I have never understood why Clinton acted as he did in Bosnia, favoring the drug running, murdering Muslims.
|
|
I think you may have answered your own question. |
Posted on 03/20/2006 4:20:57 AM PST by Doctor13
AS I SEE IT Section of The Patriot-News,
As someone who has followed and written about the tragic civil war in the Balkans the March 12 headline, "Butcher" Milsoevic dies in jail,": prompted me to write yet another commentary giving the other side of the story.
I am no defender of Slobodan Milsoevic, who died under questionable circumstances, but in my opinion, he was nothing more than a two-bit dictator, and compared to Saddam Hussein, he was a piker. Unlike the treatment Milosevic received at The Hague, you can bet your bottom dollar that everything will be done to make sure Saddam gets a fair trial, and all the medical treatment he needs. Unlike Saddam, Milosevic was being tried in a trumpt-up International War Crimes Tribunal instead of in a court of his own people, whom he betrayed.
From the beginning of the war in Bosnia, the American people were not privy to many stories that would have given some balance to the conflict. In civil wars, all sides do terrible things; but in this war, the mainstream media misled the American people so as to present a favorable side for the Bosnian Muslims, while failing to report the meddling and bungling of U.S. foreign policy during the Clinton administration.
I remember the horrific pictures repeatedly shown on CNN of the two Muslim babies on a bus that had been "killed by a Serb sniper." I would never have known the truth had I not been watching France 2 TV where it showed the funeral of these innocent babies. Officiating at the funeral was a Serbian Orthodox priest. These were not Muslim babies killed by a Serb sniper, but Serbian babies killed by a Muslim sniper. However, for American consumption CNN had cropped the Serbian Orthodox priest from the video so that the American people would continue to believe that the Serbs were guilty.
If the "trusted" CNN lied about that, what else have they lied about?
The media lied about the supposed Trepca Mine atrocity, claiming Serbs had murdered 750 Kosovo Albanians, cut the bodies into little pieces and thrown them into the mine -- and the American people believed. It was Daniel Pearl, later murdered by al-Qaeda terrorists, who exposed the story as a hoax on the front page of The Wall Street Journal on Dec. 31, 1999.
The media also lied about the Markale market place massacre in Sarajevo, a massacre that was self-inflicted by Bosnian Muslim forces and for which NATO bombed the Serbian people. Yossef Bodansky, director of a congressional task force on terrorism, wrote in his book, Offensive in the Balkans, that the explosion at Sarajevo's main market place was a "special charge designed and built with help from Hizbullah experts," and that "This callous self-killing was designed to shock the West, especially sentimental and guillible Washington, to raise the level of Western sympathy for the Bosnian Muslims and further demonize the Serbs so that Western governments would be more supportive of Sarajevo's forcoming aggressive moves, and perhaps even finally intevene militarily."
ALL THE SUFFERING, bloodshed and death in Bosnia might have been averted had it not been for the meddling of our State Department. In The Lisbon Agreement of 1992, all three Bosnian leaders representing the Croats, Muslims and Serbs, endorsed the proposal that the republic be a confereration divided into three ethnic regions. The plan was scuttled when our American ambassador to Yugoslavia advised Alija Izetbegovic, representing the Muslim party of Bosnia, that "if he didn't like it, why sign it?" This doomed an agreement that even the same ambassador later said "wasn't so bad after all."
I leave you with the following quote: "This organized anti-Serb and pro-Muslim propaganda should cause anyone believing in democracy and free press serious concerns. It recalls Hitler's propaganda against the allies in World War II. Facts are twisted and, when convenient, disregarded." -- Yohanan Ramati, director of the Jerusalem Institute for Western Defense.
Yet the same people who are against the Iraq war, were right behind this wag-the-dog president in the destruction of a sovereign nation fighting for its survival against the Muslim insurgents into the country.
It was Susan Sarandon who said, "What have the Iraqi people ever done to us?" but never said, "What have the Serbian people ever done to us?"
There are 900 million NATO members, yet we bombed little tiny Yugoslavia with only 10 million people, and we thumped our chest like an 800 pound gorilla.
It would have requied only one vote "no" to stop the bombing, yet there was not one country with the guts to do it - perhaps they were afraid that the same thing would happen to them if they did?
I have never understood why Clinton acted as he did in Bosnia, favoring the drug running, murdering Muslims.
|
|
I think you may have answered your own question. |
This needs to be repeated over and over and over until the thick headed baboons in the State Department understand it.
And this was the first NATO operation in history. I guess after the collapse of Soviet Union someone had to be beaten into the pulp instead.
Follow the money.
The decision to enter WWI was bipartisan. In both cases our allies and the MSM lied to us, and pushed us unknowingly into a pointless war, our involvement engineered by a liberal president and media. The Republicans who supported it, like Bob Dole, did not know the truth. These atrocities, like the Belgium atrocities were compelling, if you did not know they were fabricated. Many Republicans who supported now realize their mistake since the truth came out.
Yes, Dole an Lieberman where pining for the KLA.
"Slick made up his 'little war' to divert national attention from his personal life debacles to 'mass murder' by the Serbs."
******* Although one of the reasons, not the main reason. Others say that it was to get the Juanita Broderick rape story off of the frontpages of U.S. and world newspapers and he was lambasted by NPR's Frontline for doing nothing about the Rwandan genocide, so, he felt he couldn't allow something similar to happen on his "watch".
Either way, we would of went to the Balkans even if Clinton was never caught with the cigar or messing with the "Pages"...this was just a convenient time. The Balkan intrusion was planned as a strategy following the break up of the Soviet Union. So, the Serbs had to be demonized, so, the U.S. Administration at that time also brought Mujhadeen from Afghanistan to stir up trouble in Bosnia, Croatia to draw the Serbs into the fight. They just went a little overboard giving justification for us to enter the Balkans and thus you know the rest of the story.
He also desperately needed a healthy economy to keep his poll approval numbers up, that meant siding with the Muslims so that the Saudis and other ME oil-producers would continue to deliver cheap oil.
It is signficant to mention that Milosevic was in the process of getting into the banking business in the 80's. He came to New York to learn the business. While in NY the CIA approached him, and saw an opportunity to get control of the Balkans. They turned him from Banking and trained him in politics. He returned to Serbia, and instead of being friendly to the U.S. he was approached by the Serbian intelligentsia and thus became a nationalist.
So, beginning in the early 90's became the period of demonizing the Serbs......and they followed up very well as evidenced by the way they handled the U.S. insurgents.....It's a very complicated situation. Kosovo is a very good example of the hoax we designed during Clinton's period.
Liberals still stand by him.....the Albanians see him as their hero, no kidding....ie. "Bill Clinton Blvd". I was there for five years and they (Albanians) couldn't understand why I was so.....Anti-Clinton.
Tom
Of course there probably were many brutal acts by both sides, but having seen Muslim actions in the last few years it is somewhat understandable.
check this out and check the date of their beginning. About the same time we started the Balkan operations....
http://web.archive.org/web/20010204094700/aacl.com/about.shtml2.htm
Interesting
I want to research more about this, as I just recently learned this......It really puts a link into the or one of the reasons we went to the Balkans...and.....it would explain why the history of the Serbs has been changed or manipulated since early 90's......If you find any more info or details, I would be interested.
Yep.
Margaret Thatcher also supported air strikes against the Serbs.
And National Review. There so much vile hatred of Serbs at NR that I had to cancel the subscription.
Yes, she spoke of rejecting "appeasment" of "Milosevic's" Serbia and thus added another voice demanding the appeasement of the Islamofascists and welcoming for Europe the disgrace of Dhimmitude.
MIDI file. One of my favourite Macca tunes...
We backed the wrong side in this one.
All fueled by muslim oil money. (It's not the oil that's bad, or the money that's bad...)
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.
