UN Police station attacked in Kosovo with anti-tank missile

PRISTINA, Yugoslavia - An explosive device was thrown at the regional police headquarters in western Kosovo on Wednesday night, causing some material damage, a U.N. spokesman said.

No one was injured in the blast which occurred in the town of Pec, 80 kilometers (50 miles) west of Pristina, said Andrea Angeli, a U.N. spokesman.

"As a result of the explosion some windows were broken and there is some material damage," he said. Police have cordoned off the area and are investigating the blast, Angeli said.

The device, which according to the U.N. police sources was an anti-tank missile, was fired from close range.

Kosovo, which officially remains part of Yugoslavia, has been run by United Nations (news - web sites) and NATO (news - web sites)-led peacekeepers since June 1999, after an alliances war to stop a crackdown of Serb forces against independence minded ethnic Albanians.

Tell me where were you EXACTLY when the UN commissioned a UN army to bomb Serbia?

I have mistakenly conflated the US-led, US orchestrated NATO attacks that separated Kosovo from Serbia, with the UN peacekeeping force that came later. And you caught me.

Since I have little faith or confidence in anything coming out of the UN, or the Clinton administration, I wasn't purposely hedging. Just it all starts to blur together after a while. Thanks for helping me to clarify the history.

Bobi basically already busted me for it. My basic point is unchanged, which is that, having saved the Muslims from the Serbs, we are now stuck with the problem of what to do about a Muslim enclave in Europe, which is going to be a center for organized crime, and drug running, and gun running, and terror. Having saved the Kosovars from the Serbs, we must now witness the murder of Serbs at the hands of the Kosovars, and as the UN peacekeepers rather ineffectually try to inhibit the killings, they also become targets for the killers. Or maybe it isn't even that. Simply the fact that the peacekeepers are westerners; that in itself is enough to make them targets.

This falls into the "be careful what you wish for, you may get it" category. We wanted an independent Kosovo. We got it. Now what?

If you are pro-Serb, it will sound as if I am still hedging. I am not pro-Serb. I am certainly not pro-Muslim. But I am looking at a bad situation that we may very well have made worse. And unless we are willing to mount a vigorous offense against Muslim radicals in Kosovo and Albania, and Bosnia, things are going to get very much worse.

But I suspect that both cases are not occurring in isolation. They are all three being agravated by their ties to Iran and the Saudis. On the heels of our action in Baghdad, we need to go to the source of the problem in Kosovo and Bosnia, and that is Iran and Riyadh. Once those two have been dealt with, I believe that Kosovo will be solveable. What do you think?

Having saved the Kosovars from the Serbs, we must now witness the murder of Serbs at the hands of the Kosovars

We didn't "save" the "Kosovars." In the 18 months or so leading up to the bombing, there was a low-level civil war with 2,000 killed on both sides. The KLA used terrorist tactics against the Serbs (mainly the Serb police), and then the Serbs would strike back, sometimes in a heavy-handed manner, and so it would go. There is much more to it, including what went on during the OSCE KVM Mission, etc. In any case, there was no genocide going on.

Moreover, it was not a two-way "Kosovar Albanians" against Serbs thing. Nope, it was already three-way. Thaci's KLA was already terrorising and killing Rugova's LDK supporters as well as the Serbs. There aren't many Serbs left to kill in Kosovo (and they've driven out or killed all the other minorities as well: Jews, Roma, Gorani, etc.) so now KLA's main victims are LDK supporters.

...we are now stuck with the problem of what to do about a Muslim enclave in Europe, which is going to be a center for organized crime, and drug running, and gun running, and terror.

The KLA was "a center for organized crime, and drug running, and gun running, and terror" (as well as prostitution, white slavery and human trafficking) in Europe and was recognised as such by INTERPOL long before US/NATO became the KLA's air force. There were a number of articles in the European press about the KLA's wide-spread criminal mafia-style activities throughout Europe in the years leading up to the bombing.

This falls into the "be careful what you wish for, you may get it" category.

I'd put it into the "Don't grab the Tar-Baby" category myself.

We wanted an independent Kosovo. We got it. Now what?

If you include the EU in the "we" that's not really what was wanted. I'm not sure the US wanted it, either, and rather doubt it. BTW, Kosovo isn't independent. It's a little NATO/UN protectorate. An independent Kosovo would join up with Albania. (The militant Albanians in northern Greece, Macedonia and Montenegro would like to take chunks of those countries and join up with Albania to form a "Greater Albania", too. Our actions in Kosovo encouraged them, of course.)

"Now what?" is indeed the question. You can read through some of the Balkan threads here to get some ideas. I think partition is probably the only viable solution at this stage, with a slice of northern Kosovo going to the Serbs and the rest going to the Albanians. But who knows how it will end up.

And unless we are willing to mount a vigorous offense against Muslim radicals in Kosovo and Albania, and Bosnia, things are going to get very much worse.

If you mean rounding up the Al-Quaida types from the ME, then, yeah, that's happening, pressure being brought to bear. If you mean going after the home-grown radicals in those countries, ain't gonna happen.

While Al-Quaida and other ME-spawned Muslim terrorist groups have infiltrated Bosnia, Kosovo and Albania and most assuredly want to have a toe-hold in these countries, they are not the source of the recent civil wars in the former Yugoslavia.

As for Kosovo itself, the vast majority of the KLA's funding has always been mainly derived from their criminal enterprises supplemented by voluntary and not-so-voluntary contributions from the Albanian diaspora in Europe and the US. Dealing with Iran and Riyadh isn't going to change much of anything in Kosovo.

I am looking at a bad situation that we may very well have made worse. And unless we are willing to mount a vigorous offense against Muslim radicals in Kosovo and Albania, and Bosnia, things are going to get very much worse.

Yes, that is the case. The thing is, there is no desire on the part of the U.S. to either prevent al-Qaeda from growing in either Bosnia or Kosovo. Terrorists and Muslim fundamentalists form the government in both Pristina (capital of Kosovo) and Sarajevo (capital of Bosnia). Both places receive billions of dollars in aid from the US in order to ensure that they form the Afghanistan of Europe.

It still sounds to me as though you are just another one of those Americans who won't allow himself, no matter what, to admit to what is really going on. The US doesn't oppose Muslim expansionism and terrorism in the Balkans.

To the contrary, the US is the main sponsor of Muslim terrorism in the Balkans.

That's something to ponder when you consider Bush's infamous address, where he stated "You are either with us, or on the side of the terrorists."

It made many of us knowlegeable of the fact there has been no change in Clinton policy whatsoever sick to our stomachs.

Having saved the Kosovars from the Serbs, we must now witness the murder of Serbs at the hands of the Kosovars, and as the UN peacekeepers rather ineffectually try to inhibit the killings, they also become targets for the killers

There is no such thing as a Kosovar. It is a reference used by Serbs to refer to inhabitants of a part of their country in much the same way as a New Yorker would refer to a "Long Islander". You are referring to Albanians and only Albanians, not members of more than 10 other ethnic groups who also live in Kosovo, or rather, used to, until they were forced out by the combined efforts of the US and its terrorist allies. Albanians are only Kosovars, then, when used in context as inhabitants of a region of southern Serbia and not as inhabitants of part of a US-created Greater Albania. Refer to them as you like, but not with the Serbian name of "Kosovo", that is not an Albanian word, nor has it ever been.

If the UN has tried to prevent the killing of said civilians, I'm not aware of it. In fact, the UN has actually encouraged the killing of civilians by refusing to provide little or no security to them. Over 1,000 Serbs have been killed since NATO began its illegal occupation. The UN has not only failed to disarm the Albanians, it actually pays terrorists to walk around Kosovo with weapons. To consider the UN actually prosecuting these same terrorists is impossible. In so doing, the UN has failed to implement Resolution 1244 which obliges it to do so. The UN, therefore, has no legitimite right to occupy the southern Serbian province.

The EU is starting to realize that an Afghanistan in the Balkan peninsula is too close to its soft white underbelly. It has taken over control of the artificial unitary Bosnian "state" - another US creation - from the UN, and will have to take over control of southern Serbia as well. Don't even bother asking what is the legal basis for any EU takeover anywhere. This is just another one of those criminal arrangements imperialist powers make by themselves, and have done so throughout history, to the disadvantage of the occupied peoples.

Essentially, then, what you are saying is that however bad I think it is, its really worse.

I have said that I believe our policy in the nineties there was harnessed, perhaps unnaturally so, to our Saudi interests. I would not be surprised that money has changed hands, I would almost bet on it. I assume key members of Congress and the Cabinets of several presidents have been made partners of business enterprises in Saudi Arabia, and I believe from observation that our previous president was well cared for as well.

I also remember that there was a lot of pressure to prove to the Saudis that we don't only love Muslims for their oil, and as a part of that effort to prove our good intentions we intervened in Somalia, and Bosnia, and Kosovo.

The 9/11 attacks by Al Qaeda, which is a Saudi operation, has helped to break that spell.

The Bushes are closely linked to the Saudis through their business ties. Nevertheless, under Bush, forced by the events of, 9/11, I see a partial break with the Saudis, as we have rolled up their operations all across Central Asia and the Philippines. Our incursion into Iraq is definitely against their wishes.

So, although we are still treating them more deferentially than they deserve, we have I believe broken the spell that led to our Kosovo operation.

I further believe that Bush will seek to disengage us from Kosovo and Bosnia as well, not only due to the exigencies of the war, but simply because he doesn't want US troops to be involved there. The war will provide the excuse to withdraw and push the responsibility off onto the Euros.

I frankly don't know what we do now to solve the problem. It was bad before, but it wasn't a threat to the rest of Europe. Now it is.

You can tell me if you believe I am wrong, but this is essentially my thesis. Our Kosovo policy was driven by our alliance with the Saudis. That alliance has been broken. We will withdraw from the Balkans and push the responsibility off to the EU. We will act to cut off their ties to Al Qaeda and Iran, but we will do nothing about the organized crime.

They will continue to push for a "greater Albania", particularly in Macedonia, endlessly. I don't see a solution, unless they over-reach sufficient to justify a new war, in which this time the EU (and the US) agree to stay out of it, while they are pushed back to some more agreeable border. But that assumes that the Saudis don't also buy Euro ministers, and I don't think you can make that assumption.

Saudi Arabia is a major sponsor of global terrorism and on that we can agree. It's dubious, however, that any US administration would go so far as to trample over international law and support a couple of thousand terrorists in an attack on another country's sovereignty unless it could see something in its own interests there. Saudi Arabia needs the US a lot more than the other way around.

To argue that Washington supported the expansionist ambitions of Balkans Muslims in an effort to appease the Saudi Arabian; Albanian and other anti-Serbian lobbies (who are major sponsors of a large number of American politicians) overlooks a number of other key interests.

For example, you could make a convincing argument that the military and political support for Muslims in the Balkans has far more to do with Washington's continued support for Israel more than any other nation. Washington has unilaterally supported Israel for decades, and its image in the Muslim world is a direct consequence of that support. As a matter of record, the primary advocates of the "selling Serbs to appease Muslims" strategy are supporters of Israel. Advocates of this strategy do not dwell in secrecy, they have routinely
outlined the merits of this strategy to the public in the NY Times; the NY Post and elsewhere. These same newspapers have been at the vanguard of inventing anti-Serbian propaganda, often written by pro-Israel columnists such as Thomas Friedman and others. Needless to say, the government of Israel fully supported the aggression on Serbia, and that includes material support.

It matters little that nobody in the Muslim world is fooled or that 9-11 happened anyway. In spite of the fact the "sell Serbs to somehow ameliorate Washington's support for Israel" strategy has fallen flat on its sordid face, the supporters of the strategy, such as George Soros' International Crisis Group, are unrepentant. Indeed, they continue to advocate more pressures - and more genocide - against Serbs.

Yes it was a milestone. Major milestone as the Balkans have always been some sort of political/war milestone testing ground.

Yes Destro I understand that you have not interest about the arguments between Serbs and Albanians.

I was just like you some years ago. I am from Macedonia.

See the war in teh former Yugoslavia started on the 28 June 1991. There was some skirmishes before that as well.

So people used to say dont worry it is a war between Yugoslav Army and Slovenian seperatists. (1991)

Then don't worry it is a war between Croatia and Serbian Army/Croatian serb seperatists. (1991-1995)

Then don't worry it is a war between BosnianMuslims/Croats/Serbs/Yugoslav Army (1992-1995)

Then don't worry it is a war between Kosovo Albanians and Serbian government (1998-1999)

Then don't worry it is a war between Albanians in Macedonia fighting Macedonian government forces .......... WAIT Hold on I just remembered I am Macedonian!! I should worry now I guess.

Don't worry NATO sais Macedonia did a Framework agreement granting rights that are designed to split the country into 2 parts.

You should NOT worry about the reason of some ethnic fighting somewhere around the world BUT about when will all that come to YOU. And it will. It will be brought to you by the same people and organisations that have designed the ethnic conflicts in the former Yugoslavia.

support for Muslims in the Balkans has far more to do with Washington's continued support for Israel

That is the elephant in the room that we avoid discussing. I am pro-Israel, I am not pro-Serb, just to be clear about my predisposition. But I have seen precisely what you are referring to. I have attributed this to our alliance with the Saudis, and I believe this is true, but it is precisely because of our alliance with Israel that our leaders are looking for ways to "prove" that we have a "balanced" foreign policy. I say that our foreign policy in the nineties was Saudi-designed; the reason we felt compelled to appease the Saudis is the need to "balance" our support for Israel.

I also alledge that Saudi generosity has something to do with it, but while generosity can grease wheels, it is usually not sufficient on its own to change policy in ways that can't be defended publicly.

One of the interesting things that came out of the Enron debacle was not just information on their generosity toward certain politicians, which was already documented and known, but the number of opinion-makers who were on their payroll. Large numbers of writers and columnists, including some of my favorites, were receiving stipends from Enron. Generous ones.

I have seen what for me passes as evidence that the Saudis subscribe to the same philosophy, and that has its effects on our foreign policy. Because our pols and opinion makers sometimes feel and often are in fact beholden to the Saudis, they feel driven to look for ways to appease them.

Israel is almost non-negotiable. So if you feel compelled to appease, something else has to give. Thats where Somalia, Bosnia, and Kosovo come in. They provided opportunities to prove our "balance" to the Saudis, and through them, the Muslim world.

As you point out, it doesn't work. It only sets the stage for the next level of appeasement.

And, of course, they hit us anyway.

, the supporters of the strategy, such as George Soros' International Crisis Group, are unrepentant. Indeed, they continue to advocate more pressures - and more genocide - against Serbs.

What new "genocide" is planned for the Serbs? I assume that they are off the hook, it is the Macedonians that are facing the fire, the Serbs have little left to lose.

I keep saying that "the spell is broken", that our alliance with the Saudis has been damaged such that there is no further will to appease them. I will of course be watching for evidence, as events unfold, that I am right or sadly mistaken.

I have to confess what may be obvious, which is that my understanding of Balkan affairs is limited. It is important to understand it, though, as Destro said they are the very distillation of political science for those who pay attention.

My personal connections to the region are few. My good friend for a number of years was Bulgarian, and he explained Balkan, and Bosnian, politics from his prism. Another close friend was Bosnian Muslim, who had left the army and the region when his unit was ordered to Slovenia when they broke away. His brother remained behind to fight in the civil war, so he had his insight into the war.

And one of my clients, a female professional, was Serb. One of the most decent, and honorable (and capable) people I have ever known. If she were representative of Serbs in general, I would be Serbophile, but I have known no others for comparison.

So, as I say, I am not pro-Serb, nor anti-Serb, rather I have always looked at the region and its ancient hatreds and felt it was something we needed to steer clear of.

I remember after the Gulf War, I was in Saudi Arabia at the time, the Saudis were pounding away at us to "prove" we didn't only love Muslims with oil. They wanted us to go into Bosnia, but at the time Colin Powell was refusing to hear of it. So, right at the time I thought the pressure couldn't get any stronger, we landed the Marines in Somalia.

It was obvious to me that Somalia was a response to Saudi pressure to "do something" in Bosnia. BushSr and Powell refused, and gave us Somalia instead. You are right. The basis for our need to prove ourselves is the need to "balance" our alliances with the Saudis and Israel. I hope that need has now disappeared.

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.