Karadzic’s Arrest: Bosnian Myths Rehashed
The spirit of the media frenzy surrounding the arrest of the former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic on July 21 is based entirely on the doctrine of non-equivalence inaugurated in 1992: Serbs willed the war, Muslims wanted peace; Serb crimes are bad and justly exaggerated, Muslim crimes are understandable.
This doctrine was spectacularly reiterated a month before Karadzic’s capture, when the Muslim wartime commander of Srebrenica, Nasir Oric, was found not guilty by The Hague Tribunal of any responsibility for the killing of thousands of Serb civilians by the forces under his command in the three years before the fall of the enclave in July 1995. It is also apparent today, in the endless media repetition of Karadzic’s alleged bellicose intransigence before and during the Bosnian war.
UNRESOLVED ISSUE OF WAR GUILT
The imbalance is more than merely unfair. The talking heads gloating over Karadzic’s capture no longer need to suppress the thought that different U.S. policies could have prevented the horror of “Bosnia,” because no such thought—however pertinent in this case—ever occurs to them. Yet the fact remains that in the spring of 1992 the late Warren Zimmermann, the last U.S. ambassador to Yugoslavia before its breakup and civil war, materially contributed—probably more than any other single man—to the outbreak of the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The facts of the case have been established beyond reasonable doubt and are no longer dosputed by experts.
Nine months earlier, in June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared independence, a move that triggered off a short war in Slovenia and a sustained conflict in Croatia where the Serbs refused to accept Tudjman's fait accompli. These events had profound consequences on Bosnia and Herzegovina, that "Yugoslavia in miniature." The Serbs (34%) adamantly opposed the idea of Bosnian independence. The Croats (17%) predictably rejected any suggestion that Bosnia and Herzegovina remains within a Serb-dominated rump Yugoslavia.
Alija Izetbegovic, the leader of the Muslim community (43%), had decided as early as September 1990 that Bosnia should also declare independence if Slovenia and Croatia secede. On 27 February 1991 he went a step further: "I would sacrifice peace for a sovereign Bosnia-Herzegovina, but for that peace in Bosnia-Herzegovina I would not sacrifice sovereignty." The process culminated with the referendum on independence (29 February 1992). The Serbs duly boycotted it. In the end just over 62 percent of voters opted for independence, overwhelmingly Muslims and Croats; but even this figure was short of the two-thirds majority required by the constitution. This did not stop the rump government of Izetbegovic from declaring independence on 3 March.
Simultaneously one last attempt was under way to save peace. The Portuguese foreign minister Jose Cutileiro organized a conference in Lisbon attended by the three communities' leaders, Izetbegovic, Radovan Karadzic, and the Croat leader Mate Boban. The EU mediators persuaded the three sides that Bosnia-Herzegovina should be independent but internally organized on the basis of ethnic regions or "cantons."
The breakthrough was due to the Bosnian Serbs' acceptance of an independent Bosnia, provided that the Muslims give up their ambition of a centralized, unitary one. Izetbegovic appeared to accept that this was the best deal he could make—but soon he was to change his mind. When he returned from Lisbon, Zimmermann flew post haste from Belgrade to Sarajevo to tell him that the U.S. did not stand behind the Cutileiro plan. He said it was a means to "a Serbian power grab" that could be prevented by internationalizing the problem. When Izetbegovic said that he did not like the Lisbon agreement, Zimmerrmann encouraged him to renege. State Department subsequently admitted that the US policy "was to encourage Izetbegovic to break with the partition plan." The New York Times (August 29, 1993) brought a revealing quote from the key player himself:
The embassy [in Belgrade] was for recognition of Bosnia and Herzegovina from sometime in February on," Mr. Zimmermann said of his policy recommendation from Belgrade. "Meaning me." ... Immediately after Mr. Izetbegovic returned from Lisbon, Mr. Zimmermann called on him in Sarajevo... "He said he didn't like it; I told him, if he didn't like it, why sign it?"
After that moment Izetbegovic had no motive to take the ongoing EC-brokered talks seriously., just as the Albanians had no motive to negotiate with Belgrade in 2007, after President Bush declared in Tirana that it would become independent. After his encounter with Zimmermann Izetbegovic felt authorized to renege on tripartite accord, and he knew that the U.S. administration would come to his assistance to enforce the independence of a unitary Bosnian state.
The motives of Zimmermann and his political bosses in Washington were not rooted in the concern for the Muslims of Bosnia as such, or indeed any higher moral principle. Their policy had no basis in the law of nations, or in the notions of truth or justice. It was the end-result of the interaction of pressure groups within the American power structure: Saudis and other Muslims, neocons, Turks, One-World Nation Builders, Russophobes… all had their field day. Thus the war in the Balkans evolved from a Yugoslav disaster and a European inconvenience into a major test of "U.S. leadership." This was made possible by a bogus consensus which passed for Europe's Balkan policy. This consensus, amplified in the media, limited the scope for meningful debate.
Zimmermann’s ploy heralded a virulently anti-Serb, agenda-driven form of Realpolitik that was to dominate America's Bosnian policy. Just as Germany sought to paint its Maastricht Diktat on Croatia's recognition in December 1991 as an expression of the "European consensus," after Zimmermann's intervention in Sarajevo Washington's fait accomplis were straightfacedly labeled as "the will of the international community." Europe was resentful but helpless when the United States resorted to covert action to smuggle arms into Croatia and Bosnia in violation of U.N. resolutions. Zimmermann's torpedoing of the EU Lisbon formula in 1992 started a trend that frustrated the Europeans, but they were helpless.
Cutileiro was embittered by the US action and accused Izetbegovic of reneging on the agreement. Had the Muslims not done so, he recalled in 1995, "the Bosnian question might have been settled earlier, with less loss of life and land." Cutileiro also noted that the decision to renege on the signed agreement was not only Izetbegovic's, as he was encouraged to scupper that deal and to fight for a unitary Bosnian state by foreign mediators."
THE SETTING
Over the past two centuries Balkan lands were bargaining chips for alliance construction. The Bosnian war of 1992-95 confirmed this trend. It was the most destructive segment of the War of Yugoslav Dissolution that began when the Yugoslav republics of Slovenia and Croatia seceded in the summer of 1991. With no ethnic majority and no “Bosnian” nation, of all six republics of the old Yugoslav federation the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina had most to fear from violent secession. Yet once reunited Germany was committed to the recognition of Croatia and Slovenia, the Muslim leadership in Sarajevo knew both that the old Yugoslavia was dead and that historic opportunities beckoned.
At the outset of the present crisis most inhabitants of Bosnia-Herzegovina did not want to become “Bosnians” in any political sense; but they were unaware of the extent to which their future depended on events beyond their republic’s boundaries. The ruling League of Communists of Yugoslavia literally disintegrated in the first months of 1990, setting the stage for multi-party elections in all six federal republics. The resulting power vacuum was felt in Bosnia-Herzegovina more keenly than in other republics because the Party rule there was more rigidly doctrinaire than in other federal units. When the first multi-party election since 1938 finally took place in November 1990, the voters overwhelmingly acted in accordance with their ethnic loyalties that proved more enduring than any ideological differences between them.
The weakness or even non-existence of non-nationalist opposition to the old communist establishment was at least partly due to the deliberate Western policy of appeasement of Tito’s dictatorship following his break with Moscow in 1948. Contrary to the situation in Poland (“Solidarity”) or Czechoslovakia (“Charter 77”), in Tito’s lifetime and even in the decade following his death in 1980 there had been no serious attempt by the United States to develop or cultivate alternative political teams in Yugoslavia among the narrow stratum of the intellectual establishment which could have been considered friendly to “Western democracy.” In accordance with the Kennan Doctrine, Tito’s dictatorship enjoyed America’s cheque blanche to do as it pleased domestically, for as long as it shunned full rapprochement with Moscow.
When the system unravelled the Muslims were the first to organize, founding their Stranka Demokratske Akcije, SDA (Party of Democratic Action) in March 1990. The Croats followed two months later with the creation of Hrvatska Demokratska Zajednica Bosne i Hercegovine—HDZ BiH (Croatian Democratic Union); in reality theirs was but a local subsidiary of the retired YPA General Franjo Tudjman’s HDZ in Zagreb. Finally, in July the Serbs established the Srpska Demokratska Stranka Bosne i Hercegovine, SDS (Serb Democratic Party of Bosnia-Herzegovina). The pattern of the Muslims and Croats acting proactively, and the Serbs reacting, was thus established very early on.
When the Bosnian election results were tallied, they effectively read like a census plain and simple. The overwhelming share of the vote—80 percent—went to the three parties that had grounded their appeal in the ethnic-national identity and issues. In the National Assembly of 240 seats (Chamber of Citizens and Chamber of Municipalities), the SDA won 86 seats, the SDS took 72 seats, and the HDZ 44. The three winning parties soon reached a power-sharing agreement. Although the maverick businessman-politician Fikret Abdic from the region of Velika Kladusa polled more votes, due to the constitutional vagaries of the late-Yugoslav Bosnia Alija Izetbegović was elected President of a seven-member multi-ethnic rotating presidency. The prime ministry of the Republic went to the HDZ, and the presidency of the Assembly to the SDS.
The tripartite coalition agreement was applicable not only to the distribution of posts at the level of the Republic, but also at the regional and municipal level. The ruling SDA-SDS-HDZ coalition, contrary to some dark predictions by the defeated communists, started functioning without major difficulties in the early months of the new regime. The notion of such cooperation was counter-intuitive to the outside observers of the Bosnian scene, but it made perfect sense in the context of the common desire by all three groups to purge the body-politic of the decades-long layers of communist lies and distortions.
In Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1990 three tiers of government authority were in existence, those of the Republic itself, of the regions, and of municipalities. Depending on the level of participation among the coalition partners, the distribution of political power was accordingly carried out at all levels. The apparent ability of the three “nationalist” parties to cooperate in the immediate aftermath of the election was based on one thing they all had in common: the desire to break free from the Titoist straightjacket. During Tito’s lifetime the three constituent nations of Bosnia-Herzegovina found themselves under steady pressure to “Bosnify” their identities. (Bosnian Serb writing, to take a little known but drastic example, was not to be classed as Serbian literature but as Bosnian literature.)
The SDA, the HDZ, and the SDS, all sought to recreate long-established identities, to represent real, traditional national diversity as against a new, synthetic (“modern”) composite identity. This was a blast of fresh air; it was not the precursor of war as one can see from the simple fact of amicable co-operation. It was, in any case, a natural response to the decay of communist authority. But the SDS were in no sense “anti-Yugoslav” in the political sense: what they were against was the communist cultivation of false nationality (“Yugoslav,” “Bosnian”), as against the spontaneous, natural identities of the historic nationalities of Yugoslavia.
Had Yugoslavia not been breaking up in 1991-92, this emphasis on traditional identities would have passed as a perfectly natural democratic readjustment to reality. The “Left Bloc” was finished, defeated even in the municipality of Prijedor where it confidently expected to be victorious thanks to the area’s “Partisan” tradition and strong “Yugoslav” spirit. The old CPY apparat was simply irrelevant: the pampered friends and clients of the old bureaucracy, who could not explain why their version of Yugoslavia had needed a police state to keep together. The truth is that there was no internal, Bosnian threat to peace at the beginning of 1991: when it came the threat was from outside. The SDS and the SDA were not simply in coalition: they were natural allies while Bosnia remained at peace, although they would become just as natural enemies if Yugoslavia fell apart.
KARADZIC’S EARLY POSITION
Karadzic headed the party representing the Serbs of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and they wanted, overwhelmingly, to preserve the status quo. Since they had no desire for the destruction of Yugoslavia, they were forced into reactive posture vis-à-vis those who willed the Federation’s disintegration. It is important to dispose of the idea that the Serbs of Bosnia in 1991 were simply fanaticized by Belgrade propaganda: they were still gasping for air after the Titoist era and composing a revisionist history of ethnic civil war and Serbian suffering, a history which may have contained new exaggerations, but which corrected the evasions and lies in the old story.
At the outset of the last Yugoslav crisis, the Serbs’ basic argument—even if seldom stated with simplicity and coherence—was clear when freed from rhetoric: they had lived in one state since 1918, when Yugoslavia came into being. They reluctantly accepted Tito’s arbitrarily determined internal boundaries between the six federal republics—which left one third of them outside Serbia-proper—on the grounds that the Yugoslav framework afforded them a measure of security from the repetition of the nightmare of 1941-1945; but they could not swallow an illegal ruse that aimed to turn them into minorities, overnight and by unconstitutional means, in their own land.
Even without the vividly remembered trauma of the Second World War, they reacted in 1991-1992 just as the Anglophone citizens of Texas or Arizona might do if they are outvoted, one day, in a referendum demanding those states’ incorporation into Mexico. They demanded the right that the territories, which the Serbs have inhabited as compact majorities long before the voyage of the Mayflower, not be subjected to the rule of their rivals. In the same vein the Protestant Ulstermen demanded - and were given - the right to stay apart from united Ireland when the nationalists in Dublin opted for secession in 1921. In the same vein the state of West Virginia was created in 1863, incorporating those counties of the Commonwealth of Virginia that refused to be forced into secession. The Loyalists of Ulster and the Unionists of West Virginia were just as guilty of a “Joint Criminal Enterprise” to break up Ireland, or the Old Dominion, as were the Serbs of Bosnia-Herzegovina who did not want to be dragged into secession against their will.
Yugoslavia was admittedly a deeply flawed polity, and there could have been no rational objection to the striving of Croats, and even Bosnian Muslims, to create their own nation-states. But equally there could have been no justification for forcing over two million Serbs west of the Drina to be incorporated into those states against their will, and without any guarantees of their rights. Yugoslavia came together in 1918 as a union of South Slav peoples, and not of states, or territorial units. Its divorce should have been effected on the same basis; the boundaries of the republics should have been altered accordingly.
This is, and has been, the real foundation of the Yugoslav conflict ever since the first shots were fired in the summer of 1991. Even someone as unsympathetic to the Serb point of view as Lord David Owen conceded that Josip Broz Tito’s internal administrative boundaries between Yugoslavia’s republics were grossly arbitrary, and that their redrawing should have been countenanced at the time of Yugoslavia’s disintegration:
Incomprehensibly, the proposal to redraw the republics’ boundaries had been rejected by all eleven EC countries… [T]o rule out any discussion or opportunity for compromise in order to head off war was an extraordinary decision. My view has always been that to have stuck unyieldingly to the internal boundaries of the six republics within the former Yugoslavia… as being the boundaries for independent states, was a folly far greater than that of premature recognition itself.
THE MUSLIM STRATEGY
Of the three ethnic-religious parties in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Muslim party—the SDA—was perhaps the most radical, in that it alone advocated a fundamental restructuring of the Bosnian society in accordance with divine revelation. It attempted to do so not on Bosnia’s own terms, not within the Republic’s own local paradigm, but within the terms of the global-historical process—as its leaders saw it—of the global Islamic renaissance. Many commentators in the West have been in a state of denial for years about the true nature of Alija Izetbegovic’s long-term program. To put it simply, they preferred to believe their own assurances that Izetbegovic’s blueprint is not “Islamist” but “multicultural.”
Not unlike Islamist parties elsewhere—notably the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) in Turkey—the SDA had a public, “secular” front, and an inner core of Islamic cadres that remained semi-conspiratorial in the early days. This is vividly described by one of the party’s founders who had previously made a successful business career in the West, Adil Zulfikarpašić. He was appalled by the “fascist” methods of the SDA and by its “conservative, religious, populist” orientation, Adil Zulfikarpašić founded his own party, the MBO (Muslim Bosniak Organization). It fared badly in the elections of 1990 but it nevertheless left an important mark by charting the potential for a genuinely secular, “post-Islamic” political force of the Bosniaks.
In the early stages of the Bosnian crisis numerous Western reporters and commentators have claimed that the SDS sought to scare Bosnian Serbs with exaggerated and untrue claims of the militantly Islamic character of the SDA ideology and policy. It is a matter of record, however, that Izetbegovic was an advocate of Sharia law and a theorist of the Islamic Republic long before the first shots were fired. Already as a young man during World War II, Izetbegovic was a member of the Young Muslims organization (Mladi Muslimani). His was a radical Islamic political organization inspired by the teaching of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Al Husseini, who toured the German-occupied Europe preaching that the Third Reich and the Muslim world had a natural community of interests that demanded personal commitment of every able-bodied Muslim. Izetbegovic’s ideas subsequently matured into a comprehensive, programmatic statement in the Islamic Declaration (1970), the document that led to his imprisonment by the communist authorities in 1983.
The Declaration became Izetbegovic’s de facto political platform. Reprinted in Sarajevo at a key moment in 1990, it startled the public. In the language familiar to the students of militant jihad everywhere, it called for Islamic moral and religious regeneration, and for the strengthening of different types of Islamic unity—up to, and including, armed struggle for the creation of an Islamic polity in countries where Muslims represent the majority of the population.
As Izetbegovic put it,
The Islamic movement must, and can, take over power as soon as it is morally and numerically so strong that it can not only destroy the existing non-Islamic power, but also build up a new Islamic one... There is no peace or coexistence between the Islamic faith and non-Islamic social and political institutions.
This was a political program par excellence that non-Islamic groups in Bosnia could not accept; for the Serbs “it confirmed their suspicions that Izetbegović wished to transform Bosnia-Herzegovina into an Islamic state.” The author’s contempt for Western values is evident in his dismissal of the Kemalist tradition: “Turkey as an Islamic country used to rule the world. Turkey as an imitation of Europe represents a third-rate country the like of which there is a hundred in the world.” Elsewhere, he accepts the “achievements of Euro-American civilization” but only in the area of “science and technology… we shall have to accept them if we wish to survive.” In a revealing sentence, Izetbegović discusses the status of non-Muslims in countries with Muslim majorities: “The non-Muslim minorities within an Islamic state, on condition that they are loyal [emphasis added], enjoy religious freedom and all protection.” He advocates “the creation of a united Islamic community from Morocco to Indonesia.”
It should be stressed that Izetbegovic’s views are unremarkable from a traditional Islamic point of view. The final objective is Dar al Islam, where Muslims dominate and infidelssubmit. That is the meaning of Izetbegovic’s apparent generosity to the non-Muslims, “provided that they are loyal”: the non-Muslims can be “protected persons” only if they submitted to Islamic domination.
In his daily political discourse Izetbegovic behaved throughout the 1990s as a de facto nationalist, fostering narrowly-defined Bosniak (i.e., Muslim) nationalist feeling and seeking to equate the emerging “Bosniak” identity with an imaginary supra-ethnic “Bosnia.” He was juxtaposing the construct with the two traditionally Christian communities—Serbs and Croats—whose loyalties were alleged to lie elsewhere, with Belgrade and Zagreb respectively. The two sides of Izetbegovic’s personality—the deeply committed Islamist on one hand and the functional nationalist on another—were not at odds, since within his terms of reference the Bosniak ethnicity was defined by religion, the Muslim religion.
Izetbegovic should not be blamed for being what he is, nor should his followers be condemned for subscribing to his outlook: Luther would say that he and they kann nicht anders. But to have Alija Izetbegovic, with his record and his vision, as the head of a democratic, pluralist state anywhere in the world, is simply unthinkable. But for his peculiar vision to be applied in practice, Bosnia-Herzegovina had to be taken out of Yugoslavia and proclaimed independent and sovereign.
THE ROAD TO WAR
As the fateful year of 1991 approached, the Serbs would have preferred an all-Yugoslav referendum based on the principle of “one man-one vote,” with a simple question—“Yugoslavia, Yes or No?”—and with the result binding for all. While in theory this same principle should have appealed to the Western democracies, in practice the “international community” appeared to be too deeply committed to the quasi-federal Titoist framework to question the assumptions of the secessionist-minded leaders in Croatia and Slovenia—assumptions that paved the way for disintegration. The separatists preferred the model of localized, republic-by-republic elections. Once they were in power, those elections would be followed by ambiguously worded referenda on independence with de facto preordained outcomes. This strategy had little to do with “democracy,” but it proved effective in radicalizing political discourse and escalating Yugoslavia’s crisis.
In early 1990 separatist parties had already triumphed in Slovenia and Croatia. In December of that year Slobodan Milošević’s authoritarian Socialist Party of Serbia gained a convincing victory in Serbia’s elections. The media in all republics had been busy pursuing openly nationalist themes, and the politicians followed suit. In December 1990 the Slovenes voted for an “independent and sovereign state,” and within months Slovenia stopped sending conscripts to serve in the federal armed forces. That same month the Assembly of the Republic of Croatia adopted the new Constitution—the so-called Christmas Constitution—that defined the Republic of Croatia as the “nation-state of the Croatian people.” The constituent status of the Serbian people in Croatia was thus abrogated and the Serbs in Croatia were reduced to the status of a national minority.
Unlike Slovenia, however, Croatia had within its boundaries a large Serb population that resented being stripped of its status as a constituent nation. The Serbs had initially favoured the preservation of Yugoslavia, but in the light of Slovene and Croat moves towards independence they raised the issue of self-determination. This was specifically related to the question of adjusting borders between the Yugoslav federal units in such a way as to allow various Serb communities outside Serbia to remain attached to it.
Separatist republics are free to go, the Serb argument essentially went, but they should not be allowed to take areas with a Serb plurality along with them. Slovenia’s and Croatia’s declarations of independence (June 25, 1991) were accordingly followed by rather different responses. There was a short conflict in Slovenia involving the Yugoslav Army, and a sustained and much bloodier war in Croatia involving local Serbs. Inevitably these events were bound to have profound consequences on Bosnia.
Izetbegovic’s chief concern was to find a pretext for the intended separation from Yugoslavia—any Yugoslavia—and to use the Croat tactical alliance in pursuit of that goal; the day of reckoning with the HDZ could come later. The decision by Izetbegovic to treat Tudjman’s bid for independence as the cue for Bosnia’s repeat act was fateful: the moment that the SDA made it clear that it would not remain in any Yugoslavia without Croatia, war was inevitable in Bosnia. Izetbegović was willing to risk that war. In the 1990 election campaign he said that the Muslims would “defend Bosnia with arms.” In February 1991 he declared in the Assembly: “I would sacrifice peace for a sovereign Bosnia-Herzegovina, but for that peace in Bosnia-Herzegovina I would not sacrifice sovereignty.” To the Serbs this was a war cry. By May Izetbegovic went even further, saying that the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina probably could not be avoided because “for a state to be created, for a nation to be forged, it has to endure this, it is some kind of fate, destiny.” This statement echoed his Islamic fatalism.
KARADZIC AND MILOSEVIC
Over the past two centuries Balkan lands were bargaining chips for alliance construction. The Bosnian war of 1992-95 confirmed this trend. It was the most destructive segment of the War of Yugoslav Dissolution. With no ethnic majority and no “Bosnian” nation, of all six republics of the old Yugoslav federation the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina had most to fear from violent secession. Yet once reunited Germany was committed to the recognition of Croatia and Slovenia, the Muslim leadership in Sarajevo knew both that the old Yugoslavia was dead and that historic opportunities beckoned.
President Slobodan Milosevic of Serbia, however, played the Bosnian crisis primarily as a means of consolidating his power in Serbia proper and extending his influence without committing himself to any clearly defined strategic objective, such as a “Greater Serbia.” By contrast, President Franjo Tudjman of Croatia did not shed Marxist crocodile tears at the passing of the old Titoist certainties. Unlike Milosevic he was a true nationalist. In April 1992 he brought Croatian troops into western Herzegovina just as Milosevic withdrew the Yugoslav National Army (JNA) from Bosnia. Furthermore, in a twisted re-enactment of the chetnik-partisan divide, Milosevic had constantly sought to deepen the divide between the civilian leadership in Pale headed by Karadzic, and the military HQ at Han Pijesak led by General Ratko Mladic.
When the Bosnian Serbs took control of the Serb-majority areas and connecting corridors in 1992, they were well equipped and officered. But the numerical advantage lay with the Muslims, who hoped to win in the end with international help. Radavan Karadzic never understood that this was, indeed, Izetbegovic’s grand strategy, and that time was not on the side of the Serbs.
In addition Karadzic personally and the Serbs collectively were severely damaged by the western media handling of their mistreatment of Muslim prisoners and by their expulsion of non-Serb civilians in the summer of 1992. Similar atrocities by Croats and Muslims against Serbs and against each other, while no less common, were less conspicuous and deemed unworthy of attention. The Western elite class chose its sympathies at the start and kept up an agitation in favor of military intervention against the Serbs.
Of several peace plans offered or mediated by the Europeans, Karadzic was under particular pressure—especially from Milosevic in Belgrade—to accept the Vance-Owen Plan (May 1993) that would have divided Bosnia into ten “cantons.” He initialled its acceptance, but subsequently it was rejected by the Republika Srpska national assembly. Only months later Muslims rejected the Owen-Stoltenberg Plan that provided for a confederal model of three sovereign national entities (December 1993). A vague yet “non-negotiable” plan presented by the “Contact Group” in 1994 was refused by the Serbs. It was quietly discarded in early 1995, by which time the Clinton Administration decided to intervene directly on the Muslim side.
KARADZIC’S COSTLY MISCALCULATIONS
The media call for intervention, launched in its early stage, made the Bosnian war the subject of international debate to an extent unknown since Vietnam. Many Europeans were inclined to support a compromise peace, a federalized Bosnia, and a real arms embargo; whereas the United States disliked European peace plans, broke the arms embargo starting in late 1993, and overtly supported the Muslims.
In 1992-1993 Karadzic made a fundamental miscalculation that made the war unwinnable for the Serbs. Ever obsessed with maps, square miles and territorial percentages to the detriment of strategic planning, he sat on his advantages and hoped that in the fulness of time the world would recognize the Serbs’ apparent victory. His often repeated adage, “we don’t want to defeat them [Muslims], we want to separate from them,” was absurd, however: the latter could not be effected without securing the former.
Blinkered by his flawed assumptions, Karadzic failed to grasp the tectonic shift that took place in January 1994, when the U.S. sponsored a Croat-Muslim alliance and the Europeans realized that there would be no settlement unless they surrendered political leadership to Washington. This new stage was inaugurated in February 1994, when a mortar shell fell on the crowded Markale market in Sarajevo. The Serbs were duly blamed, and evidence that the shell could not have been fired from Serbian lines became available too late to affect the subsequent crisis.
From this point the war became a matter of Muslim attempts to exploit the “safe areas”—in Sarajevo, Gorazde, Tuzla, Bihac, and Srebrenica—which had been declared by the UN but never demilitarized. In short the Muslims were allowed to attack out of these areas, but the Serbs were not allowed to pursue them back in. From spring 1994 on the Muslims could no loger lose the war, which, in view of their weak starting position, was tantamount to winning it.
Once treated as a key interlocutor in London, New York, or Geneva, by early 1995 Karadzic was no longer a player in the big game. In Washington Bosnia was seen as an opportunity to transform NATO from a purely defensive alliance into an “out-of-area” enforcement agency, thus paving the way for the Kosovo intervention four years later. The success of the pro-intervention lobby in the media must be seen in the context of strong support for their agitation from parts of the U.S. administration.
Russia was the source of Karadzic’s constant hopes and repeated disappointments. Often puzzled by Moscow’s supine posture, he kept hoping that it would “shake itself up.” Yet Yeltsin’s Russia was weak, eager to appease the West, and reluctant to exert itself in the Balkan area. Russian policy began with an almost ideological commitment to accepting Western good faith, and Russia was slow to grasp that Washington wanted a peace settlement based on the defeat of the Serbs. By 1995 informed Russian opinion was getting alarmed at the direction events were taking, but it was too late, and too difficult, for the Yeltsin presidency to devise a new policy.
In the summer of 1995 London and Paris reluctantly agreed to allow NATO to bomb the Serbs, while the United States reluctantly accepted the sort of settlement the Europeans had wanted in 1992-3. But the bombing of the Bosnian Serb army in August 1995, which appeared to end the war, was less important militarily than the entry of the Croatian Army into Bosnia, now trained and extensively re-equipped by the U.S. Even this Croatian intervention was only possible because the Yugoslav army refused to intervene to save its clients west of the Drina. The war ended because Milosevic of Serbia wanted it to end.
The chief outcome of the war was a transformed NATO, and the renewal of American leadership in Europe to an extent not seen since Kennedy. It established that America wanted to lead, and to be indispensable, in the process of European reorganization after 1989. Bosnia itself was not much affected by international intervention. The war took longer than it would have done and the Serbian position is more uncertain, but the settlement that followed Dayton is not unlike a plausible compromise that seemed within reach in Lisbon in April 1992.
Richard Holbrooke, the chief U.S. negotiator in 1995, boasted a year later: “We are re-engaged in the world, and Bosnia was the test.” This “we” meant the United States, not “the West” or “the international community.” Indeed, no nation-state started and finished the Bosnian story as a political actor with an unchanged diplomatic personality. Each great power became a forum for the global debate for and against intervention, the debate for and against a certain kind NATO, and an associated, media-led international political process. The interventionists prevailed then, and their narrative dominates the public commentary on Karadzic’s arrest now.
VAE VICTIS…
Far from bringing the Bosnian episode to a close, Karadzic’s transfer to The Hague raises an old question that remains unanswered by the interventionists: If the old Yugoslavia was untenable and eventually collapsed under the weight of the supposedly insurmountable differences among its constituent nations, how can Bosnia—the Yugoslav microcosm par excellence—develop and sustain the dynamics of a viable polity? The answer will become known only when the outside powers lose their present interest in upholding the constitutional edifice made in Dayton.
As for the specific charges against Karadzic, we need not hypothesize a pre-war “joint criminal enterprise” to ethnically cleanse and murder, to explain the events of 1992-5. The crimes and violations of human rights that followed were not the direct result of anyone’s nationalist project. These crime, as Susan Woodward notes, “were the results of the wars and their particular characteristics, not the causes.”
The effect of the legal intervention of the “international community” with its act of recognition was that a Yugoslav loyalty was made to look like a conspiratorial disloyalty to “Bosnia”—largely in the eyes of people who supposed ex hypothesi that if there is a “Bosnia” there must be a nation of “Bosnians.” In 1943-4 Tito was able to force the Anglo-Americans to pretend that his struggle was not communist revolution. In 1992-5 Izetbegovic forced the West to pretend that his jihad was the defense of “multi-ethnicity.” Both pretenses were absurd.
How do they do it, these Balkan political impresarios? The Hague Tribunal does not recognize the question as legitimate and therefore does not seek answers. The strange truth is that then, like now, great powers pay a fee for entering the Balkan casino. They consent to someone’s story, not “the Truth.”
Radovan Karadzic will be duly convicted of genocide and crimes against humanity, and he will not come out of jail alive. The verdict is already written, but it reflects a fundamental imbalance. It ignores the essence of the Bosnian war—the Serbs’ striving not to be forced into secession—while remaining mute about the culpability of the other two sides for a series of unconstitutional, illegitimate and illegal political decisions that caused the war.
The judgment against Karadzic at the U.S.-sponsored and largely U.S.-funded tribunal at The Hague will be built on this flawed foundation. It will be neither fair or just, and therefore it will be detrimental to what America should stand for in the world. It will also give further credence to the myth of Muslim blameless victimhood, Serb viciousness, and Western indifference, and therefore weaken our resolve in the global struggle euphemistically known as “war on terrorism.” The former is a crime; the latter, a mistake.
218 Responses »
Trackbacks
- News | Serbian Unity Congress » Karadzic’s Arrest: Bosnian Myths Rehashed, Chronicles Magazine
- News | Serbian Unity Congress » Everyone’s Favorite Villain: Radovan Karadzic Captured, antiwar.com (Nebojsa Malic)
- News | Serbian Unity Congress » Having to argue the obvious, Gray Falcon blog (Nebojsa Malic)
- News | Serbian Unity Congress » Karadzic and the Anti-Serbs, The Trumpet
- Muslim States Back War Crimes Trials, But Not for Muslim Leader « Creeping Sharia
- Chesler Chronicles » Islamic Imperialism in the Former Yugoslavia
- News | Serbian Unity Congress » Today’s “Palestinians” Include Bosnians and Albanians, Republican Riot blog (Julia Gorin)
- Chronicles Magazine, September 2008 « Panther Red
Entries(RSS)
James
The problem with the arab theory is that none of them is listed as actually being on the flights. Certainly no Arab was on the flight into the Pentagon. A doctor requested the Dna samples under FOI - for what that is worth in the circs. None fitted the so called hijackers and their names were not even on the listing.
There is the small problem of WTC7.
There is a small problem of no Boeing in the Pentagon - bearing in mind the oficial explanation is that it was consumed by fire titanium and all yet the passengers DNA was supposedly confirmed.
There is a small problem of no wreckage, yet again, from flight 93.
Just the other day the chief (navy) proscecution lawyer in a gitmo trial said flight 93 has been shot down.
And thats just for starters. Try 'Patriots for 9/11'.
In fact 9/11 is so littered with small problems it just becomes one huge problamatic story.
Ron Paul is right - a new inquiry. Even those who wrote the first one want another on the grounds they were told porkies.
Is this still under moderation please?
It is highly relevant to yesterdays posts.
The king takes all
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/JG30Ag01.html
One of the pawns tries to resist checkmate
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/35111
The Serbs really really blew it.
Slim,
If Brzezinski was not from a Jewish family, why did his father, a career diplomat, pull the family to safety in Canada in 1939, where they sat out the entire war?
Just like the Albrights.
After the war, they were "not able" to return to Poland.
Just because his daughter is Catholic, does not mean anything. Brzezinski's wife could be a gentile, which means the offspring are not Jewish.
Even Brzezinski or his parents could have converted earlier. There were many like that.
Sure he's an anti-semite, so are lots of other Jews, Chomsky etc.
James and Elizabeth,
Everything about the "war on terror," the Islamist threat, etc. is pure BS.
Like Brzezinskis says, it is "rubbish." Al Quaeda was created by the imperialists to undermine Russia and continues to be a CIA puppet.
The coincidence of a 9-11 happening just when the US needed a "war on terror" in order to re-enter Central Asia is just too pat.
Just a quick observation. There are a quite a few anti-Israel (read antisemitic) comments on this particular blog. Looks like the censors at The Chronicles have fallen down on the job. Or else they have had a change of heart.
Sans even a morsel of proof from any remotely credible source, Brzezinski is not Jewish.
Not to say that Jews are incapable of holding such ideology (eg. Wolfowitz, etc.), but there seems to be no indication that Brzezniski is one.
Not to mention that if he WAS Jewish, numerous MSM sources and Jewish conspiracy sources would make this loud and clear (as they do for Wolfowitz, Pearle, etc.).
But his ideology is entirely anathema to Judaism, and tremendously anti-Israel (to the point of hiring and whitewashing Islamist mercenaries). Thus, those inclined to believe in "Jewish conspiracies" should love him---he's entirely anti-Jewish (similar to Wolfowitz, Pearle, etc.).
So far, you seem to have pulled this one out of your rear.
Albright is Catholic. She was merely pulling a common propaganda move of exposing the 'Jews in her attic' when convenient for associating her fascist ideology with people that want nothing to do with it.
THE HAGUE — Former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic sat in a UN jail cell Wednesday after being flown to the Netherlands in the dead of night to face .....
His arrival in a white Serbian government jet marked the end of a 13-year effort by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia to take custody of its most wanted war criminal. ...
The tribunal will "ensure his well being and right to a fair trial as much as possible and in accordance with the highest international standards," spokeswoman NERMA (Muslim name) Jelacic said in confirming Karadzic's arrival at the detention centre outside The Hague.....
TADIC THE TRAITOR
THE HAGUE — Former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic sat in a UN jail cell Wednesday after being flown to the Netherlands in the dead of night to face …..
His arrival in a white Serbian government jet marked the end of a 13-year effort by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia to take custody of its most wanted war criminal. …
The tribunal will “ensure his well being and right to a fair trial as much as possible and in accordance with the highest international standards,” spokeswoman NERMA (Muslim name) Jelacic said in confirming Karadzic’s arrival at the detention centre outside The Hague…..
Anyone voting Tadic knew what they were doing.
The real traitors are the socialists.
How many socialist voters voted for this?
I thought Dr Karadzic had the right of appeal?
What has happened to that?
Has it just been ignored?
Human rights - not for Serbs it seems.
If it was an islamic terrorist the world would be up in arms.
@148Elizabeth
The Shankville failed hijacking flight had Arabs on it thats probably why it failed.
The Pentagon and Trade Tower attacks we dont know who the hijackers on the planes were. Is it possible that they were white in appearance say white muslims that why they were so successful in taking the plane hostage.
@Elizabeth
I've repeatedly tried to post a comment on the litvinenko affair and evidence to what a farce it is but Chronicles wont let me post it.
James
I really don't think there is any question of arabs on 9/11. Check out the creme de la creme of the 9/11 sites
'patriots for 9/11' and you will find hundreds of prominent Americans from diplomats to pilots, from architects and engineers to actors and commentators. family - all sorts - all with questions and demanding investigation.
Which arabs brought down WTC7?
I think we, and I am one, are pushing the parameters of the topic too far. I have one excellent post on moderation and I am not sure whether it has appeared or not. It was relevant to the Caspian question.
There is a superb article today by Brendan O'neill on Antiwar re the Bosnian issue
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/oneill.php?articleid=13222
and a follow up on Rense to a link yesterday re oil and pipelines which is of course relevant to Serbia.
http://www.rense.com/general82/fore.htm
We may have expanded the boundaries but I for one have really enjoyed all the debate. Even when I don't agree I respect an opposing viewpoint although remain unconvinced.
Thanks all.
James,
"It suprises me why these 9/11 truthers dont research the hijackers themselves."
They have. Extensively.
Check the work of the Propaganda Matrix site, or that of Michel Chossudovsky.
Elias Davidson has compiled a comprehensive summary of the (lack of) evidence for 'hijackers' :
http://911blogger.com/node/16159
If you are running an operation like this, the most logical approach is to rely on the technology, NOT on highly unpredictable human beings. With around 200 people on board the four flights, any number of things could have gone wrong. So the only coherent approach would be to have pilotless planes.
See this early (and very important) article:
http://www.911-strike.com/remote_skills.htm
Gerald Holmgrem was the first person to point out that the Bureau of Transportation Statistics did not have flight 11 OR flight 77 (the 'pentagon' plane) listed as flying on 9-11.
http://sydney.indymedia.org.au/node/13779
Excellent article posted on Anti War about the shared ground of left wing "humanitarian bombers" and radical muslim fanatics:
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/oneill.php?articleid=13222
@159Elizabeth
Does anyone know what was in tower 7?
I suspect it might have been a housing for storing electronic information and communications in the WTC which would show if instant messages were sent to certain employees warning of the attack before hand like Odigo. That why it had to be brought down.
But it would be good for sure to know what was the purpose of WTC7
And what about renegade FBI investigator John O'Neil who was missing for 3 days prior to 9/11 body being found in the wreckage of WTC?
I think the real smoking gun however is the Urban Moving 5 arrested, found to possess box cutters, explosives and money, failed a lie detector test and aloud to leave the country.
James
What was in WTC7
A bit like the room in Hogwarts castle for the storing of.
Amongst much else lots of nasty records etc that some people would like to see the back of.
But it is all easily found on the net.
Someone more expert than I may be able to point you to the right place. Some sites are better than others, some are just intel sites trying to murk the waters.
WTC 1,2 and 7 were all owned by the same chap Larry Silverstein who bought them for some millions 6 months earlier - they were full of asbestos, and promptly insured them for billions and watched them fall. So many top experts have testified they were brought down by explosive I don't think any rational person could deny it.
John O'Neill was a very good guy and held informatin many would not have wanted known His death was very convenient. You can check him out on the net as well.
Who really was behind the attack is a matter for debate but there are two general facts agreed. Dick Cheney was in it up to his neck and 19 arabs with boxcutters is the biggest sick joke in decades.
@163Elizabeth
I think the hijackers used explosives like RDX to take control of the plane and maybe agents in airport security help smuggle on board guns. The whole idea that they could hijack and subdue a whole plane in a matter of minutes with box cutters is ludicrous and that no one would challenge them.
I think thats what happend with shankville plane they were not able to hijack the plane properly so they blew it out of the air with explosives.
You should definitely read Paul Murphys book Wolves of Islam its vital to understanding whats going on in this farcical "war on terror".
James
The navy prosecutor at Gitmo admitted the other day that Flight 93 was shot down. Long suspected by some of the 9/11 truthers.
There are various theories about the other 3. There are reports that several may have landed at Cleveland - in the case of the Pentagon, the Boeing landed at the airport just the other side of the building. What attcked the Pentgon was a small jet or missile or combination.
There are even question marks over the actual planes that hit WTC 1 and 2
None of the wreckage fits the aircraft involved.
There is also the question of the cell phone calls.
It has been confirmd they could not have been made from the aircraft. It has also been officially confirmed Barbara Olsen never made the call from the aircraft as her husband - a v. high official in the Bush government - claimed.
So much is coming out yet like Serbia and so much else you only get to read what they want you to know.
Calling all Serbs. Please join "Stop Islamisation Of Europe - SIOE" on its demo against muslim ethnic cleansing of Greenlanders in the town of Gellerup in Denmark.
Take a look at our site to see our stance on the rule of hypocrisy in Europe which has been so eloquently described in Srdja 's article above.
SIOE supports Serbia's ancient claim on it territory of Kosovo. It invited Serbia's new president to sign its anti-Kuffarphobia petition, but received no reply from the Serbian government.
Please bring Serbian flags and pre-"independence" Kosovo flags.
Europeans must now stand together against the islamisation of Europe.
As with all SIOE events, totalitarian Nazi and communist symbols are banned.
Islam is the nastiest form of totalitarianism so naturally is also disallowed.
@James
" I think the hijackers used explosives like RDX "
What 'hijackers'?
@166david montoute
The US did release the airport video of the hijackers who boarded the shanksville plane.
I dont subscribe to the theory that they were no hijackers and that it was remote controlled planes especially since numerous witessess that saw Mohammed Atta and the other Arab hijackers and is confirmed they were in the US.
It also negates the fact that for the past 20+ years western intelligence have been arming, funding and training islamic militants to fight in CIA theatres of combat.
All the hijackers including banks, financiers and organisations had links and current links to CIA islamist bases and arenas of combat.
Again why was Mohammed Atta in the Czech Rep?
Excellent article about Bosnia and Karadzic from Intel Daily.
http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=172&a=7709
@Elizabeth
If you know another blog or something were I can post my comment on the litvinenko farce then I would appreciate if you could post a link so you can read it.
Also I forgot to mention the explosives used in the London bombing were explosives removed from the head of an old chinese warhead and smuggled into the UK from Kosovo by a Pakistani cell created by the MI6 and ISI to fight the Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo.
Experts testify that high quality home made explosive from ordinary household items is nearly impossible that why the second wave of suicide bombers failed theres were homemade.
James
I don't know of such a site but I am very happy to have the moderator - if he would be so kind and is able - to forward to you my private E mail address.
Its the best I can do.
RICHARD HOLBROOKE THE KILLER!
http://news. xinhuanet. com/english/ 2008-08/01/ content_8885539. htm
Karadzic fears for life because of deal with U.S.
THE HAGUE, NETHERLANDS, July 31 (Xinhua) -- Former Bosnian Serbleader Radovan Karadzic said at the United Nations war crimes court Thursday that he is gravely concerned about his life because the United States might be seeking to "liquidate" him.
Karadzic, who appeared for the first time before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) on Thursday, told the judge that he had a deal with the United States before withdrawing from the public life in 1996.
He said Richard Holbrooke, the then U.S. assistant secretary of state, presented him with a deal, requesting him withdrawing entirely from the public life in return for a drop of efforts to prosecute him at the ICTY.
Holbrooke was the chief broker of a peace agreement among the warring factions in Bosnia that led to the signing of the Dayton Peace Accords in 1995.
Karadzic said he fulfilled his commitment and withdrew from the public life and did not do anything to endanger the implementation of the Dayton accord.
Karadzic said that it was because of the secret deal with Washington that he had not come to the court in The Hague any time earlier.
The 63-year-old former president of Bosnian Serb Republic said he is concerned that if Holbrooke's arm is long enough to reach the court, he might be "liquidated."
"I must say it is a matter of life and death," he said.....
Karadzic said he would like to defend himself throughout the trial. "I would like to defend myself before the institution just as I would like to defend myself before any national catastrophe," he said.
@slim
I've got links to jewish news and organisations websites that prove the jewish community in the US and Canada fully supported the Bosnian and Kosovar Albanians.
Jewish organisations even released press statements.
Jewish senators passed reolutions against the Serbs as well as authorisation for NATO to bomb Serbia in 99.
@Elizabeth
We should keep our eyes out and be prepared for a false flag operation to lure the US into a war against Iran. Like a USS Liberty style attack.
Theres been a lot of speculation that a US ship will be sabotaged near the Iranian waters and claimed that the Iranians attacked it.
I shouldn't really post this but can't resist.
A little tittle tattle about Madeleine Albright. You may have already seen it but for those of you who haven't - enjoy.
If you look at the other options on this site - the item about Russia and the Turkman oil is v. good.
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_3497.shtml
Here is the video on Karadzic's appearance before the inquisition in The Hague on July 31, 2008.
http://watch.ctv.ca/news/latest/karadzic-in-court/#clip70786
Former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic said that he is gravely concerned about his life because the United States might be seeking to "liquidate" him.
He said Richard Holbrooke, the then U.S. assistant secretary of state, presented him with a deal, requesting him withdrawing entirely from the public life in return for a drop of efforts to prosecute him at the ICTY.
Karadzic said he fulfilled his commitment and withdrew from the public life and did not do anything to endanger the implementation of the Dayton accord.
Karadzic said that it was because of the secret deal with Washington that he had not come to the court in The Hague any time earlier.
Dr. Karadzic is concerned that if "Holbrooke's arm is long enough to reach the court, he might be liquidated."
"I must say it is a matter of life and death," Karadzic said.
On Thursday, presiding judge Alphons Orie read out a summary of the indictment of Karadzic. Karadzic refused to enter a plea on each of the 11 charges against him. .
Karadzic said he would like to defend himself throughout the trial. "I would like to defend myself before the institution just as I would like to defend myself before any national catastrophe," he said.
TWO QUESTIONS:
1) Why would Serbia's (Tadic) authorities keep (and not return) Dr. Karadzic's lap-top with the documentation for his defence?
2) Why would Dr. Karadzic use the only opportunity he had at The Hague to accuse Richard Holbrooke of possible liquidation?
This is a serious accusation that Holbrooke must be asked about and respond to.
James,
I've never denied that. I've said repeatedly: Jews were lied to and bamboozled by the lies of Rudder Finn, and media that was erroneously assumed to be 'impartial'. US msm still does not tell the truth (the NYT repeats the Srebrenica big lie at least every week or two).
The leaders of the mainstream Jewish organizations probably did not even know the truth. In the 1930s and 40s, these leaders were lackeys of the State Department.
At this point in time, I don't even think they have any 'inside' knowledge at all.
Israel and Israeli intelligence knew the truth and supported the Serbs, based on what I've read.
Like I said: all neocons (be they 'Jewish' or Muslim, like Khalilzad) are loyal only to US imperialism, and nothing else.
The New York Times and similar media make sure you think that Wolfowitz and Pearle are leading the charge--while it simultaneously fawns over Zalmay Khalilzad, which indicates the degree of BS that this whole 'pro Israel neocon' line is.
There are Jews that speak the truth (Julia Gorin and a few others), but in the US if you deviate from State Department issued revisionist history, you are branded a 'conspiracy kook' or a 'holocaust denier' (eg. for exposing the Srebrenica fraud).
As an example: I'm a staunch anti jihadist, and I'm fully aware that the US is pro-jihadist. I've been banned from littlegreenfootballs repeatedly for standing up to the Serbophobic revisionist history told there. People on his site are so stupid that they accuse Serbs of sig heiling and being like nazis.
The media is under such tight control that being pro-Serb and denying this Srebrenica BS is not allowed. And discussing any of the Oklahoma City, 9/11, US government connections will get you branded a kook.
It's a shame b/c it is clear to me that the US government has become very much like the Nazi apparatus it always aspired to be. Fortunately though, we do have freedom in our propaganda bubble, as long as you are not a Serb that defends Serbs, a Jew that defends Jews, or an 'uncle tom' black that preaches that blacks need to get off of welfare, get an education, and become self reliant...
Maybe he will end up like Milosevic if he puts up a good defence.
If he has no pre existing health problems like Milosevic I'll bet he will mysteriously develope cancer by gradually exposure to depleted uranium or use some other technique.
Psyche Op are probably using techniques on him to weaking his rational thinking and mental wellbeing before the trail.
i agree james. im sure noone knows whats in store for him. Being that two Serbs of high position have somehow died in the Hague in the past. Milosevic who mysteriously died of a heart attack and Milan Babic who was also found dead in his cell, apparently committing suicide. Its all too much of a coincidence if u ask me....
im not sure if this is how they did it but i heard that they poisoned Milosevic and suffocated Babic with a pillow. i guess we'l never know....
@180slim
Jews have hundreds of organisations looking out for there well being.
Jewish groups like the ADL can promote jews marrying other jews yet chastise other white conservative groups that say the same thing for there own people without contridiction.
Our how come ultra racist Chabad-Lubavitch Rabbis are allowed to preach and hold prayer ceremonies in the white house.
The only true people being persucuted are Serbs and Russians. In congrees dozens of anti-Russian resolutions have been passed, chechen terrorists are on CIA payrolls there lobbies, PR and websites just like the Kosovars and citizenship is denied to ethnic Russians born in the Baltic states.
The Muslims nearly conquered Europe centuries ago when, thank God, they were stopped at the gates of Vienna by ancestors of ours who would be on trial for "genocide," "ethnic cleansing", and other phony "crimes", had their been an international court of "justice" in those days.
Under the cover of "multiculturalism" muslims now appear to be succeeding, with immigration, where they failed with military force. Their presence on our holy soil has brought us nothing but conflict and grief.
Nearly half the surface of the planet is now claimed as homelands by the spritual descendants of Mohammed. Would they tolerate a threat to their cultures and ethnicities by mass immigration of white Christian peoples? Of course not. Wake up, Europeans, before you find yourselves completely overrun and dispossessed of the lands that your forefathers gave their sweat to build and their blood to defend as your own inheritance.
From Antiwar today.
Usual good article yesterday from Mr Malic.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13236
Elizabeth,
That article was written by Justin Raimondo, NOT Nebojsa Malic.
James,
Could you provide a cite of the ADL being upset with other white groups saying that their people should only marry 'their' people? I've never heard of such.
When have the 'ultra racist Lubovitch' rabbi's called for anyone's death? When have they preached genocide or cleansing of anyone?
Oh that's right--they haven't, and the websites that say such nonsense are funded by Arabs and promote Arabist lies about Israel (WRMEA is the main site for this).
Rest assured that the Lubovitch rabbis make far fewer visits to the White House than the ultra-racist 'moderate' pets of the US State Department or the ultra-racist oil-money Arab friends of our elites.
Make note that the US is not actually spreading zionism anywhere, nor installing any zionist puppets anywhere.
David
I meant to post the Justin Raimondo article.
I just mentioned the Malic article in passing.
It is easy to see it if you go to the Antiwar site so didn't worry about the link.
Sorry if I was confusing.
Slim
'Could you provide a cite of the ADL being upset with other white groups saying that their people should only marry ‘their’ people? I’ve never heard of such.'
If you dared to propose such a thing in England you would be before the courts for 'inciting racial hatred'.
I think many people would be amazed if the Israeli law of Jews only marrying Jews was more widely known. More pure apartheid than South Africa ever had before it was brought down and turned into a cesspit.
A throw back to the worse side of American segregation surely.
What amazes me is the double standards.
If Jews only want to marry Jews - that is their business but I object strongly to the fact that the same jewish people are largely in the forefront of the 'race industry' and the criminalization of any white person who mght wish to say 'white people should only marry white people' or in the extreme propose legislation to make it law.
Like 'denying the holocaust' meaning you spend years in prison in certain nation states for thought crime, I oppose (and so do most people at least where I live) the idea that free speech must be curtailed with threat of prison for speaking out on race in a way the PC brigade, including the Jewish lobby, don't like.
Just another example of how our liberty is increasingly being trampled into the mud.
@185slim
I mentioned the Chabad Lubavitch movement as theres been a lot of talk about this group on the internet which they usually reference this statement.
"As for the goyim…Zalman’s attitude (was): “Gentile souls are of a completely different and inferior order. They are totally evil, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever.” …If every simple cell in a Jewish body entails divinity, is a part of God, then every strand of DNA is a part of God. Therefore, something is special about Jewish DNA. …
If a Jew needs a liver, can you take the liver of an innocent non-Jew passing by to save him? The Torah would probably permit that. Jewish life has an infinite value,” he explained. “There is something infinitely more holy and unique about Jewish life than non-Jewish life. – Chabad Lubavitch Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburgh in Jewish Week, the largest Jewish publication in the United States.
This Statement was made by a leading Lubavitch Rabbi named Yitshak Ginsburgh and it can be found in the April 26, 1996 Jewish Week"
I cant actually find a link to the original articles and if this is false I would like to know what the Chabad Lubavitch movements purpose is.
@186Elizabeth
I'm suprised no one has commented on this article.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13192
The was the first major propaganda against Russia against "Eeevilllll" Putin and Russia.
Australian news article confirms a Karadzic-Holbrooke deal.
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/age080108.htm
Agreement Richard Holbrooke Offered and Signed with RS President Karadzic on Behalf of U.S. Government
[Copy of the signed Agreement can be seen on this web site:
http://www.kurir-info.rs/clanak/vesti/kurir-01-08-2008/sporazum-karadzic-holbruk ]
Obligations
1. RK is under obligation to submit his resignation to all the state and [political] party functions. Decision comes to force within 90 days, as needed to settle the necessary issues with the rest of leadership. Resignation has to be irretrievable. Influence the leading party officials in a direction of easing the resignation issue and the change in the hierarchy.
2. Until submitting his resignation, RK will not be reaching political or state decisions, nor will he influence others to reach decisions pertaining to any of the following:
2-1 Combat operations on the territory of BiH [Bosnia-Herzegovina]
2-2 Moving the civilian population
2-3 The international agreements: military, economic, security, regional integrations
2-4 Appointing the state, party, regional, cultural administrations, functionaries
2-5 Relocating the financial means
(in force from 5.11.03:30)
3. RK will withdraw from the public life. This includes refusing to give interviews, statements (in person or through the intermediaries), non-publishing [illegible] of political and current problems.
Obligations 2
1. United States Government is under obligation not to influence, directly or indirectly, the SDS leadership [Dr. Karadzic's political party] to affect dissolution of the party.
2. United States Government is making available the sum of 600,000 USD to RK, in the local currency. The sum is designated to enable RK's support in the 6 year period.
3. United States Government is making residential object available to RK, at the location agreed upon during the earlier verbal agreement.
4. United States Government is providing physical protection for RK, not less than 6 men.
5. United States Government has a duty to inform RK about every possible threat to his safety.
Final stipulations:
1. This agreement is permanent.
2. RK's violations of the agreement will be treated as a serious violation of the informal agreement, in the sense of the article 3 paragraph 25 of the Internal Regulations and in that sense it will be sanctioned with the immediate termination.
3. The agreement can be terminated through a mutual consent, or upon the initiative of United States Government.
Signed by: Radovan Karadzic (on the left) and Richard Holbrooke (right).
James @ 187, especially the second paragraph:
Interesting post. I have suspected for a very long time that the characteristics & misdeeds the Germans have been accused of since the beginning of WWI are, in fact, those that the Zionists with their supporters, and their current offspring the neocons, are guilty of.
Only in the last few years have I become aware of the tactic of accusing one's opponent of the deeds one is guilty of: When Israel and the USA began bleating about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and Iran, and presented their "irrefutable evidence" in support of that assertion, I distinctly recall (my wife confirms this) mumbling as to who would believe such rubbish.
Alas, enough people did believe it.
And who has all the WMD in the middle east??? Who has threatened other countries with nuclear attacks???
On a pragmatic level I find the disinterest of the public at large, regarding taxation levels and what their "representatives" in government do with this money, quite inconceivable. Just think what would happen if a complete stranger waltzed into your castle and demanded that you hand over 40% of your earnings for him to do as he pleases.
Personally I have had more than a few things to say to anybody that spend practically half of my earnings.
H.F. Wolff
Recently a fairly high profile TV presenter in the UK Jill Dando who was killed 8 years ago convicted killers sentence was overturned and released on appeal.
Now the media is pushing the theory as it did back then that a Serb hitman killed her.
What are they basing this on?
Because she featured on a TV appeal ad to send aid to kosovo Albanians during the NATO bombardment of 1999 and that the killer wore a white suit and kill her with a single shot to the back of the head with a hollow point bullet.
"By Friday, Holbrooke was able to announce that Karadzic would give up his political power as president of the Bosnian Serb Republic and as leader of the Serb Democratic Party. Karadzic also agreed not to appear in public or on broadcast media.
RICHARD HOLBROOKE, Bosnia Negotiator: I want to stress he knew what he was signing, knew he was signing the end of his political career."
and more:
"CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: But now you got this piece of paper signed by Karadzic."
Full text on:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/bosnia/july96/holbrooke_7-22.html
@191H.F. Wolff
If your going to revise history I suggest you research and examine the true origins of communism, Karl Marx's ethnic origin (Karl Marx is not his real name), the ethnic component of communist groups by country and how the revolution was financed and organised in Russia.
I take it you know about the Frankfurt school?
If you’re looking at post WW1 Germany I would look into the Frankfurt school.
Social psychologist Kevin MacDonald has done some excellent research and wrote a series of books on these subjects.
It's no surprise all these bad things are happening in Serbia - Kosovo, results of elections, Karadzic - when the spineless coward in Russia, Putin is doing nothing. His Russian people are attacked in South Ossetia and there is no response from the Russian gov't! Let's hope that these events precipitate change in Russia and show Putin for the fraud that he is.
And I agree with some of the people here. Israel should absolutely not be considered a friend of Serbia. Jewish people have played a far too large role in bringing war to Serbs and have ignored all the suffering we have been through. I have no sympathy for them.
@193 James
Thanks for your referral to Dr. MacDonald. I have read excerpts of his writings... Will read more.
As to my revising history, I only wish to know what really happened, and I am sick and tired of being lied to by politicians, the media, and pundits.
Fortunately or unfortunately depending on one's point of view, every time I seriously read up on various issues and crimes the Germans were supposed to have committed, I find that either the accusations are completely false or, that there is no documentary, scientific, or forensic evidence, to support various accusations. Furthermore, in Europe any questioning or scientific investigation into these allegations lands one in prison.
Then I read of the Soviet Gulag, British concentration camps during the Boer war, American and Canadian camps for the Japanese and others and , finally, the books by Baque (sp.?) regarding the treatment of German soldiers and civilians after the war.
All this combined with the brutal treatment of the Palestinians while the world watches and does nothing, the war in Iraq and Lebanon, and now the pounding of the war drums for Iran, puts me in the frame of mind of asking: "Where have I seen this sort of thing before"?
As to all those 'eye witnesses' swearing to having seen these occurrences; I have read some of this testimony and found it to be scientifically in error, or impossible. (I earn my living in one of the hard sciences). Even the Israeli Supreme Court dismissed all eye witness testimony when it found "Ivan the Terrible" innocent; and he is still being persecuted by the USA judiciary.
In a court of law eye witness testimony is given the lowest credence, well below documentary and forensic evidence.
If my questioning all that passes as 'conventional wisdom' makes me a revisionist, so be it. I can live with it, and I happen to sleep very well, thank you.
I just remembered: This forum is for questioning conventional wisdom, isn't it??? Also, could you provide a thumbnail sketch of the Frankfurt school? I have heard of it I am sure but I don't recall in what context.
Thanks.
H.F. Wolff
@195H.F. Wolff
If you want to know what’s going on just now you don’t need to go as far back as WW2 you just need to examine what happened in the Balkans in the 90’s.
Andy Wilcoxson covered the Milosevic trail and wrote articles covering the preceding.
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/hague.htm
You’ll have to scroll down the page to read the trail articles as the site also covers events after his death on March 11 2006.
There is amazing similarities to what the Hague tribuneral accused Milosevic of doing to Kosovo Albanians and what the western powers accused the Nazis of doing after WW2.
They accused Milosevic of issuing a secret verbal command to kill Albanians yet would not allow Serb radio transitions to be submitted as evidence, eye witness accounts like Racak that turned out to be false, even star witnesses like Paddy Ashdown flat out lied.
When mass graves were exhumed in Kosovo and found to be KLA terrorists killed fighting Serb forces the court alleged that civilian bodies were transported to Belgrade and cremated.
@194Marko K
How come in any of your posts you dont critisize the US as they are the ones who pushed for Kosovo independence?
@196 james
Practically everyone here knows what a rotten state the US is in. There is no point in me repeating it. America is hopeless.
But it's very disappointing that Russia, one of the few countries capable of stopping the US in Kosovo or South Ossetia, is doing nothing. I just don't see enough people calling out Putin or putting pressure on him. If we want to see Russia truly develop into what it's capable of being, the Russian people have to stand up against Putin and elect a truly patriotic government. I had some hopes for Putin earlier but it's quite obvious now why Yeltsin supported him.
@197Marko K.
"I just don’t see enough people calling out Putin or putting pressure on him"
You obviously haven't been watching the news, reading newspapers and websites for the past 8 years or watching the presidential debates in the US.
Even when Time magazine named him the person of the year the photographs and accompanying article wasn't very flattering.
Although most people claim not to like US foreign policy in reality, I think yourself included deep down support it but just not the overt means by which they go about it.
People would rather the US support proxies to fight there wars and blame there financial woes on trade deficits to China rather than global wars and military installations in foreign countries.
It’s the same with left wingers who complain of major international companies hiring slave labour in 3rd world countries. forming groups to moan and complain about it. but never actually doing any concrete action to tackle it like raise funds to hire a lawyer to represent 3rd world employees in European courts. They know if they did and workers were given higher salaries and lower working hours that would affect the economies of the EU and the US.