at June 11, 2005 8:51 AM
Nippon's link wasn't working above . . .here is the same info from waybackmachine:
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/gilwhite/alija1.htm">waybackmachine - Moderate Democrat or Radical Islamist?
Posted by: miira at June 11, 2005 9:32 AM
Arrrrgh . . .let's try that sucker again! Here is the waybackmachine link:
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/gilwhite/alija1.htm">Moderate Democrat or Radical Islamist?
at June 11, 2005 9:34 AM
Viking5-
Executing "illegal combatants" in the field is not a 'war crime'. "Spies, saboteurs and terrorists", during wartime, are often summarily shot. (These "partisans" expect nothing else, knowing the risks.)
Whether this was a case of that type of 'quick' military justice of true "illegal combatants" seems intuitively unlikely, but, without evidence either way, we'll have to wait for a commission report.
To me, the video killings look more like some local guys were rounded up by the militia and murdered to scare the rest of the people in the region into leaving.
For balance, we need to see the "Muslim atrocities" ,from this same period, to keep this vendetta lunacy in perspective.
Just as Saudi 'Bible desecration' needs to be prominently shown in the media and protested by our officials and populace every time the Koran 'desecration' at Gitmo is shown or mentioned.
And the uncensored video of the people who died on 9/11 should finally be shown.
I heard that a female flight attendant's bound hands- alone- were found in the street near the destroyed WTC Towers.
Let's see that image.
Let's know what we face.
Posted by: BigSleep
at June 11, 2005 8:54 PM
Here's the link to the 'handcuffed hands" story mentioned above:
http://www.newsday.com/ny-nycuff152367641sep15.story
No image that I can find.
But a poignant crystallization -for the mind's eye- of the essence of the attack.
at June 11, 2005 9:43 PM
"Executing "illegal combatants" in the field is not a 'war crime'. "Spies, saboteurs and terrorists", during wartime, are often summarily shot. (These "partisans" expect nothing else, knowing the risks.)"
The Fourth Hague Convention begs to differ:
CHAPTER I (Means of Injuring the Enemy,
Sieges, and bombardments) Art 22: The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited.
Art. 23 : In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden
...
To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;
...
CHAPTER II (Spies) Art 30 : A spy taken in the act shall not be punished without previous trial.
http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/hague/hague5.html
And if that's too "internationalist" for you, here's a snippet from the US Army field manual:
80. Individuals Not of Armed Forces Who Engage in Hostilities
Persons, such as guerrillas and partisans, who take up arms and commit hostile acts without having complied with the conditions prescribed by the laws of war for recognition as belligerents (see GPW, art. 4; par. 61 herein), are, when captured by the injured party, not entitled to be treated as prisoners of war and may be tried and sentenced to execution or imprisonment.
https://atiam.train.army.mil/soldierPortal/atia/adlsc/view/public/4803-1/fm/27-10/CH3.htm
at June 12, 2005 6:59 AM
Great article it seems, finally, Western Europe is learning what Eastern Europeans knew all along - the Serbs push into a corner and facing a return to Sharia, slaverly and Ottoman barbarity reacted. They took the war to Jihadists and nearly won (indeed they would have won had the West not intervened). The Serbs fought the Moslems with everything they had, they knew their survival depended on it.
You wanna know something else those "sweet", "innocent" Kosovar Albanians are starting to make their presence felt in Western Europe too :-
http://www.chiswickw4.com/default.asp?section=info&page=concrime126.htm
Check were the suspect came from.
Oh and on Albright, she said in November 2000, on the eve of her departure, "Milosevic is my number one priority, I want him gone before I'm gone" - had she said that about Bin Laden, and put in as much effort to stopping him maybe 9-11 could have been stopped.
Posted by: tranmere_rover at June 13, 2005 6:22 PM
Regarding the topic i have two excellent links with lists of books that can tell you a real and "hidden" side of latest Balkan Wars. Whatever you want to know can be easily found on these lists....
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/listmania/list-browse/-/14ROEM03KMOB2/ref=cm_aya_av.lm_more/104-3539712-1266359
at June 17, 2005 2:35 PM
Paolo
your bias against serbs is clear, but please stick to the facts:
fact- when the trieste issue was active it was directed and implemeted by TITO-A CROATIAN/SLOVENE NOT A SERB OK.
fact-italians throughout history have on numorous occasions invaded lands (ex. ww2 yugoslavia, ethiopia, as good german nazi allies would do) killing thousands.
fact- the Vatican was CRUCIAL in helping Ustasha criminals escape to the Americas after ww2.
fact- the Vatican was with Germany spearheading the recognition of Croatia and Slovenia, knowing that it would cause civil war in yugoslavia.
fact- the Catholic church (with its corporate headquarters in Rome) has been guilty of crimes that surpass Nazi germany through the years, from Europe to South America. from its inqu. to forced conversions in Bosnia and Croatia during ww2.
to compare the ustashe to the serbs of today is an intellectual crime you are commiting. anyone with just basic knowlegde of the balkans knows it is nonsense. you talk about "serbian land grab" PLEASE PLEASE show me a territory that the serbs "grabbed" during the cilvil wars in the 90's where they we not the majority???? can you blame a people for protecting what is theirs???? why are you then complaining about TITO kicking out the Italians from Yugoslavia after ww2? the krajina region has been serbian for over 600 years, bosnia has up to the 1960's been majority serbian/orthodox. Prior to the bosnian civil war 72% of the land was owned by serbs and during the civil war in the 90's the serbs never controlled more than 75% of the territory of Bosnia. today they have 49%! where was this "land-grab"??? nonsense. serbs fought like true heros for what was theirs in both Croatia and Bosnia. the catholic world always looked at the eastern orthodox people as a easy sacrifice to the islamic world
Posted by: bishop at June 17, 2005 11:50 PM
(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.)