Posted on 11/14/2006 6:46:18 PM PST by Bokababe
How nice, two Islamofascist supporters find each other! Cue the violins.
The more you see of Hoplite's posts, the more obvious it is he cut his teeth posting on Democrat Underground (in the Lifestyles section, I'm sure).
It was the Republicans like Bob Dole who were pushing him to do it. Clinton at first was resisting taking sides and was accused of APPEASEMENT and compared to Chamberlain in Munich.
Magazines like National Review were also involved in anti-Serb campaign.
Clinton was vilified that he was sympathetic to the French or European efforts to avoid war.
A sample from the 1990s - Clinton's Debacle in Bosnia
[...]
This acquiescence in the Anglo-French partitioning policy is the most significant characteristic of the settlement that was brokered by the Clinton Administration at Dayton. The Accords represent the culmination of a lengthy process by which the United States shifted from advocacy of the use of military force and Bosnia's right of self-defence to full acceptance of the British and French governments' de facto recognition of a 'Greater Serbia'. Rather than lead, the Administration simply capitulated.
[...]
the Clinton Administration's moves toward appeasement
Throughout its tenure, the Clinton Administration placed an untenably high premium on 'allied unity', which is another way of saying capitulation to policies that European powers perceived to be in their national interests.
Britain and France rationalized their sway over the US Administration by claiming a superior knowledge and wisdom acquired over hundreds of years of dealing with the Balkans. Stand back and stand down, their argument went: it is best to contain the fighting and allow Serbia, the largest Balkan power, to exercise its rightful hegemony over the region. It is true, of course, that British and French history and the two countries' proximity may initially have supported their claim to some special status as arbiters. The fact is, however, that Europe's four-year record is one of failure. Anglo- French knowledge and wisdom, not for the first time in history, turned out to be fundamentally flawed. It is worth remembering that, in their active form, they brought us Munich, while in inaction they brought us Hitler's unchallenged invasions of the Rhineland and the Sudetenland.
[...]
H.D.S. Greenway the senior associate editor of Boston Globe warned Clinton in 1993 (28 April, B.G.) :
[...] Respected opinion makers from both left and right have been beating the intervention drum, taunting Clinton, calling his caution a weakness and making shallow, ill-considered comparisons with Hitler-appeasing Neville Chamberlain.
[...]
Unfortunately for Clinton, he will have to live with the results of intervention while pundits promoting war today will be the first to denounce him should things go wrong tomorrow.
You're talking out of your arse, Lens.
That was BOSNIA
Another mistake but this is about
Kosovo and Serbia where we bombed Belgrade to ruin
NO! No "Another mistake but". These things are connected. First Bosnia then Kosovo.
The orchestrated lies about "genocide" in Bosnia were used as a pretext to "prevent another genocide" and bomb Serbia civilians with impunity. Also, to ethnically cleanse Serbs from their ancestral land and destroy Christian heritage. Anyone who had moral indegrity and intellectual honesty to object those lies and actions was labelled "Serb lover" or "Serb supporter", the name "Serb" being made synonimous with Nazi and genocidal exterminator.
Replace the word "Serb" with "Jew" and you'll find where the inspiration came from - Nazi propaganda.The smear remained to the present day. What is rather puzzling is the disproportional number of liberal Jewish Americans in this plot.
Having in mind that Douglas Feith was AQ moneyman in Washington DC the silence of the neocons on FR discussions regarding Bosnia and Kosovo lies is thundering.
Of course - because the international community's is equivalent to Al Qaeda.
How silly of me not to see it.
Can I get a Hitler comparison while you're at it?
As for Milan Babic vs. Oric, I'd compare and contrast what crimes they were found guilty of - what would you propose instead?
come around eventually.....? you are correct, only....if the truth stops becoming the truth and the lie becomes a way of life.
Query....
Under the guise of "full disclosure," why did Stella L. Jatras identify herself as, "a career military officer’s wife, lives in Camp Hill, Pa." instead of a staff member/writer for Antiwar.com, an organization,
"...dedicated to building an awareness to the globalist and interventionist forces that would enslave us all in a New World Order on which the sun never sets."
Who knows, maybe her real last name is "Yablonski," too.
Because Stella is not "a staff writer for Antiwar.com."
Stella is a freelance writer whose specialty for the last seven years has been the Balkans. Yes, antiwar.com has picked up some of her articles and letters, but so have a lot of publications, including Jewish World Review, The New American and Jihad Watch. You can't publish an author's entire resume as an intro to every article and Stella also IS "a career military officer's wife".
There is no conflict of interest, but it makes me wonder what your agenda might be in trying to pretend that there is!
Agenda? Sheesh
I never wrote that there was a conflict of interest. That was you. She CHOSE to identify herself a certain way which lent credence to a identity as an innocuous military wife just posting a response to an article when, in fact, she is more than that.
She IS a journalist and she IS on the staff ("Researcher") of Anti.war.com and she WRITES for them. QED (Check out the right side of the page http://antiwar.com/who.php). Also a Nexix/Lexis search shows that she is a regular letter to the editor writer to the Washington Times
So, when posting here or writing there.....
Why be disingenuous? What is the purpose of the "deception"? Who benefits?
Waht's wrong with an agenda of haveing people say who they are?
If I were writing an article for "Dog Fanciers" magazine, the "about the author section" would read "owner of a Border Collie and a Featherhaired Retriever" -- not "regular poster to Free Republic" Why? Because what is most relevant facts to dog fanciers are the dogs I own, not my political views.
When Stella wrote for a military magazine, the most relevant fact to other military personnel reading the article was that she was "the wife of a career military officer", period. I really don't see how Stella described herself, as being the least bit deceptive.
Most of the writing endeavors you have described aren't even paying gigs (as in a professional journalist) I know, because I have written articles for similar sites -- and I also know that after having written one articles for one site three years ago, they still list my name as part of their "contributing staff" -- it's a joke really, intended by the owners of the site to make the website sound like it has more muscle than it really does. I haven't even talked to them in nearly a year.
The idea that "career military officer's wife" is "innocuous" and has no other vocation or interests is a very subjective (and sexist) call. And it is "a call" that -- in this internet age, is easily checked by anyone in about 30 seconds by loading her name into an internet search engine and finding out, just as you did.
Requiring full disclosure indicates that there was some possible conflict of interest or "hidden agenda" on Stella's part. I don't see it.
I actually think this whole discussion between you and me is a big tempest in a teapot.
"big tempest in a teapot"
Agreed. We need a virtual.. er... a real bar where people quickly, sanely, and intelligently discuss thoughts over a brewski. :>)
Works for me, My-favorite-color Man!
See how you're equating the international community with Bin Laden?
That's just stupid.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.