Posted on 02/14/2005 6:30:30 AM PST by Diocletian
No mention of that in the middle east digest, written by Joan McWhirter, her father a noted military general which no doubt she got her information from. Secondly, Hitler hated Catholics, So, I find that to be somewhat questionable, for other reasons as well. What is your source?
The best source is the book I linked you to. Also, Pavelic personally sent his aide Vjekoslav Vrancic to Berlin to convince Hitler to include non-Muslims so as to appease the Axis ally. Hitler overruled Himmler´s objections.
I don't buy it. The catholics for the most part were the largest resistance to the Nazi's, and wouldn't participate burning down their own churches and monistaries, nor the old orthadoxy, which many were dear to. It also doesn't jive with the record of Catholic priests captured and sent to labor camps, and Catholic churches raized. I'd believe protestants, because they allowed Nazi's within their church administrations. Plus the curious ommission of the Jewry slaughter makes your source less believable.
Regardless, the writer of the article you posted leaves out this LARGE part piece of influence in Bosnian Islamic history, and how it fits into the whole Islamic fundamentalist movement.
Also, the writer of the article was speaking about post WW2, and the topic of the Handzar SS has little to do with this.
Do yourself a favour and pick up the book I linked you to.
In the struggle for the Islamic order, all means are permissible except one - crime. No one has the right to defile the good name of Islam or the struggle by the uncontrolled and superfluous use of force. The Islamic community should once more confirm that justice is one of it's keystones. The Qu'ran does not command us to love our enemies, but it categorically tells us to be just and to forgive. The use of force must comply with that principle.
Perversely, I got the "Islamic Declaration" off of Serbianna when they turned it into a .pdf - which they probably shouldn't have done as reading it tends to undercut all the alamist BS which is constructed by culling select passages and presenting them out of context.
Think John Lenon's "Imagine" written by a Muslim, and that's the "Islamic Declaration" - the power of starry- eyed optimism "everybody's gonna embrace Islam 'cuz it's the bestest, and then if everybody pulls together, it's gonna be so cool!" to surmount reality.
But aside from that, what's the deal here - can we expect you to start posting garbage from Serbianna about Croat perfidy as well?
That should be fun.
However, if you want to be specific, yes, the muslims of Yugoslavia did attack Serbia when they deserted the JNA. They violated the internationally recognized constitution of YU by deserting and joining a self-declared state that violated the constitution with their secession. Serbian Muslims of Sandjak and Kosovo attacked Bosnian Serbs too, if you want to get specific. Same goes to Serbs of Serbia individually entering BiH to fight. Goes both ways. Czech women were hired as snipers by the BiH muslims too. So, Czechoslavakia attacked Serbia too? So did the Brits and Germans when they were hired by the Croatians to fight against the Serbs and muslims. Your point is moot, unfortunately too generalized.
Here are samples from Izetbegovic's "Islamic Declaration". Page references are from this pdf source (although translations may slightly differ):
"... then we must show the way which leads to that objective: The implementation of Islam in all fields of individuals' personal lives, in family and in society, by renewal of the Islamic religious thought and creating a uniform Muslim community from Morocco to Indonesia.
This goal may seem remote and improbable, but it is nonetheless realistic, because it is the only one located within the bounds of possibility."
(page 5)
"... A nation, and an individual, who has accepted Islam is incapable of living and dying for another ideal after that fact. It is unthinkable for a Muslim to sacrifice himself for any tzar or ruler, no matter what his name may be, or for the glory of any nation, party or some such, because acting on the strongest Muslim instinct he recognizes in this a certain type of godlessness and idolatry. A Muslim can die only with the name of Allah on his lips and for the glory of Islam, or he may run away from the battlefield."
(page 6)
"... Muslim nations will never accept anything that is explicitly against Islam, because Islam here is not merely a faith and the law, Islam has become love and compassion. He who rises against Islam will reap nothing but hate and resistance."
(page 24)
(That's a creative understanding of love and compassion.)
"An Islamic society without Islamic power is incomplete and weak; Islamic power without an Islamic society is either a utopia or violence."
(page 26)
(In 1992, Islamic political dominance in Bosnia was a reality. But those dastardly Bosnian Serbs didn't want to play dhimmi in an "Islamic society")
"... First and foremost of such conclusions is certainly the incompatibility of Islam with non-Islamic systems. There can be no peace or coexistence between the Islamic religion and non- Islamic social and political institutions. ... Islam obviously excludes the right or possibility of action on the part of any foreign ideology on its own turf. Therefore, there is no question of any laicistic principles, and the state should be an expression and should support the moral concepts of the religion. ..."
(page 30)
"... The upbringing of the nation, and especially the mass media - the press, TV and film - should be in the hands of people whose Islamic moral and intellectual authority is undisputed. ...
... Islamic renewal cannot be initiated without a religious, and cannot be successfully continued and concluded without a political revolution."
(page 42-43)
"... the Islamic movement should and must start taking over the power as soon as it is morally and numerically strong enough to not only overthrow the existing non-Islamic, but also to build up a new Islamic authority."
(page 56)
(Looks like he felt that in Bosnia 1992 was the right time)
"... But, under the leadership of Zionists, started an action in Palestine which is not only inhumane and ruthless but also shortsighted and adventuresome. This politics takes in account only temporary ratio of power and forgets about overall ratio of power between Jews and Muslims in the world. This politics in Palestine is a provocation to all Muslims of the world. Jerusalem is not only a question of Palestinians, neither is it a question of Arabs only. It is a question of all the Muslim nations. To keep Jerusalem, the Jews would have to defeat Islam and the Muslims, and that - thank God - is outside their power"
(page 69)
This is only a small sample of passages from the "Islamic Declaration" openly advocating sociopolitical totalitarianism, jihad and contempt (or hatred) against anything unislamic. If you have doubts, read it all! Note that these concepts were not pioneered by Izetbegovic but are deeply rooted in Islamic scripture, traditions and history. Islam is the only religion that functions simultaneouslyl as an integrated sociopolitical ideology and pioneered (and to this day has been applying) a comprehensive theological and political doctrine of war against "infidels".
Most Muslims are decent, peace-loving people who either are unaware of or don't take seriously the political and inherently violence-prone theology of Islam. Others, however, are quite aware and deliberately downplay this undeniable violent nature. They are cherry-picking passages talking vaguely about Islamic "justice" and "forgiveness", even making hilarious comparisons to ... John Lennon! But Lennon did not advocate war against anyone. Hitler, Stalin and Izetbegovic did.
Hoppy, you need to look at the long term aims of Izetbegovic´s Declaration, and how demographics plays a role.
The Serbs.
Attempting to portray Izetbegovic as some sort of militant in 1992 not only shows a blatant disregard for the truth (nothing new for you) but assumes a complete ignorance upon the part of any readers of your post, which is not the case.
Who put Izetbegovic at the head of the Bosnian Presidency?
The Serbs.
To quote Biljana Plavsic - "Thank god for Alija Izetbegovic".
Furthermore, it was Izetbegovic who was behind the last ditch efforts to keep Yugoslavia together as a loosened federation in it's dying days. As it was, Izetbegovic kept his faith in the JNA until he could no longer deny that they were complicit in the murder and ethnic cleansing of non-Serbs in Bosnia, and by then it was almost too late to do anything about it - the Serbs had already transferred the TO (National Guard) armories to the SDS (Karadzic's party - you know all this) and together with JNA units and paramilitaries from Serbia proper were on the rampage.
Stick to talking to folks who don't have a clue, pythag - it's the only way you're going to get a receptive audience.
That´s one mighty high strawman you´ve built raised there, Hoppy.
the illegal secessionists that refused to written guarantee the safety and equal representative of the non-muslims (i.e Serbs and Croats). The Charter of Yugoslavia (the Constitution was not followed in their breakaway.
Alija was arrested in the late 1940's and again few decades later as a militant, courtesty of Tito.
Izetbegovic lost the Presidential election to Fikret Abdic and sent out teams to neutralize him, so Fikret went and sought safety within the Serbian people. Alija declared himself the President upon capturing "2d Place".
Alija reneged on the 1992 Peace Plan after Zimmerman told Alija to "do what he feels" and US will support him regardless. All 3 parties signed then Alija backed out.
All these statements I have provided are factual and can be found via Yahoo.
Your strawman has been crushed - like a grape in an iron fist.
Any attempt to portray Izetbegovic as a Yugoslavia supporter is as disingenious as comparing his Islamic Declaration to John Lennon's "Imagine". The Declaration is great reading for ignorant and knowledgeable readers alike, because it is an eloquent manifesto of Islamic totalitarianism and jihad.
The Serbs started the war in Bosnia, and we're in the process of finishing it as we strip Banja Luka of the last vestiges of power that was grabbed at gunpoint.
As to your take on the "Declaration", I just don't care, pythag. The big bad wolf in the Balkans wasn't Izetbegovic.
The cleansing began way before april in Gorazde municipality when the Serbs were forced out of districts during the winter months jan 92 timeframe. Strange how a friend of mine and his family came to my hometown few mnths later (june 92) when he lost his house THAT WINTER early 92, blown up.
besidees, who cares about the region anymore? the people don't help themselves, why should we even maintain a presence there? the only purpose of the SFOR presence is to corral the A-Q presence/influance that festers within the region.
That is a poor debating technique.
trop, he must be tipping the bottle more frequently as his slips are more apparently overt then in the past.
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.