Carl Savich does not "set the record straight" as you claim. Alija Izetbegovic was recognised by all who met him, even his adversaries on the Bosnian Serb side, as an intelllectual moderate. If anything, his adherence to basic human values was one of the reasons that he never really enbraced the tiny Jihadist groups who came to help Bosnia when it was threatened with Serbian genocide (at that stage neither Europe nor the US were doing anything).

Savich shows a photo of Alija meeting a man with a beard. Wow. Who is the man? You have no idea; yet that doesn't stop you claiming he is Al-Qaeda.

The facts about the detruction of religious sites are publicly available. If you read the various report, you will see that the level of Serb destruction of mosques and other sites is many, many times greater in both number and intensity than any corresponding Bosnian destruction of Serbian churches, although both are equally wrong. The C15th Ferhadija Mosque in Banja Luka, one of the great treasures of the country, was turned into a car park by Serb extremists, as were literally hundreds and hundreds of others. You presumably know that in Sarajevo it was the Bosnian government that protected the historic Serbian Orthodox Church that was damaged by Serbian artillery firing on the town, and it was the Bosnian government that launched a repair programme when the war ended. There is no corresponding equivalent act on the serbian side to which you can refer.

Regarding Srebrenica, the town was swollen with refugees, bombed and starved by Serb forces until the infamous massacre of 1995 when they slaughtered 8,000 men and boys who tried to escape the attack. During that time, it is a matter of public record that Bosnian forces launched raids into neighbouring Serb villages, mostly to obtain food and weapons, and some of these raids were indeed marked by revenge attacks. To understand why this is the case, which was unusual in the context of the Bosnian army, you need to try to comprehend the desperation of that town and also to recognise that what happened in the end was one of the worst atrocities in Europe since WWII.

Finally, to anybody who knows Bosnia, that idea that it is somehow a hotbed of Islamic extremism is a complete joke. For the most part, relations between the small number of foreign Islamic fighters and local Bosnian Muslims have always been very strained precisly because Bosnian Muslims do not share their extremist views.

You should be ashamed of yourself for peddling such rubbish.

Posted by: Lee Bryant at September 18, 2005 9:39 AM

Lee Bryant's opposing view is welcome for anyone who seeks the truth. However, Lee Bryant provides not a shred of evidence to back his claims. His entire post is a series of assertions with no evidence. Perhaps Lee Bryant would be kind enough to provide a few links or citations to evidence to back up a few of his assertions?

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at September 18, 2005 10:07 AM

No, Mr. Spencer shouldn't be ashamed for "peddling such rubbish." He's just trying to get along. You see, every since 9-11, certain people have been trying to scoop some of the blame onto liberals, and the "King Of The Liberals", Bill Clinton. (BTW you're going to see more and more stories like this one as we get closer to 2008, kindalike the "Teresa Heinz funded Islamic Terrorists" claims of 2004.)

Also the blame must be strenuously directed toward Clinton in order to take peoples attention away from the very generous funding of Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden by Reagan and Bush. After all, it's easier and more effective to say someone else did it than to say that you didn't do it (a ploy used by Muslims oh so well.)

And anyway, its probably kind of fun to pretend that Yugoslavia is the epicenter for Islamic terrorism, especially when the whole damn world KNOWS that its really Saudi Arabia. You know, our "allies" the Saudis?

One of the most poignant essays I have ever read on the-former-Yugoslavia was by a right-wing writer, his name escapes me. He said that the Yugo Mobots had every reason to call for a Jihad but didn't. He said they looked just like their non-Muslim neighbors, spoke the same languages, lived in the same neighborhoods. He said that 40,000 (or was it 400,000?) Mobot girls and women were raped by Slobo, Kradicz (sp?), and their henchmen. And he said the Saudis did nothing because they couldn't use the propaganda to make people hate Jews more. And he said that the whole world was content to ignore the problem, until finally Clinton and Wes Clark did something about it. He went to great pains to ensure his readers that he was not in any way shape or form endorsing liberalism or liberals, but was still glad that Clinton acted.

The thing that really, really angers certain people about the US involvement with Yugo was that we came, we kicked ass, and we left. The genocide stopped. Slobo was put away. All this without one single combat fatality. (There were some suicides, jeep wrecks, the Ron Brown plane crash, etc.) And no long list of GIs with hands, feet, legs, arms, genitals, eyes, ears, etc. blown off.

Remember the GOPer cry of "There's NO exit strategy! How can you go to war without an exit strategy! We can't be the world's policeman! We accidentally bomb the Chinese Embassy! There's too damn much "colateral damage!" The eyes of the world are upon us! It's a diplomatic nightmare! You can support the troops without supporting the president! He's gone crazy! He's wagging the dog!"

Oh my, how things have changed....

Posted by: kj at September 18, 2005 10:10 AM

Be sure to click on the link, as this is a photo feature: there are many important photos there, including one of Bosnian Muslim President Izetbegovic, who was characterized as a moderate in the West, in a meeting with an al-Qaeda unit in Bosnia

There are pictures of Churchill meeting with Stalin (who murdered more people than Hitler). Desperate times...

and others of churches vandalized by Muslim troops, who painted the Islamic crescent (that's right, the "crescent of embrace") on the walls.

I daresay mosques would be quickly vandalized if Muslim armies approached Europe again and committed the kind of atrocities that we saw in Bosnia.

I recognize that the media coverage of the conflict has been one-sided, and articles such as this can serve to redress that balance. However it's a leap from there to the conclusions that appear in the comments section whenever Serbia is mentioned, ie that Serbia was somehow innocent in the war, or that the mass slaughter of Bosnian civilians is excuseable because a smaller number of Serb civilians were also murdered.

Posted by: Viking5 at September 18, 2005 10:17 AM

I just re-read the article... and if Nation of Islam dolts started burning down churches in Chicago, and certain people started genociding Muslims in California, they would point out that FarahKlan espoused militant views too.

The fact is that we can go anywhere in the world (except maybe China... so far at least) and find Mobots spouting off the same litany of crap: we need our own nation, we need autonomy, we need Sharia, we need to take over the world, we need to build mosques and tear down the birth control clinics, we need to fight the Jews because they're trying to destroy us, America is helping the Jews because the Jews control America, etc. etc.

So it really is hard to defend these people when the locals get tired of eatting their shit (see India, Israel.)

But the mass rapes and mass murder are inexcusable, no matter who does it or to whom it is done.

Posted by: kj at September 18, 2005 10:17 AM

"ultra-nationalist Islamic Party".

Oh please. Savich is off his rocker. Obviously he's cottoned on to the fact that anything that places Muslims - *all* Muslims - in the worst possible light is being gobbled up by certain segments of the West these days (Jih*cough*ad*cough*watch).

Although I would say to Lee Bryant that many of the Muslim attacks on surrounding Serb villages in Bosnia occurred *before* the Massacre, so can't be described as a *reaction* to it.

Throughout this war - and it was hotly debated every night in my house, we being from the former Yug - I supported the Serbian political position, but the way that political position was played out *on the ground* was absolutely shocking and morally undefensible.

Too many JWers are too keen to view *any* actions taken by Muslims anywhere, at any time through the filter of the "Global Jihad". It's simply inaccurate and terribly unfair.

Bosnian Muslims have hardly been perfect historically (myth of Islamic tolerance) but to suggest that they are not today, as a group, some of the most tolerant Muslims in existence is a complete joke. I would be glad to have a Bosnian Muslim as a neighbor any day; something which I would certainly not say about other Muslim groups.

Posted by: spect8or at September 18, 2005 10:32 AM

Oh, and also:

" Izetbegovic espoused a radical Muslim ultra-nationalism that rejected the secularism of Mustafa Kemal Pasha Ataturk."

That's pushing it a bit, though not entirely wrong.

Firstly, while Izetbegovic did pen a work about political Islam, I think it's wiser to understand it as the musings of a tortured intellectual trying to reconcile his faith with the realities of modern life. It's not really the kind of "radical Muslim ultranationalism" you might associate with OBL, for example. If it came to the crunch, I'd be far more willing to trust Izetbegovic to err on the side of his conscience over religion than I would some Arab nut.

And secondly, what on earth has Ataturk got to do with it? Ataturk was the president of *Turkey*, not Bosnia. Sure, Izetbegovic's politics might have been at odds with Kemalism, but the sentence, the way it is written, suggests that Izetbegovic "overturned all the good work" of Ataturk, when in fact Ataturk had absolutely zero do with the state of Bosnian politics in 1990.

" the SDA, Stranka Demokratska Akcija"

Either Savich's Serbo-Croat needs some brushing up, or it shows what a rush he was to get his article into print. The correct name is "Stranka Demoktratsk*e* Akcij*e*" (e's not a's).

Posted by: spect8or at September 18, 2005 10:48 AM

spect8tor wrote: "what on earth has Ataturk got to do with it?"

What Ataturk has to do with Izetbegovic and with every Muslim on Earth is this:

1) either you're for separation of church & state, or you're against it.

2) either you're for abandoning Jihad as a political-military instrument, or you're against it.

3) either you're for abandoning Islamic Sharia as a socio-legal instrument, or you're against it.

4) either you're for putting Islam into the closet of personal belief where it belongs, or you're against it.

I.e., any Muslim who is against Kemalism is also against us. Capice?

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at September 18, 2005 12:03 PM

Dr. Pepper has all the intellectual weight of a US-produced carbonated drink.

Bosnian Muslims cannot abandon Jihadism, Sharia, etc., because they have never adopted them - even under Ottoman rule the country was more tolerant of other religions than, say, Slovenia is today.

And what on earth is a Mobot - I hope I haven't chanced upon some kind of weird racist site that makes up names for Muslims. If so, I'm outta here and you nut jobs can get on with it. You (Dr. P) literally haven't the first clue what you are talking about.

Posted by: Lee Bryant at September 18, 2005 12:33 PM

May this article be a reminder to all Americans (and to all Westerners, in a broader sense):

1) Learn how to think for yourselves. Don't trust any source in particular, try to find as many sources about one given subject, study them for plausability and only then draw your own conclusions

2) Politics are dirty. If one of your leaders speaks about "rightiousness" or about "God", he is most likely bullshitting you - particularly if he is willing to start a war just to sideline a recent sex-scandal [please watch the prophetic film "Wag the Dog"]

3) Do not fight a war that will either weaken you, or that will strengthen your enemies - Machiavelli wrote this almost five hundred years ago, and it is still true both for warfare and for politics. America gained nothing from Bosnia and Kosovo (except a terrible rep with the Orthodox Christians that will take generations to heal and Al-Qaeda bases in the heart of Europe)

Some months ago I wrote something that some of you interpreted as anti-Americanism. One can criticize America without being anti-American - I for one, am not anti-American. I do criticize Americans who don't think before they act, and that behave like bullies. Those Americans are dangerous not only to the world I like to live in, but they also endanger America because they do not think.

Why didn't we see any protests in America back in the 90s regarding the Bosnian war and the Kosovo bombings? There were such protests in Europe, I can assure you. Why weren't there any in America? Because most of you "bought" the package that the American media (notably CNN) offered you. Odds are that some of you that now are so vocal about Muslim atrocities were amongst those were the most vocal about Serbian atrocities. That's the way things work when people are all emotions and no reason.

I don't buy everything that is written in any site or news source, and that certainly includes this site. Everyone has an agenda, and as soon as everyone realises that there are few "saints" and even fewer "prophets" and that most people are moved by self-interest, the world will be a safer place.

I can proudly say that the "innocent" Bosnians didn't fool me, neither did the "innocent" Albanians, the "innocent" UÇK freedom-fighters (according to CNN) or "terrorists" (according to myself), the innocent "secular" Ibrahim Rugova whose independist aims were clear to me all along, or even the search for WMDs in Iraq. Everyone knew that there were WMDs in Iraq: WE SOLD THEM TO THE IRAQIS! It was obvious that they had them all along.

This is what happened

Bosnia -> civil war -> UN intervention -> jihadist territory

Kosovo -> jihadist activities and Serbian retaliations -> American/NATO bombings -> independist jihadist territory

Iraq -> a secular dictatorship -> American-led war -> "Iraqi democracy" -> Islamic regime/civil war

This is what happens when people don't learn their own history: they don't learn from previous mistakes.

Posted by: cruzado at September 18, 2005 12:37 PM

Lee Bryant says that I "haven't the first clue what [I am] talking about".

This outburst comes in response to my simply asking him for evidence of his prior assertions.

If Lee Bryant was responding also to my post to spect8tor, that post was merely an adumbration of reasonable objections one would have to any Muslim (including Izetbegovic) who opposes Kemalism (assuming that spect8tor is correct that Izetbegovic opposed Kemalism -- my post did not depend on whether this was correct, but rather on the broader issue of Kemalism and Islam).

I suppose this sort of outburst fits hand in glove with the type of person who deigns not to provide evidence for his assertions and then subsequently avoids a request for same hoping perhaps that the bombast of his outburst will cloak the absence of proof.

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at September 18, 2005 1:25 PM

I gotta confess Beeb made me believe inta all that PC anti-Serb propoganda... Paolo opened my eyes. Serbs may have behaved like beasts in Srebrenica but Bosnians also have blood on their hands...

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar at September 18, 2005 2:12 PM

"Alija Izetbegovic was recognised by all who met him, even his adversaries on the Bosnian Serb side, as an intelllectual moderate. If anything, his adherence to basic human values was one of the reasons that he never really enbraced the tiny Jihadist groups who came to help Bosnia when it was threatened with Serbian genocide"

The poster above clearly demonstrates either a near complete ignorance of the Balkan conflict or a tendency to deliberately distort the facts.

Alyia Izetbegovic actually worked for the Nazis in WW2 - "Alija Izetbegovic, the current President of Bosnia and Hercegovina, is the person who connects the present and the World War II. During the World War II, he was a main actor for "SS Handzar Division". He joined the organization "Young Muslims" in Sarajevo on March 5, 1943, and was engaged as a member of the organization in recruiting young Muslims for "SS Handzar Division" in collaboration with Hitler's intelligence service (ABWER and GESTAPO). In 1946, however, he was sentenced by former Yugoslav Supreme Military Court to three years of imprisonment and two years of deprivation of civil rights, because of his fascist activities. This criminal record of Izetbegovic was published by Russian gazette "Izvestija" dated 17 November of 1992. " (566/46, dated June 15, 1946).

In reality Izetbegovic got off very lightly with just three years. The readers at this site should note that the Handschar's activities were mainly jihadist - against Serb civilians and helping out with the odd Jew round up in Croatia.

As for being an 'intellectual moderate' readers should note that Izetbegovic was incarcerated by the authorites for his publication "Islamic Declaration", the sentence being 12 years.

Has the poster bothered to read the "Islamic Declaration" , is he aware of it's contents?

From the Islamic Affairs Analyst - "President Alija Izetbegovic's Islamic Declaration, first published in 1970 when it earned him a prison sentence, demanded a fully-fundamentalist Muslim state in Bosnia without scope for non-Muslim institutions or any division between religion, politics, and economics. The book was republished in 1990 in Sarajevo (by Mala Muslimanska Biblioteka). It scathingly attacks Attaturk's reforms and holds up Pakistan as a model to be followed."

From the New York Times - ‘If you read President Izetbegovic’s writings, as I have, there is no doubt that he is an Islamic fundamentalist,’ said a senior Western diplomat with long experience in the region. ‘He is a very nice fundamentalist, but he is still a fundamentalist. This has not changed. His goal is to establish a Muslim state in Bosnia, and the Serbs and Croats understand this better than the rest of us’’ [NYT, 9/2/96].

Professor of Islamic History at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Raphael Israeli, wrote:"The declaration, which in many respects sounds and looks like the platforms of Muslim fundamentalists elsewhere (e.g. the Hamas Charter) assumes that its appeal will be heeded by Muslims around the world, not only by its immediate constituency."

If you bother to read his book, he argues not that an Islamic state should not be set up (this is his religious duty as Izetbegovic makes plain) but the werewithal was limited (cf Tariq Ramadan - who argued for a monatorium on stoning) and forcing the issue too early could be counterproductive and threaten the Islamic goal.

He clearly had no interest in any multi-ethnic state, not in the long term at any rate - "Just like an individual, a people that has accepted Islam is thereafter incapable of living and dying for any other ideal. It is unthinkable that a Muslim should sacrifice himself for any king or ruler, no matter who he might be, or for the glory of any nation or party, because the strongest Islamic instinct recognizes in this a kind of paganism and idolatry."

According to Islam Online (hardly Serb propaganda)- "Egyptian President Nasser asked his friend Tito about Izetbegovic and Tito replied that Izetbegovic was more dangerous than the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt" [Islam Online, 2003].

In his later book "Islam between East and West" Izetbegovic states "Islam is more than a religion. It boils down to that the Muslims’ holy task is first to implement the Islamic attitude to the world at home, and subsequently, by accomplishing this goal, bring happiness to the to the entire world as well. "No East, no West, Islam is the Best." [Izetbegovic, 1988, p.7].

Only Izetbegovic and Ayatollah Khomeini, out of all presidents who visited Turkey, did not pay respect to the grave of Mustapha Kemal Ataturk.

In regard to the number of foreign fighters in Bosnia the numbers were smaller than one might otherwise expect due to one factor - the blackmail of the west. Consider the strategic options of the muslims - if they invite large numbers of mujahideen, these could not shift the millitary balance the Serb state itself could get involved especially if the west got cold feet. However the west itself could turn the balance in the muslims, the threat was implicit - ignore us and you would have an Afghanistan in Europe (together with other factors such as muslim lobbying, creation of an 'European Islam', the need to show impartiality towards the muslim world and the rest of that nonsense).

As the former Canadian UNPROFOR Commander Lewis MacKenzie wrote, " have played us like a Stradivarius", this equally applies to Bosnia as it did to Kosovo.

As for "Bosnian Muslims cannot abandon Jihadism, Sharia, etc., because they have never adopted them - even under Ottoman rule the country was more tolerant of other religions than, say, Slovenia is today." More historical nonsense as hundreds of true historians will tell you. "Traditionally, Bosnians were among the most militant in the Muslim world. A ruling minority, they were proud of being the spearhead of the jihad into Europe, part of the two-pronged drive along Sava and Danube with Rome as its final objective. Occupation by the Habsburgs in 1878 caused some of them to emigrate, but others waited for fate to redeem them."

Any historian worth his salt will tell you that the contact points between Dar al-Islam is where the most dawa was performed, it had to be. This is especially true of an expansionist Islamic empire like the Ottoman.

The site owners have nothing to be ashamed of and the only person "peddling such rubbish" is yourself. The problem for you is that you are no longer fooling everyone.

I hope readers to this site have found this posting to be of use to them.

JV

Posted by: jv at September 18, 2005 9:00 PM

Viking5 posted: However it's a leap from there to the conclusions that appear in the comments section whenever Serbia is mentioned, ie that Serbia was somehow innocent in the war, or that the mass slaughter of Bosnian civilians is excuseable because a smaller number of Serb civilians were also murdered.

Serbia was not innocent. Far from it, it knew perfectly well what was in store for Serbs as the jihad started in earnest. The fact is that no one considered or publicised the continuous persecution of the Serbian people by the Ottoman muslims. That fact was compltely ignored. The Western media gave the impression that Serbs and muslims were living in harmony until the Serbs decided to get nasty for no reason.

To my utter dismay, the US and the UK bombed the Serbs. The Serbs have now lost their traditional city of Sarajevo, as well as Kosovo. In the fullness of time, as muslim populations seem to grow at an exponential rate, their limited presence in Sarajevo will also come to an end. The same has happened to native Kashmiri pundits in Kashmir, the native Hindus of Bangladesh etc etc. It is also happening in Sulawesi, Molluccas and has started in Southern Thailand.

What makes the US, that great defender of islam in the last 30 years, think that what has happened all over the world where muslim populations are allowed in, is not going to happen in the US and Europe? What particularity is it that will make the US an exception?

Posted by: DP111 at September 18, 2005 9:06 PM

I regret that my browser doesn't support Sebian characters, so I could sign my name in full form. However, in reference to the mess in the Former Yugolslavia a few years ago, the one thing that sticks in my mind is that Clinton who, along with both Bushes, would rush to grant a cease fire for Ramadan, refused a cease fire for Orthodox Easter when it was suggested by Slobo Milosevic. Also, our forces led I believe, by quondam Presidential candidate Wesley Clark, bombed St Stepan Dusan's Monastery, the heart and home of Serbdom without a peep from any one outside the Serbian Nation.

Long Live Serbia!!

Jovan Marya Weismiller

Posted by: jovan66102 at September 18, 2005 11:20 PM

So Lee, Bryant, I am a racist if I call some Muslims Mobots (btw what "race" is Islam?) but they can call me an infidel, they can call me unclean, they can say that touching me is like touching animal shit?

A Mobot is a mindless Muslim that just parrots whatever excuse or lies he heard from someone else about how great Islam is, how Islam is not only the best religion but the only "real" religion, how bad the Infidels in general and Israelis are, and how everyone is trying to oppress Islam and destroy Islam and help Israel take over the world.

There are many secular, atheist, moderate, etc. Muslims. But they don't control the world's oil production, so we have no influence at all. They aren't in the media at all (except the occasional quirky anomally like Irshad Manji... who's probably much more popular since she's a lesbian than she would be otherwise) while the most intolerant, most hateful, least inclusive, most homophobic, most misogynistic brand of Islam is our main oil producer and has 800 BILLION dollars in American banks.

Use the word "Mobot" as an excuse to run and pretend that you are "above" debating such people. It's the oldest trick in the book.

Posted by: kj at September 19, 2005 6:41 AM

Cr. Pepper:

Lee Bryant's a troll. Witness his refusal to substantiate claims, and the rapid descent into insults and name-calling when challenged.

Posted by: CGW at September 19, 2005 7:25 AM

Of course I meant "Dr." Pepper - didn't proofread.

Posted by: CGW at September 19, 2005 7:26 AM

Bryant uses insult helpers in the same manner that Kingky Tolerance does. Have you ever seen kingky and lee in the same room together at the same time? Maybe they are the same person...dont you think this is just a little tooo coincidental? Probably not, one Kingky is enough...but maybe their related...

Posted by: duh_swami at September 19, 2005 9:51 AM

Jovan Marya,

Long Live Serbia!

Indeed!

The Western leaders betrayed Serbia to appease Islam. Except that, save for total capitulation, there is never an end to appeasement - as the bombing of New York, Madrid and London clearly illustrate. The infamy of our betrayal will haunt us for generations.
If the West owes anyone an apology it is to Serbia for stabbing her in the back and delivering her to her AND OUR historical mortal enemy.
May God forgive us the treason.

Posted by: thomas. h at September 19, 2005 12:23 PM

I question the idea that western powers intentionally threw Serbia to the wolves to appease Islam.

I think the US and other NATO members made a visceral response to what was made to look like ethnic cleansing and not the mass execution of armed combatants and, fresh on the heels of some African massacres (Rwanda comes to mind) that went on without intervention to everyone's deep embarassment, and rushed in to disarm Milosovic & Co., because that one was "do-able" whereas the African massacres, being so vast in scale, are much harder to address.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at September 19, 2005 12:48 PM

Waterdragon,

I just found your comment and being quite tired and sleepy I will be brief.

Well, perhaps “appeasement” is not exactly the best word here as it conveys only one of the motives and rationales underlying the West’s heavy-handed, insensitive of the history of the region and incredibly unjust toward the Serbs action. Also, not all of the countries involved in NATO’s aggression against the Serbs were seeking identical political return.

However, I have no doubt that all the participants of Serbia lynching shared a most intense, indeed perverse, wish to demonstrate to the Moslem world that the West is exclusively guided by the “objective”, humanistic and global principles and had totally rejected considerations based on historical, civilizational and religious kinship (with the Serbs). Such sentiments had no place in the vision of the New World conceived by Clintons, Albrights and the rest of the Most Holy Posse…

You don’t seriously think that the reaction of the NATO would have been similar had Serbs been Moslem and Bosnians and the Albanian settlers of Kosovo Christians…But if you don’t agree with me on that I must ask you why there was no reaction, not even a hint of possibility of military action, against the Moslem government of Sudan in response to its 10 years of genocidal war and monstrous atrocities against the Sudanese Christians and animists. After all the number of victims of that most horrendous crime greatly overshadow the number of victims of the Serbian, Bosnian, Croat and Albanian terror combined.

Well, better informed and more eloquent than I have written on that subject before. I think you would like to read an article by Julia Gorin “The Jewish Albatross: The Serbs”.

here is the link: http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=17357.

Please, let me now what you think about the article.

Cheers,
ps. my posting turned out to be much longer than intended. I hope I can fall asleep now...

Posted by: thomas. h at September 19, 2005 7:25 PM

Given that everything else I've read on this website has been informative and insightful, I was appalled to read this post about Srebrenica, etc.. Lee Bryant is correct in his assertions, and while he may not have the time to back up his claims with the exhaustive evidence out there, that doesn't make him wrong.

I myself worked in Croatia, Bosnia, and Serbia during the 1990s war and would like to make a few points:

a) The majority of Bosnian Muslims are only Muslim in the cultural or ethnic sense. They eat pork, drink alcohol, and simply aren't very Muslim except in name. People in Bosnia celebrated each other's religious holidays in a very cosmopolitan atmosphere.
b) The Bosnian Muslims during the war were a coalition of Bosnians of all faiths defending their country against Serbian aggression and ethnic cleansing.
c) If the West should be criticised for anything, it's for not doing enough to help the Bosnian Muslims (and the Croatians too for that matter).
d) If you want an idea of the Serb attitude to other faiths, you should see what they did to the Catholic Church in Vukovar, not to mention the rest of the city!
e) The media coverage of the war was highly inaccurate, but if it favoured anyone it favoured the Serbs. Just after a Frog 7 missile was dropped near where I was (in Croatia), the TV was reporting "light shelling". This was pretty much the norm.

All I can say in conclusion is: Don't believe the Serb propaganda. The Serbs believed it, and they remain self-deluded.

Posted by: Mishmush at September 20, 2005 6:18 AM

Don't believe the Serb propaganda. The Serbs believed it, and they remain self-deluded.

Oh those benighted self-deluded Serbs!
If only they could be introduced to that superbly argued, impeccably objective and irrefutably convincing eye-opener presented above they would have a chance to shake off their self-delusion and become Mushmish-deluded instead.

Posted by: thomas. h at September 20, 2005 12:12 PM

I'm not sure that I'd even bother trying to open the eyes of a Serb, Thomas. I tried that while working for the UN. I worked with a large number of Serbs, and while they were fantastic and intelligent people whose company I generally enjoyed, when the topic of the war came up they suddenly starting ranting about the Battle of Kosovo Polje on June 28, 1389, and how surely as a Christian I should want to rid Europe of the Muslim menace, by extermination if necessary. As it happens, I am concerned about the Muslim menace in Europe, but it certainly does not come from Bosnian Muslims. If you think that, you are deluded too. As for extermination, I find the idea highly offensive, as I hope you do.

If you want more objectivity than someone with no ethnic ties to the former Yugoslavia who did humanitarian work for the UN and has first-hand experience of the war, why don't you have a read of the Report of the International Commission on the Balkans.

Posted by: Mishmush at September 20, 2005 7:33 PM

ZAGREB: A humanitarian aid organisation linked to the Al Qaeda terror network laundered more than $900 million (BD339m) through a Croatian bank in the early 1990s to finance fighters in neighbouring Bosnia, a report said yesterday.

"Al Qaeda laundered $900m through Croatia," read the headline of an article in the Nacional weekly. The report was based on allegations presented to a US court by a Croatian national who testified as a protected witness during the trial of a Yemeni cleric convicted for supporting Al Qaeda, Nacional said.

http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story.asp?Article=122616&Sn=WORL&IssueID=28186

Posted by: leavingtheleft at September 22, 2005 6:14 AM

Sources within German intelligence, Federal Intelligence Service (BND), has detected "vague indications that another terror cell controlled from Bosnia is preparing a new attack on London." [Serbianna.com]
The King Fahd Mosque in Dobrinja, a suburb of Sarajevo, is described as "a hotbed" of violent extremists.
The report mentions that Bosnia and Kosovo are both to be dangerous breeding grounds for Islamic militants.

http://newsblaze.com/story/20050920003231nnnn.nb/newsblaze/OPINIONS/Opinions.html

Posted by: leavingtheleft at September 22, 2005 6:18 AM