Posted on 04/20/2004 9:15:11 AM PDT by dj_animal_2000
Why aren't they asking the Balkans questions at the 9-11 hearings?
By T.V. Weber
Recently, retired Canadian General Lewis MacKenzie declared that we bombed the wrong side in the 1999 Kosovo War. MacKenzies 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 Ladens financial and logistic stronghold in Albania and Kosovo to the U.S./NATO bombing and occupation on behalf of the KLAa narcoterrorist/Islamic-extremist organization sponsored by Osama bin Ladens 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.
9-11 Hearing Committee
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 Americans lack of preparation for an al-Qaeda attack, but with Americas misadventures in the Balkans that paved the way for such an attack.
What Led to 9-11 ?
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 Networkor the BBC or the ITNwere on the scene. Somewherein terrorist training facilities or the likekey 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 gospelor 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 IIsomeone 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 Departments 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 its 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.
Dont Feed the Bears: Appeasement Whets a Predators Appetite
Clintons support of radical Islam was a form of appeasement. Clinton was so anxious to create a legacy other than the Monica Lewinsky scandal thatto make a long story shorthe ended up leaving us with Ground Zero instead.
Our readers may recall Clintons ill-conceived, haphazard, and megalomaniacal efforts to bring peace in the Middle East. Clintons 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 aidand military interventionson 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 wont stay bought. For the same reason, the U.S. constantly hamstrings Israels efforts to defend itself against terrorism, so much so that Israelnot to mention the American taxpayer and soldierwould 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.
How did the bears get to be such a problem?
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 drivers 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 itand 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.
So Why Were There No Kosovo Hearings?
It seems to be a tradition: Democrats are always given carte blanche to use or misuse the American military for whatever fools errand they have in mind. Woodrow Wilsonwho promised to stay out of World War I if reelectednot 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 Roosevelts actions in World War II, by suggesting that FDR invaded Germany to take the publics mind off his failure to make progress against the Japanese. Truman remained relatively popular during the Korean War, and it took several years before LBJs 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. Lets see what I would be asking Clinton if I were on 9-11 hearing committee:
Q. Mr. Clinton, isnt 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. Isnt it true that your administration had already issued two indictments against bin Laden?
Q. Isnt it true that, until 1998, the Kosovo Liberation Army, or KLA, was on the U.S. State Departments list as a terrorist organization closely affiliated with bin Ladens al-Qaeda organization?
Q. Isnt it true that you supported the KLA war effort in Kosovo, while knowing full well that bin Laden was also supporting the KLA?
Q. Isnt 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. Clintons counsel, I would follow up by asking:
Q. Can you give us an example of anyone among your associatesother than Monica Lewinskiwho seemed to know right from wrong?
After drawing everyones attention to the connection between his amoral personal life and his equally amoral conduct of public affairs, I would ask:
Q. So why did you take Osama bin Ladens side in Kosovo?
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.
Likely he would choose the latter, in which case I would ask:
Q. Where are these mass graves?
Double Standard
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 Jeffersons 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 militaryand its NATO alliesto 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.
How do you know this? Not challenging your assertion, just want to know the source of your information. I lived in Germnay some time ago but haven't kept up with the political currents there.
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.
Are they confirmed Muslims or unidentified? Do you have names and corresponding autopsy reports.
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.
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.
Muslims have been caught lying so many times it ain't funny.
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
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.
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.