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.

I don't deny Croat crimes in Vukovar, joan. Like I said, I don't blame the Serbs for taking up arms against Turjman and his nationalists. I'm just saying you shouldn't be surprised when the JNA shells the place into rubble and the Serbs get cast as the bad guys! They played right into Croatia's hands, just as the MUP did for the KLA in 1998.

"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."

Let me guess - an oil pipeline? Just like the ones now in Kosovo and Afghanistan?

"wonders is an American of non-Balkan ethnicity. She wasn't party to any side. She is a very forthright and honest person. If you find her lying, then prove it."

First off, when one makes a statement of massacre it's up to THEM to prove it, not the other way around.

Secondly, I don't know who wonders is and neither do you. She's just another face in the sea of information and disinformation that is the internet.

If I find some FR non-Muslim poster named "wonders2" who claims to have seen the Srebrenica killings will you then believe it happened?

You're all over the place today, DTA!

We were talking about Mujahedeen fighters in Bosnia before Arkan's attack and then you back up your position with info on CROATIAN forces in Bosnia. You don't think I can tell the difference between Croats and foreign Islamic Jihadists? Try to keep up!

Both Croatia and Serbia transfered forces to Bosnia and handed our weapons in preparation for war. However the Serbs grabbed most of the JNA arsenal which made all the difference in the early days of combat.

Are you trying to tell me that in response to one Serb killed on March 1 and 20 Serbs killed in Sijekovac on March 26, Serb Army units attacked Muslims in Bileljina, Zvornik, Visegrad, Sarajevo, Bihac, Banka Luka, Srebrenica, Zepa, Bratunac, and took control of 70% of Bosnia?

A little disproportionate, don't you think? Dare I say, it seems almost as though it were all planned.

Well, I am glad you cleared up what this new "fundamentalist" Muslim state looks like. Headscarves. That was surely worth 70,000+ deaths. Yes, booze are banned according to Bosnian Embassy in Pakistan. According to most Muslims IN BOSNIA though, the alchahol still flows.

Silly me, I thought fundamentalist Islam meant the same thing it means EVERYWHERE ELSE ON PLANET EARTH!

I just wonder if they would have turned more to Islam had they not been attacked and left to rot by the West....

>>>>>We were talking about Mujahedeen fighters in Bosnia before Arkan's attack and then you back up your position with info on CROATIAN forces in Bosnia. You don't think I can tell the difference between Croats and foreign Islamic Jihadists? Try to keep up! <<<<<

You claim that Mujaheedeen arrived to Bosnia to protect innocent Muslims from Serbs. However, this is contrary to documented facts.

Bosnian Muslims (with the aid of Croats) were firts to attack Bosnian Serbs, not vice versa, thus were not innocent victims. Mujahedeen came as reinforcement, not as saviors of innocent victims.

THE FOURTH REICH HAS COME was the Bosnian Muslim war chant. Bosnian Muslims expected Bosnian Serbs to be sheep for ritual slaughter, like Serbs were in WWII. When BM started reaping what they sow, BM start playing victim and called for outside help.

As of your claim that Serbs took control of 70% of Bosnia, Bosnian Serbs owned 70% of land in Bosnia before the war. What is wrong with taking control of something you already own?

SREBRENICA before it became famous .

Today, Bosnian Serbs control 49% of Bosnia, althoght they owned 70% before the war. I guess this is fair deal for you to steal the land and claim it is yours.

>>>>>"Both Croatia and Serbia transfered forces to Bosnia and handed our weapons in preparation for war<<<<

Croatia was recognized as independent state in January 1992. At that time Bosnia was still part of Yugoslavia from the point of view of international law. Any deployment of forces into Bosnia and Herzegovina was an act of aggression.

When Bosnia and Herzegovina became an independent state (April 6, 1992) Yugoslav Forces were ordered by the Yugoslav government to retreat to Yugoslavia. Retreat was completed by May 15 1992.

Bosnian Serbs, JNA officers, NCOs remained in their country and others left for Yugoslavia.

Except those ambushed by Bosnian Muslims in Sarajevo and Tuzla. That was a war crime, according to Geneva Convention.

What "handed our weapons" in your post means? You are Bosnian Muslim, aren't you? If you are, you should know that your strongest weapons (lie,deception, false accusations) unfortunatelly are innefective here on FR.

JCB,

now we come to the point - should all bosnian serbs have waited for them to be personaly attacked? If serbs in Sijekovac and Kupres, and before that grooms father shot dead in Sarajevo, and muslims arming themselves by PLN all over Bosnia, breeching Constitution in october 1991 (the main cause for tensed situation, and eventualy, war), anti-serbian propaganda, so, you say "if serbs were attacked in Sijekovac, why they had to react in Bjeljina?" What great logic!

Another issue. let us presume, for the sake of conversation, there were no mujaheedins in 1992. They came in 1993. What's the big difference? We have major part of Bosnian and Serbian muslims voting for SDA, Alija Izetbegovic and his Islamic declaration. Calling upon traditions of WW2 and Handjar SS division, founded by Jerusalem Mufti (Yassir Arafat's oncle). During the war, they were very religious. So, contingents of mujaheedins came during the war, this guy among them http://www.balkan-archive.org.yu/politics/forbidden_pictures/present/serb_head1.html

---breaking news-- as Sarajevo muslim daily paper "Dnevni avaz" says, Sanel Sjekirica, suspect of Madrid terrorist attack, is about to be released.

As someone has already said, Serbs took what was theirs. Serbs owned more land than their percent was, because serbs lived more in rural areas, and muslims in urban. Heritige of islamic domination, when rural serbs were exploited by urban muslims, as serfs. For centuries.

70 000+ dead you could subscribe to Alija and his words "I would sacrifice peace for independant Bosnia, and never independant Bosnia for peace", followed by his destruction of Lisboa agreement in spring of 1992, that was about to prevent the war, and was signed there by all three parties, but then rejected upon Izetbegovic's return to Bosnia. Way to go Alija!

Bjeljina and Zvornik were strategic points, lines of communication. Serbs would be sliced to pieces in 1993, maybe even in 1992, if there was no prompt reaction.

Let me turn question around: Why killing at the wedding? Why Pofalici massacre? Why Sjekovac and Kupres?

The magazine "Novi voks" published in Sarajevo promoted the most extreme Moslem stances and openly called for genocide of the Serbian people.

Thus in its October 1991 issue No.3, on page 40, in a regular feature called "Documents", "Novi voks" published an article entitled "What (is to be done) with the Serbs in the Moslem Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina", which, inter alia, states the following
Quote:

1. Every individual Serb must be aware of the responsibility of the entire nation for his own uncontrolled acts. The punishment for evildoings committed will be collective - for one Moslem house torn down ten Serbian houses will be demolished, for one dead Moslem 100 Serbs will be liquidated. For a wounded Moslem, depending on the severity of the wound - 10 to 50 Serbs.

2. All Serbs will have 12-hour working days, the salaries of all employees will reflect the degree of their loyalty and will as a rule be by 30% below the salaries Moslems occupying the same posts receive.

9. A good Serb is a live and obedient Serb; or a dead disobedient Serb.....
(End quote)

NOTE: The above ratio of retaliation 9one dead Moslem equals 100 (hundred) dead Serbs is exactly the ratio that Nazi occupation force of Serbia, during WWII, had in store for the "rebellious Serbs"...

The front page of the No.3 issue of this magazine which came out half a year before the so-called Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was proclaimed in April 1992, carried the message "Hanjar division readying" illustrated with a drawing of an armed Moslem soldier beneath whom were the cut off heads of the Serb leaders Karadzic, Koljevic, Milosevic and Seselj with the Moslem soldier trampling Karadzic's head underfoot.

Serbs realy had no reason to feel threatened upon Izetbegovic and Croats breeched the BiH Constitution in october 1991! They should have waited, how long !?

You don't have a clue...

The Muj came as reinforcements and as saviors (in their own minds) considering that Serbs had taken 2/3 of the country.

"THE FOURTH REICH HAS COME was the Bosnian Muslim war chant....Bosnian Muslims expected Bosnian Serbs to be sheep for ritual slaughter, like Serbs were in WWII."

So utterly stupid it's hard to work up the energy to respond. Izetbegovic called on the Serb-dominated JNA to help in his genocide against Serbs for which he was obviously unprepared. What do you say to someone who think this way???

You're still living like it's 1942, DTA, and whenever you remind me of that I can better understand how nationalists were able to get so many people just like you riled up with BS to the point of such brutality.

I've always thought Tito's biggest mistake was not allowing for any reconsiliation process after WWII. Croats and Muslims still hated the "Chetniks," while Serbs dreamed of revenge against the "Ustashe." You're exhibit A of this sad reality.

"Bosnian Serbs owned 70% of land in Bosnia before the war."

Serbs were NOT the majority it much of Eastern Bosnia (Zvornik, Visegrad etc) and sure as hell were not the majority in Bihac. Yet these places were all attacked. Go figure!

"When Bosnia and Herzegovina became an independent state (April 6, 1992) Yugoslav Forces were ordered by the Yugoslav government to retreat to Yugoslavia. Retreat was completed by May 15 1992."

Rubbish. JNA units simply became the Bosnian Serb Army. Some units still drove around with 'JNA' painted on their vehicles and units and ammo arrived from Serbia throughout the war. Radko Mladic recieved a paycheck from Belgrade throughout 1992-95. Towns in Eastern Bosnia were shelled FROM THE SERBIAN SIDE OF THE DRINA for crying out loud! Who are you trying to fool???

No I'm not Bosnian Muslim, DTA. Read some of my other posts on FR and you'll find that I'm no fan of Islam in general.

If I disagree with your lame propaganda that insists that Serb guns firing into Bosnia from Serbia were not part of the Yugoslav/Serbian war effort against Bosnia (same, if not worse, than Croatia's attacks in Bosnia), then I surely MUST be a Bosnian Muslim/Turk/Ustashe. No one else could possibly reach that conclusion!

Whatever.

"should all bosnian serbs have waited for them to be personaly attacked?"

Talk about missing the point! If you're attacked in Sijekovac then why not strike back against the militants in Sijekovac? What connection does a poorly-armed militia in the Bileljina region have to do with it? Why rape women at a hotel in Zvornik? Why lay seige to Bihac? The atrocities that you claim provoked these attacks were death tolls of 1 in Sarajevo and a few dozen elsewhere in Sijekovac etc. Do you honestly expect me to believe that subsequent Serb offences all over the damn country were the result of these attacks as opposed to a pre-made plan to carve out Serb regions (or even Muslim areas like Bihac that stood in the way of linking them up)?

"let us presume, for the sake of conversation, there were no mujaheedins in 1992. They came in 1993. What's the big difference?"

As long as I've been on FR I'd been bombarded with Serb claims of having fought a war against foreign Al Qaeda-type Mujehedin Islamic warriors from abroad who aimed to turn Bosnia into the next Afghanistan. The Serbs, the story goes, were merely fighting the same war America is now when they struck Eastern Bosnia in spring of 1992. That being the case, don't you need to have the afformentioned Muj fighters IN BOSNIA before you fight a war against them? Surely you can see the problem of fighting against people who were not yet in the country in any sort of significant number. Justification for war comes BEFORE you fight, not after.

"Serbs took what was theirs."

Which of course is why they struck numerous cities, towns and villages were Serbs were not the majority.

The tale of the Lisbon agreement is a good one - if only the Croats hadn't rejected the deal before the Muslims. It offered the Serbs only 44% of Bosnia wihtout linking up the territory as Serb leaders envisioned. All that was agreed on at the Lisbon talks was a general framework for the carving up of Bosnia and not the actual demarcation lines.

"Let me turn question around: Why killing at the wedding? Why Pofalici massacre? Why Sjekovac and Kupres?"

One killed at a wedding is hardly a Muslim offensive. The rest, I'd have to know the scale and co-ordination from a source other than a Serb nationalist site. By all I've heard the Muslims had not launched a massive strike against the Serbs by the time the Serbs set about seizing the east and north.

A question that I think would summ up the situation for you would be: why would the Bosnian government call on the Serb-led JNA to help them if they had a plot all along to whipe out the Serbs?

Your quotes from Muslim magazines (if true) sound sorta like the paper thrown together by Serb intellectuals in the 80s that called for a return of Serb dominance to Yugoslavia which caused much of the tensions later seen.

Either way, your story of imminent genocide holds no water unless you can explain why the Muslims were so unprepared for war at a time when you claim they were set to re-enact the horrors of WWII. Izetbegovic's call to the JNA after Bileljina was akin to Pavlich calling for help from the Chetniks and Partisans. Blows your theory out of the water.

You know, I see this whole debate as being more sad than absurd or frustrating. The Serbs did have legitimate grievences in Bosnia and especially in Croatia. In many ways they got screwed. All sides committed crimes in the Balkans (Serbs more than others) and all sides shoulder some blame. The main reason why Serbs have been unable to shake their often unjust villain image after almost 10 years is largely because of people like DTA and yourself - people who deny the obvious, who keep parroting the same lines Karadzic used in 1992, who keep trying to justify the unjustifiable.

The Serbs largely messed up! They attacked regions they shouldn't have, with force that was unwaranted despite what was done to them in WWII, under justifications that often did not hold water. The sooner you realize that the sooner everyone - especially the Serb nation - can move on and progress instead of still sulking in the past.

>>> So utterly stupid it's hard to work up the energy to respond. Izetbegovic called on the Serb-dominated JNA to help in his genocide against Serbs for which he was obviously unprepared. What do you say to someone who think this way???<<<

I would call person claiming what you have just written an idiot.

Izetbegovic ATTACKED JNA. JNA was federal army and Izetbegovic deliberatelly attacked to provoke retaliation.

There were 2 notable massacres:

TUZLA APRIL 15 1992

Hasan Efendic claimed that in Tuzla 160 JNA members were killed and 200 were injured when they were evacuating Tuzla. There had been an agreement for their withdrawal in Tuzla as there had been in Sarajevo. During the April 15, 1992 withdrawal of JNA troops from Muslim-held Tuzla, 160 JNA soldiers were killed and 200 wounded after a deliberate Muslim attack. The Bosnian Muslim faction was creating anarchy and mayhem in Bosnia. The Bosnian Muslim faction was deliberately seeking to provoke the JNA and the Bosnian Serb faction to react and to respond.

JNA could level Tuzla with SAMs but there was no response.

SARAJEVO

May 3 1992: 2- 3 May - Because of deteriorated situation in BH, the Conference on Bosnia- Herzegovina in Lisbon was interrupted on request of Alija Izetbegovic. On returning to Sarajevo Izetbegovic was detained by YPA in the barracks in Lukavica, as response to blockade and attack on the headquarters of the Second Army District in Sarajevo. With mediation of UNPROFOR and EC emissaries, Alija Izetbegovic and general Milutin Kukanjac agreed on safe withdrawal of men and equipment from the headquarters building. After Alija Izetbegovic left for the Presidency building, a convoy of withdrawing YPA vehicles on their way to Lukavica barracks was attacked by BH territorial defense units, who killed several officers, soldiers and civilians.

JNA retaliated with shelling Bosnian Muslim forces for 3 days.

At that time, according to Sefer Halilovic memoir, Bosnian Muslims had 120 000 armed men. Hardly an defenseless victim in a civil war.

If you do not know the facts, read.

>>>>>>Rubbish. JNA units simply became the Bosnian Serb Army. Some units still drove around with 'JNA' painted on their vehicles and units and ammo arrived from Serbia throughout the war.<<<<<<

US ARMY in Iraq has much better logistics than BSA had during the war. Americans drive around in Humvees with DIY armor plating of various color, not drab olive. In war, one use what he can find. Finding paint for vehicle paint job was not BSA priority.

Bosnian Muslims also used ammo with Yugoslav markings. According to your logic, Yugoslavia was arming Bosnian Muslims.

It seems that you have not heard of UNPROFOR checkpoints on Bosnia border otherwise you would not claim that "arrived from Serbia throughout the war."

>>>>>> Either way, your story of imminent genocide holds no water unless you can explain why the Muslims were so unprepared for war at a time when you claim they were set to re-enact the horrors of WWII. Izetbegovic's call to the JNA after Bileljina was akin to Pavlich calling for help from the Chetniks and Partisans. Blows your theory out of the water. <<<<<

According to Sefer Halilovic memoir book, Bosnian Muslims had 120 000 armed men at that time. Hardly poor defenceless victims.

In WWII, Pavelic Ustashi and Tito's partisans DID cooperate in Bosnia to fight against The Chetniks.

You have just made another moot argument. Politics has strange bedfellows and Izetbegovic was no exception.

Perhaps you need some reprograming of your Muslim infested distortion of history. This is good starting point.

LTC John E. Sray, U.S. Army: Selling the Bosnian Myth to America: Buyer Beware!

I'm completely exhausted after a marathon day of teaching and witnessing the brilliance of Javier Vazquez, and your posts deserve more than the smattering I'm trickling out right now. I'll try to get some sleep and respond accordingly tommorrow. In the mean time, this here Serb feels that you bring some valid points to the table and I wish you would post to the Balkan threads more often.

That being said, I don't completely agree with all of your points and I feel the truth about the nature of the Balkan Muslims probably falls between the point of view that Bosnian/Albanian Muslims = Al Queda and the point of view that Bosnian/Albanian Muslims = benevolent beer swilling, pork gobbling, love kittens.

You are obviously thoughtful, sincere, and are striving for objectivity at great lengths. Don't give up and don't go away.

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.

That's great food for thought for everybody - even Americans (if you subtract the in the Balkans) on the FR message boards dealing with the "War on Terrorism".

If I find some FR non-Muslim poster named "wonders2" who claims to have seen the Srebrenica killings will you then believe it happened?

Go ahead and try - it's not as easy as you think.

Will this person hold up to scrutiny, over the years? Will this person show knowledge of people involved, the lie of the land, and have many personal stories?

I challenge anyone who knows about Croatia from 1991-1998 to see if they could even hold their own against wonders. She met with the highest UN officials, military and civilians of both sides, she could tell you volumes about what went on in the sectors of Croatia where she was stationed. She also has many stories of helping the refugees in creative ways when she didn't have the proper supplies. A phony would be easily outdone and trip up on the way.

You claim Izetbegovic attacked the JNA, who struck back in retaliation, and then you bring up incidents on April 15, and May 2-3 to back up your claim. Both incidents occured AFTER the JNA entered the war on the Serbs' side by confirming their takeovers of towns in Eastern Bosnia. You skip this nagging fact as though it doesn't exist.

"Bosnian Muslims had 120 000 armed men"

And how did they stack up against the Serbs in terms of tanks, rockets, MiGs/Galebs, APCS, artillery, heavy mortars etc?

"Three days ago, there was HOLOCAUST remeberance day"

...yeah and the Jews just took over Berlin and executed 3,000 Germans to prevent another Belsen. Surely you can tell the difference between remembrance and continuing a 50 year old war! (Not to say the Serbs - AKA Chetniks to the Muslims - were the only ones who did this).

"In WWII, Croats and Muslims were American enemies and Chetniks were American allies."

It ain't WWII anymore, DTA. Besides, the Western powers largely pulled support for the Chetniks after US/UK observers reported that they were waging an ethnic war.

"I guess that Jewish NEVER AGAIN is also "exhibit A of this sad reality" to you."

Yeah the Muslims wasted a lot of US troops this time around in the Balkans.

While both sides got their hands on JNA gear, the JNA aided the Serbs directly in Apring 1992 and became the BSA thereafter. Most heavy guns, tanks, MiGs and APCs ended up in Serb hands which was why they held sway for so long.

"...there were UNPROFOR observation posts."

In March 1993 UN military monitors reported artillery fire and air support from Serbia taking part in the assault on Srebrenica. Two years later, during the fall of the town, radar from Serbia monitored the NATO jets and reported to Mladic when they had cleared off to refuel. Serbia-propper was very much involved in the Bosnian war. We both know Croatia was. Why is it so hard to admit that Serbia was as well?

"Politics has strange bedfellows and Izetbegovic was no exception."

So are you saying the BiH and JNA were allied at one point? By all indications, the Muslims didn't know the JNA was in on the Serb attacks at first, which is why Izetbegovic called on them to help.

Thanks for the compliments.

I try to be objective (which no doubt sounds absurd to DTA and joan) and assign blame where I think it lies.

I've never disputed that all sides committed crimes and that much of what is common-knowledge on Bosnia is in fact seriously flawed (200,000 dead, "genocide" etc).

In Bosnia I believe the Serbs to be primarily responsible for the bloodshed. In Croatia, the Croats (largely through their provocations).

I accept that the UN tribunal is largely a court following a pre-set agenda and that they should be charging more people from the Muslims and Croats (Oric was only nabbed a few months ago, I believe, despite showing VIDEO of atrocties to the media during the war).

So in many ways I think the nationalism we see from Serbs here on FR is a reaction to their clearly often unfair treatment. It's unfortunate that because Exhibits C, D and E are false they often react by dismissing the entire case.

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.