Why aren't they asking the Balkans questions at the 9-11 hearings?

Recently, retired Canadian General Lewis MacKenzie declared that “we bombed the wrong side” in the 1999 Kosovo War. MacKenzie’s disclosure followed as a logical conclusion to another recent remark by the current NATO Commander for Southern Europe, Admiral Gergory Johnson, who accused the Albanian Muslims of committing “ethnic cleansing” against the Serbs.

Columnist George Jonas, in his March 22, 2004 National Post (Canadian) article, even managed to connect the dots from Osama bin Laden’s “financial and logistic” stronghold in Albania and Kosovo…to the U.S./NATO bombing and occupation on behalf of the KLA—a narcoterrorist/Islamic-extremist organization sponsored by Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda…and, from there, to the heinous kamikaze raids against the Twin Towers.

It has taken five years, but people are finally beginning to notice what Alida and I have been writing about since March, 1999.

Unfortunately, none of the people who are ready to face facts about the ongoing catastrophe in the Balkans are on the 9-11 hearing commission. Obviously, the 9-11 hearings are a sham and could not possibly be anything other than a sham. These hearings are being conducted in 2004 for one reason and one reason only: because it is a presidential election year, and a Republican president is up for reelection. The Democrats want to deflect the blame from themselves, and to find something that will make the president look bad.

Any reasonably objective hearing would begin, not with American’s lack of preparation for an al-Qaeda attack, but with America’s misadventures in the Balkans that paved the way for such an attack.

Recalling the Bosnian conflict of the mid-1990s, we find Muslim after Muslim complaining that non-Muslims in general, and the Serbs in particular, were bound to oppress Muslims, and to favor Christians over Muslims, at every possible opportunity. These “poor Muslims” knew exactly how to portray themselves as the victims, and how to play the picture of outraged innocence whenever the video crews of the “Clinton News Network”—or the BBC or the ITN—were on the scene. Somewhere—in terrorist training facilities or the like—key operatives learned how to fill in the missing details by means of carefully coached fake witnesses, phony translators, fabricated evidence, and incidents elaborately stage-managed to create the totally false impression that these hapless Muslims were being driven off their rightfully-owned property or that those horrible Serbs were slaughtering Muslims en masse. Considering all of those claims of oppression and persecution, it was surprising to see how many Muslims still remained in the Balkans so long after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

As the 1990s progressed, the news stories clearly revealed that the Muslim population was, and is, large and rapidly increasing, while the beleaguered Serb population is nowhere numerous and has long been dwindling.

We are aware that anchorpersons, correspondents, pundits, and other blow-dried and over-promoted media mannequins are not being paid megabucks just to show up on camera and look cute. No, they are being paid handsomely for their ability to continue delivering the most egregious propaganda with a straight face and an authoritative tone. Even so, it must have taken unusual talent in that regard for them to be able to accuse the Serbs of genocide against Muslims, while their own programs continually showed ever-increasing throngs of Muslims, and fewer and fewer Serbs! What kind of genocide was that? Even in 1999, the answer should have been obvious.

During the early 1990s, with the outbreak of war in Croatia that accompanied the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia, Americans suddenly started to hear accusations against the Serbs. Of course, no one followed up on who was making those accusations and why, nor did anyone trouble to verify the facts. Once the long civil war in Bosnia was under way, we were taking the word of the Islamic extremists as “gospel”—or perhaps we should say “koran”. At this point, Clinton had found a new friend in Alija Izetbegovic, who had been a Nazi in World War II—someone who would probably have been unable to get lawful permanent residence in the United States for that very reason. One could hardly even have called him a “former” Nazi, in that he remained unrepentant.

Fast-forward a few years to 1999. The KLA have been taken off the U.S. State Department’s list of “terrorist organizations.” That pesky restriction no longer stands in the way of casting them in a real-life version of “Wag the Dog.” Suddenly, Clinton is in impeachmentville. He somehow intimidates the Senate into letting him off, but now it’s time for damage control. He takes advantage of his status as Commander-in-Chief to show how presidential he can be. However, only his incredible tales about the Serbs seem to get any traction with the American public. The Chief Perjuror played it so well that he had the American people beliving that a new Holocaust was on the horizon, and that we could stop it just by bombing the Serbs sufficiently long and hard.

Clinton’s support of radical Islam was a form of appeasement. Clinton was so anxious to create a “legacy” other than the Monica Lewinsky scandal that—to make a long story short—he ended up leaving us with Ground Zero instead.

Our readers may recall Clinton’s ill-conceived, haphazard, and megalomaniacal efforts to bring “peace in the Middle East.” Clinton’s “peacemaking” efforts foundered on many obstacles. One of them seemed to be the often-stated perception that the U.S. constantly favors Israel with military and other aid at the expense of the Muslim world.

If anything, the U.S. has given a far greater amount of “foreign aid”—and military interventions—on behalf of predominantly Muslim countries than it has ever given to Israel. Too often, such aid is rendered in a futile attempt to “buy peace” from adversaries who won’t stay bought. For the same reason, the U.S. constantly hamstrings Israel’s efforts to defend itself against terrorism, so much so that Israel—not to mention the American taxpayer and soldier—would arguably be in a much better position if the U.S. were to refrain from “assisting” or “influencing” either side.

Clinton evidently thought that, by allowing radical Islamists free rein to set up a stronghold in Europe, governments of other predominantly Muslim nations would figure that Clinton was on their side after all, and would go along with whatever grandstanding he wanted to do with regard to Israel.

Shades of Neville Chamberlain, who thought he had achieved “peace in our time.” It never works that way.

Every so often, an unguarded remark on the part of some Muslim warlord or government official reveals that all of this talk of favoritism toward Israel is just a smoke screen for their real enmity, which is aimed at the very existence of Israel and of its Jewish inhabitants.

Not so long ago, visitors to Yellowstone National Park would return to their cars only to find them surrounded by bears. Not only were the bears losing their natural fear of human beings, but also, as time went on, these clever animals even began to devise distinct techniques for breaking into each brand of automobile to retrieve the food that their noses told them was inside. Eventually, mother bears were even observed teaching those skills to their cubs.

Some decades ago, the standard “stupid human trick” for a departing tourist was to feed the bears a few crackers to get them to move away from the car so that the owner can get in and drive away.

The obvious problem is: when do you stop? Only if the driver is able to lure the bears away from the car with crackers, and hurry back to the driver’s seat while the bears are still eating, will the ploy work. Otherwise, the bears may turn on the tourist as soon as the crackers run out.

Today, park officials vehemently discourage tourists from feeding the bears, and from leaving any food where bears can get it—and well they should. Park rangers and naturalists realized that appeasement does not work with bears or any other dangerous predators. It only whets their appetite, dispels their fear of human beings, and makes them horribly dangerous. Unfortunately, too few of our government officials have learned the same vital lesson.

So when the supply of “crackers” (i.e., military aid) began to run out for al-Qaeda in the Balkans, there was no more Mr. Nice Guy from Osama bin Laden.

It seems to be a tradition: Democrats are always given carte blanche to use or misuse the American military for whatever fool’s errand they have in mind. Woodrow Wilson—who promised to stay out of World War I if reelected—not only broke that promise, but also jailed those who opposed American involvement in that war. Franklin Roosevelt was given a free pass for setting up the chain of events that led up to Pearl Harbor. A recent political cartoon demonstrated the folly of the 9-11 hearings by putting the same criticism to Roosevelt’s actions in World War II, by suggesting that FDR invaded Germany to take the public’s mind off his failure to make progress against the Japanese. Truman remained relatively popular during the Korean War, and it took several years before LBJ’s Vietnam War became his undoing.

Likewise, no one seems to want to apply the same standard of questioning to Clinton, regarding his military actions and his policies regarding terrorists, as they are doing to Bush. Let’s see what I would be asking Clinton if I were on 9-11 hearing committee:

Q. Mr. Clinton, isn’t true that you were given the opportunity to have bin Laden extradited to US custody, but you declined the offer?

After he does his usual song and dance about not being sure whether he could hold bin Laden, I would ask:

Q. Isn’t it true that your administration had already issued two indictments against bin Laden?

Q. Isn’t it true that, until 1998, the Kosovo Liberation Army, or KLA, was on the U.S. State Department’s list as a terrorist organization closely affiliated with bin Laden’s al-Qaeda organization?

Q. Isn’t it true that you supported the KLA war effort in Kosovo, while knowing full well that bin Laden was also supporting the KLA?

Q. Isn’t it true that, during your entire adminstration, you made it a point to support only those persons and organizations who act as though there is no difference between right and wrong?

Assuming that question survived the predictable objection of Mr. Clinton’s counsel, I would follow up by asking:

Q. Can you give us an example of anyone among your associates—other than Monica Lewinski—who seemed to know right from wrong?

After drawing everyone’s attention to the connection between his amoral personal life and his equally amoral conduct of public affairs, I would ask:

No doubt, at this point, Clinton would give his song and dance about “ethnic cleansing.” So, my next question would be:

Q. Exactly what do you mean by “ethnic cleansing,” and how did you know it was occurring?

This would leave the former president in a box. He could either back-pedal by trying to define “ethnic cleansing” broadly enough to include something benign, and thus implicate himself as starting a senseless war.

Alternatively, he could try to explain that another Holocaust was already n progress, dramatizing it further with his tales of “mass graves.”

The Democrats have been shrieking that no one has found any “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq. That is no surprise, as Hussein was given plenty of time to hide them very carefully, or to export them for use by other organizations or regimes. He may even have been totally disarmed by the time of the war. So what!

Our position from the get-go has been that Iraq was not the best target. Hussein did have a nasty habit of paying a few thousand dollars to the families of terrorists who went on successful suicide missions. He was certainly no friend of the U.S.

However, there are a number of other countries, including two in the Balkans, that pose a far greater threat in their support of al-Qaeda and its ilk.

Yet, the decade of the 1990s was a new low in American foreign policy. We vilified and bombed one of the most consistent US allies to support an enemy against whom we have taken arms far back as the Jefferson administration. The Serbs have been our allies, both in general and on the battlefield during each world war. Radical Islam was the creed of the Barbary Pirates whom Jefferson’s Marines fought. It was the creed of our WW I enemy, the Ottoman Turks. During WW II, the Muslims of the Balkans and much of the Middle East were part of the Nazi-Fascist Axis. The Iranian kidnappers, who invaded the US Embassy in Tehran, in 1979, were radical Muslims.

Yet, no investigative committee is asking the right people any serious questions about why we supported radical Islam in Bosnia and Kosovo. Certainly those who decided to commit the power and might of the U.S. government and military—and its NATO allies—to act on behalf of radical Islamic terrorism in the Balkans, are far more culpable than those in the new administration who may or may not have done all they could to prevent the 9-11 kamikaze attacks.

Bosnian Muslims fought the Croats because the Croats attacked them in an effort to carve out a Greater Croatia. Why would the already out-gunned Muslims (whose territory was reduced to parts of central Bosnia, Bihac and three town in the east) pick a fight with another foe?

You are right in that Srebrenica was to be demilitarized in the wake of the "Safe area" resolution. Why wasn't it? Same reason why the Krajina Serbs kept their guns after 1992 despite a demiliterize order. Would you surrender your guns against a foe determined to drive you out? Neither would the folks in Screbrenica. They, like the Croatian Serbs, were not stupid.

Mladic's surrender offer was largely a ruse; he had every intention of executing most of them if they gave up (which he did) in response for Oric's atrocities, and knew Oric and co would not accept any UN surrender deal as they wanted to hold on to Eastern land that was to be theirs under every peace plan.

Mladic's camera man present during the fall of Screbrenica filmed a Serb soldier claiming that 6,000 BiH troops had surrendered from the hills (probably an exageration but in indication that MANY were taken alive and killed). Various Serb fighters claim to have known or even taken part in executions, including Drazen Erdemovic who claims to have been present for the killing of 1,200 POWs.

The number executed was probably in the area of 3,000 with another 2,000 or so ambushed and killed in the breakout attempt towards Tulza.
Not the 8,000 commonly claimed, but not an inconsequential number either.

To this JCB guy,

What the heck are you talking about Arkan attacking eastern Bosnia? Bjeljina case was the only good thing Arkan ever did in the war. Why don't you speak about Patriotic League of the People, Muslim paramilitary organisation that was arming muslims since summer of 1991?
Why don't you speak about massacre of Pofalici Serbs, and before that massacre of Serbs in Sjekovac and in Kupres?
Yeah, I get your point, we should have waited to see if there would be massacres of Serbs in eastern bosnia in order to react, well guess what, we learned something from genocides in WW1 and WW2!

So stop whyning about Arkan, and tell me something about Juka Praznina, Musan Topalovic, and some other muslim heros?

What about slaughter of young JNA recruits WITHDRAWING from Sarajevo and Tuzla, inspite of the deal with muslim government???

Ohoho, and Mujaheedins coming in 1993??? What about great affair and scandal in 1991 when it was reveiled that some muslims from arab countries were issued passports of Yugoslavia, by Bosnian authorities???

So, if Croats wanted great Croatia, how come only Serbs were bombed and put under sanctions? There were worse fights between croats and Muslims in herzegovina and central Bosnia, then anywhere with Serbs.

Well, that's what I ask you, why were muslim attacks on serbs around srebrenica tolerated all the way, and then serbian response and seizure of Srebrenica came as big surprise???

Do not ever mix Krajina Serbs with this, since Krajina Serbs obayed Vance's Agreement, by witch ALL ARTILLERY should be placed under UN control, and only side-arms were allowed to Krajina Serbs. Guess what happened? Croats invaded Ravni Kotari and killed tens of serbian soldiers and about hundred, maybe more, civilians! Then Serbs took artilery and armored vehicles by force from UN "peacekeepers" to defend their lives! So, Serbs were acting in accordance to agreement, and muslims and croats didn't! ... Yes, Serbs in Krajina were stupid to act in accordance with agreement achieved. That's why they were all ethnicly cleansed. And Srebrenica muslims were attacked because of constant raids, murders, and plunderings performed for three years!

No, it's not true Mladic wanted to execute srebrenica muslims! We know for his specific orders (and Karadzic's ) to be careful about that (he knew local people's emotions). Why did he ordered that? Because leadership of bosnian serbs knew that if everything goes well infront of western public, serbs would easier take other enclaves like Gorazde and Zepa. Also, operations around Sarajevo were in progress, and Mladic needed all men available, so once serbs took srebrenica, he moved with majority of forces to Sarajevo. But since it was time of big serbian defeat (regarding complete situation), and conflict between Karadzic and Mladic, there was certain amount of chaos inside serbian lines. Those muslims not killed in breaktrough to Tuzla were executed by locals. My friends oncle participated in murderings. He never felt sorry for that. At least he says so. So, far. about 350 bodies were found to have their hands cuffed. All the rest were muslims shot dead in fightings.

Naser Oric was extracted from Srebrenica few weeks before the attack. And you can not execute people you surrender if they were about to be noted by UN officers. Even Serbs weren't so stupid.
Anyway, we have to see how many muslims died in their internal conflict reported by UN Dutch troops, because one part wanted to surrender, and the other wanted to break trough.

Drazen Erdemovic is not reliable witness. Himself a Croat, claimed he personaly executed about 120 muslims, being part of "special unit" of serbian army, forced to kill or he would be killed. So, croat to be recognised by serbs and trusted so much to be part of "special unit", who admited everything at once, claiming he was threatened to be killed if not kill muslims... I think it's all BS. Hey, did you know he wasn't convicted for genocide? No, because, as Croat, he could have never wanted to exterminate muslims as such, but Dusko Tadic, convicted for genocide, took part in beating of prisoners, where two of them died. But, as Serb, he was able to want extermination of all muslims. Justice, eh? :-)

I wouldn't deal with numbers, since after whole these years, only 350 bodies with their hands tied in the back, and having great "white book" of serbian authorities with all relevant documents and testimonies about srebrenica. I think we need time to be able to accept that it was far for genocide. War crime yes! But retaliation, revenge, and, by more human measures, lot lower crime than what killed muslim fighters did in their time.

WALFORD,
all that had to be done in order to prevent civil war in yugoslavia was to obay international law! But no, europeans wanted to appease Germany by acquiescing to recognition of federal units as independant states. But it was not such deal when Yugoslavia was made in the first place!!! Noone said to serbs back than, "well, these lines are not just administration lines , they are "could be state lines". In that case, you wouldn't have Yugoslavia, but only Serbia, call it great or enormous.
German recognition of Slovenia, Croatia, and eventualy Bosnia, with the exception of first, was direct attack on serbian security, having fascists returning to croatia, and islamists like Izetbegovic in Bosnia. No safety for serbs, no law, no nothing, praise the guns, for it's the only security serbs have without Yugoslavia.

p.s. In the long run, germany is motor of US's bigest rival, the EU! Look at the Iraq question, and siding with palestinians of Germany and France!

I could say 'so what,' but cannot remain aloof when confronted by piles of dead Croats, Serbs, Kosovars, etc. -- most of them women and children.

This happened right with NATO there, last month. They stood by while Serbs were lynched, their homes burned, and their monasteries and churches were looted, burned, and desecrated.

British commanders are saying in essence, so what, the Serbs couldn't defend it so they deserved to lose it.

If the media doesn't cover the events or present them in the right way, people like you don't give a damn.

Hundreds of thousands of Serbs and Roma were cleansed from Kosovo after the airwar, and this was excused as revenge. There were thousands killed and kidnapped and the NATO powers - US, Britain, Italy, France, and so on, haven't served justice to a single Albanian pertrator for crimes against Serbs. They haven't solved a single kidnapping case.

Rwandans, all civilians, were massacred - almost a million in a few months and no one cared about that.

When the US and Europe intervene, it is not humanitarian. It is for their interests - expanding bases eastward, a new role for NATO, control over resources and trade routes, etc.

What is going on in the Balkans is US and Europe choosing sides - which they did before the wars started - and promoting separtism.

Yeah I guess the Muslims really had a nasty paramilitary organization in Eastern Bosnia. That's why they lost the place in about six weeks! That's why street gangs were initially assigned to protect Sarajevo. That's why Izetbegovic called on the JNA to help after Arkan moved into Bileljina. That's why the Muslims lost 70% of Bosnia to 31% of the population. You honestly don't think I see the flaws in your argument?

Does that sound like a government preparing for war???

Both sides collected weapons and formed units prior to 1992.
The difference is JNA tanks/rockets/guns/troops vs. Muslims with hand-held weapons. The fighting in Spring 1992 had a predictable outcome.

You're right in that Serbs' rights were not guaranteed in Croatia or Bosnia (esp Croatia where some Ustashe symbols were brought back). I myself would probably have taken up arms against Turjman and co. But when Serbs respond by lashing out as they did you shouldn't be surprised when your claims of victim fall on deaf ears. I agree that the Croats should have been under sanctions. But I can guess why they weren't: Vukovar and Dubrovnik. When you claim vitimhood then don't pummled towns and cities with heavy guns.

Serb nationalists truely came accross as clueless in these wars. NO sense of Public Relations whatsoever.

I have yet to see evidence of large groups of mujahedin fighters arriving in Bosnia before the Serbs attacked. Even you concede that "some" arrived in 1991. Not exactly a new Taliban goverment in the making.

Ever stop and consider WHY Oric and company launched their attacks from Srebrenica? Being surrounded on all sides and cut off from aid shipments, they raided Serb areas to seize guns and food to fight on against Mladic who had every intention of overrunning the area. A typical attack would drive off or kill Serb defenders (such as at Kravica in 1993) and the Muslim torbani (bag people) would move in after to plunder all they could and kill whoever was left.

After these attacks Mladic and especially local Serbs wanted the Muslim men dead. If he gave a rats behind about "Western public" I doubt he would have seized UN hostages and walked over the UN in Srebrenica and Zepa. And the "Big Serb defeat" didn't occur until a month later at Krajina and Bihac, plus NATO air attacks.

"So, far about 350 bodies were found to have their hands cuffed. All the rest were muslims shot dead in fightings."

So unless a soldier has his hands bound he must have been killed in combat? There are local Serbs who claim to know of THOUSANDS being killed, how locals said to "grab your gun, our five minutes has come." The Muslims internal conflict was of a low scale and wouldn't have put a huge dent in the total nunber of killings.

So Drazen Erdemovic (who claimed "only" 70 kills) is not reliable witness because he's Croat? Then I guess Fikrit Abdic can't be a reliable witness against Sarajevo cuz he's Muslim? There were Serbs, Croats and Muslims on all sides of the war and some took part on crimes against their own kin. Even if you disregard his claims you've still got to deal with many others who claim to know of mass killings (far greater than 350 killed).

But then if these FR message boards have shown me anything it's that one must never underestimate the nationalism in the Balkans and the ability to deny ANYTHING at all costs.

wonders was there on the ground during Operation Storm and she has estimated over 7,000 Serbs were killed. Croatia, however has strict exhumation laws and there isn't the international investigators going after Croatia and spending much money digging up victims.

Weak efforts to do so start with investigators finding bodies and then the Croats throwing fits causing them to stop. They do not push Croatia at all - never any sanctions for them or even serious threats of them.

On the other hand, incredible worldwide attention and untold millions have been spent to "prove" Srebrenica. The US and other countries are making a case against Serbs over Srebrenica, but not really doing anything against the Croats. Nor is Croatia occupied so Serb civilians can return to their homes. The whole thing is double standards. The countries making their much-hyped case have the burden of proof on them. If Croats were on trial for Krajina, and thousands of investigators and UN/NATO soldiers were spending YEARS and MILLIONS trying to make a case against Croats - yeah, I'd expect them to come up with A LOT of concrete evidence and documentation. The records, when millions are spent by the international community on much hyped case, should be available to the public. Why not? The truth is the truth and it should stand scrutinization.

But I can guess why they weren't: Vukovar and Dubrovnik. When you claim vitimhood then don't pummled towns and cities with heavy guns.

Vukovar was peaceful until Croat paramilitaries and police started blowing up Serb restaurants and houses and arresting and torturing Serbs, then throwing their bodies in the Danube. Tomislav Mercep was the head of these arrest/torture/kill operations. After Vukovar, he did the same in Gospic. One of his men, Miro Bajramovic, confessed, and not under duress, to killing 72, mostly Serbs, with his own hands and being responsible for the deaths of 86 there in Gospic. This man is free in Croatia today. The mainstream media never mentions this man or the killing he ordered. Only one of his men was responsible for almost twice the among of the alleged Racak massacre, yet no one cares a thing. So Kosovo Albanians are worth more than twice as much as Croatian Serb civilians? The truth is that the US, Germany, and Britain wanted the Serbs killed and cleansed in Croatia, as it stands by as they're killed in Kosovo, because it makes their designs in the Balkans easier. The international community wants the Serbs very oppressed and/or killed - especially in areas targetted for separation.

>>>>> That would be AFTER Arkan attacked Eastern Bosnia! Not the best at understanding a chronology are you, DTA? ...And again, you must think we're all stupid to pass off Muj forces AFTER the Serb attacks as justification for them. <<<<<<<<

Timeline:

May 1991

Civil war in Croatia flares up. Bosnia is frightful but peaceful. Bosnian Muslims, Croats, Serbs are aware if civil war breaks out in Bosnia, it would be bloodbath. One politician said "Bosnia will reamin calm. We all know if civil war breaks out, there will be 10,000 fatalities from the day one".

Fall 1991

Croatian military forces inflitrate Bosnia and Herzegovina (then still part of Yugoslavia). An armed agression, per international law. There are no casualties.

March 1 1992

The First casualty in civil war. An extremist under Izetbegovic control ccommits ritual murder of father of the groom in Sarajevo

Perp Ramiz Delalic was a Bosnian Muslim. He was never trialed nor convicted for cold blooded murder. Instead, he was promoted.

Victim were Bosnian Serbs. Nikola Gardovic (murdered) and Radenko Mirovic (wounded)

March 26 1992

Croatian military forces and local Bosnian Muslim militia murder 20 Bosnian Serb civilians in Sijekovac village and its environs. This was armed aggression of Republic of Croatia on Bosnia and Herzegovina, part of Yugoslavia at that time.

Perps were Bosnian Croats, Croatian Croats and Bosnian Muslims

Victims were Bosnain Serbs

April 1 1992

Arkan arrives in Bijeljina, 4 DAYS AFTER SIJEKOVAC MASSACRE. to prevent further massacres of Serbs.

For the first time victims were Muslims, one month after Gardovic murder, four days after Sijekovac massacre. In the meantime, Izetbegovic had more than enough time to rein his dogs. Instead, he chose to unleash them.

What is your problem?

a) you are not from the Planet Earth and do not comprehend the linear time i.e. that event hapenning in April 1 1992 can not be the cause of events happening March 1 1992, but the event of March 26 can be cause of event taking part April 1 1992.

b) you are Croat or Bosnian Muslim and attempt at all cost to obfuscate the facts and present yourself as a victim, regardless of the documented facts.

c) you are neither A or B but work for Soros network where telling lies is the SOP.

d) you are devil's advocate and like to test resolve of those who cherish the truth.

In any case, You really have the nerve to fabricate and twist documeted facts here on FR.

>>>>And if Izetbegovic wanted an Islamic state then I assume the burqua is now in fasion in Bosnia? I assume all those Muslims who couldn't be bothered with mosque are now lining up around the block? Is alchohol banned?<<<<<

JCB, Bosnia was a secular territory more than 100 years, since 1878.

Zar and feredza( veil and face covering) was forbidden in 1945. In urban areas after 1960s one could not tell a Bosnian Muslim girl or a woman from Bosnian Serb or Bosnian Croat girl or woman. Or any other emancipated European. Before Izetbegovic (a.k.a. Abu Izzet) took foothold in Bosnia, one could not see a veil-covered head anywhere except during Mosque service.

Seeing girl with head covered with head in school was unheard of .

Today, scarf-covered heads (like one banned in France) are common site in Bosnia. And Bosnia is not Pakistan nor Emirates.

For emancipated Bosnian women, this is not much different than bourgha.

IS ALCOHOL BANNED?

Yes, according to Bosnian Embassy in Pakistan "Members of all groups favor a diet that is heavy on roast meats and bread. However, consumption of alcohol, once common to all, is now discouraged among Muslims and even prohibited in some Muslim-controlled areas."

JCB, please could you check the facts before you post your nonsense. It will save valuable time and bandwidth.

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.