Posted on 07/02/2015 8:53:47 PM PDT by Perseverando
For years I have been saying it: Most Americans still don’t know or understand the implications of America’s support of the jihad in Europe, but that’s exactly what Bill Clinton’s intervention in the Balkans was. Clinton sent American soldiers to fight alongside Bosnian mujahedeen against the Serb Christians in the Bosnia war. The Democrats aligned with the jihad then and the Democrats align with the jihad now, despite the thousands of Americans slaughtered at their hand.
Here is yet more of the unending poisonous yield of Clinton’s vicious ill-conceived war. I continue to take heat for my support of the Serbs (Christians) in Clinton’s Bosnian misadventure. We were on the wrong side in that war, and the consequences of Clinton’s perfidy continue to reverberate in that region. I’ve been excoriated for saying this — but now even the BBC has to admit that the position I have taken was right all along, although of course they’d rather take the gaspipe than admit that their stance on Bosnia (and on me) has been drastically wrongheaded all these years.
“Bosnia: The cradle of modern jihadism?,” by Mark Urban, BBC , 2 July 2015
Back in the 1990s something happened in central Bosnia-Herzegovina that inspired people to this day and helps explain why that country now has more men fighting in Syria and Iraq (over 300), as a proportion of its population, than most in Europe.
The formation of a “Mujahideen Battalion” in 1992, composed mainly of Arab volunteers in central Bosnia, was a landmark. Today the dynamic of jihad has been reversed and it is Bosnians who are travelling to Arab lands.
“There is a war between the West and Islam,” says Aimen Dean, who, as a young Saudi Arabian
(Excerpt) Read more at pamelageller.com ...
Absolutely correct. There is a reason that this part of the world was historically a buffer between Europe and Islam, that it suffered horribly and then vowed “never again”. We were absolutely on the wrong side...and never should have taken a side.
Pamela is a gem.
It comes as such a surprise.
Pam’s argument is essentially arguing against Reagan arming the Afghan muhajadeen in the 1980s, which had far worse consequences for America
Bump
There was a big difference between arming the Afghan mujahedeen [which is what we did, originally with Dostum and Afghanistan’s defense chief Ahmed Massoud] and the Arab mujahedeen in Afghanistan [whom we did not arm, but whom various Islamic nations armed.]
Bin Laden made a point of not accepting US aid. Clinton later abandoned Massoud to go instead with the “strong horse” Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. In spite of this Massoud remained true blue until al Qaeda assassinated him just days before 9/11, while Hekmatyar later turned and joined with al Qaeda.
The Clintons didn’t become super-wealthy just from “speaking fees.”
Never ever help a muslim. No matter what you do to or for a muslim, at the end of the day, they are still going to hate the infidel or the Jew.
We ran it through Pakistan and the ISI, who then reared the Taliban once the Soviets left
The early phase of the Islamo-Fascist alliance. And he even killed Christians (including children) at WACO. Oh and Bammy sent snipers to kill (mostly) Christian bikers at Twin Peaks.
Said the same thing then and never changed my mind either..
That was done to irritate the USSR at the time, and was a proxy war..
As was the Russian experience in the same place..
You need to convince Obama of that...
That Iranian deal is about to teach the lefties a big lesson that they have actually learned several time before and keep repeating it.
Pamela is a courageous woman. May she keep fighting the good fight.
With the exception of Mullah Omar, the Taliban were made up almost entirely of young pukes who had no experience in the Russian-Afghan war. In the vacuum left behind by Russia and the US it wasn't long before warlords, often just arab mujahedeen who took Afghan wives, staked out territories beyond Kabul's control and thieves struck up quite an industry robbing travelers. Omar and his young "students," embarked on a "social justice" movement of their own to combat the abuses of the unpopular warlords in their immediate area and in that way were able to win hearts and minds of actual Afghans. For a while the Taliban were an improvement over the chaos and crime. Pakistan started hiring Taliban to make the thief-infested roads safe for Pakistani goods, which they did.
Then Pakistan, afraid of Massoud's warm feelings towards India and what that might mean for Pakistan's desire to gain control of Afghanistan, started to fund, arm and organize the Taliban with the intent of minimizing the Afghan government under Massood and with the intent of creating an alternative to it.
Pakistan began lobbying Washington against Massoud, a nationalist whom they viewed as an obstacle to future integration with Pakistan. The Clinton administration, trying to woo Pakistan's Bhutto, obliged. Maybe they hoped that letting Pakistan have such influence in Afghanistan was a way to prevent Pakistan from testing a bomb. In any case the Clinton admin decided Massood was "not aggressive enough" and began backing Hekmatyar instead to please Pakistan.
I knew it was wrong helping muzzies then. Clinton had us on the wrong side.
Christians were fed up with muzzie violence against them and then tried to defend themselves. Clinton made the violent muzzie aggressors to be the victims.
George MacDonald Fraser said that Clinton was on the wrong side. He did a film script on location there once.
It comes as no surprise that the BBC article avoided any mention of Clinton. BTW, the Bushes and McCain were in on this as well.
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.